PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Sanctions: "DP" for Penn Football, or...?



Pages : [1] 2 3

ynotdivein
06-21-2012, 12:41 PM
Continue discussion of possible NCAA sanctions against Penn State football here.

Reader
07-14-2012, 01:23 PM
Thought it would be good to have a place just to discuss and post articles about what should happen with the Penn State football team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/if-penn-state-doesnt-shut-down-football-program-the-ncaa-should/2012/07/13/gJQAtGrViW_story.html?tid=pm_sports_pop

By Jason Reid, Published: July 13

The NCAA’s 444-page manual contains no language directly addressing appopriate punishment for concealing information regarding child sexual abuse. But in light of the shameful conduct of Penn State’s leadership, revealed Thursday in the Freeh report, the NCAA must use its authority to do what’s needed now: Shut down the Nittany Lions football program.

If the Freeh report released Thursday is accurate in its assessment of the university’s role in the worst scandal in college sports history, then the engine that enabled longtime child sexual predator Jerry Sandusky must be switched off, at least temporarily.

The good news is that the NCAA is at least examining what its role should be in this horrific mess.

The organization is awaiting Penn State’s response to a November letter sent by NCAA President Mark Emmert, in which Emmert requested answers to questions “concerning compliance with institutional control and ethics policies.” The key matter for the NCAA to determine is whether its authority to punish for “lack of institutional control” is as applicable to egregious criminal behavior as it is to providing extra benefits to teenagers.
------

The football-driven culture at Penn State is so warped that the school’s current leadership should act to obliterate it without a NCAA mandate. It has happened before.

Disgraced by its prominent men’s basketball team, the University of San Francisco canceled the program for three seasons in the early 1980s. The school was widely applauded for being the first to shut down an out-of-control program in a major sport.


More at link....

back2back19
07-14-2012, 02:56 PM
IA but alas, I don't think Penn State would ever do that(after listening to the pressers on Thursday and Friday, I really don't think they take responsibility for what happened, they may say it but I think it's all lipservice) and the NCAA is way too gutless to do it. Although I suppose public sentiment might sway them but I doubt it. I just don't see them doing anything.

azwriter
07-14-2012, 03:15 PM
Punishment from the NC2A in the Penn State football program scandal is a very touchy subject.

The fans, or should they be called the die-hard fans, will scream out that it's not fair to punish those who had nothing to do with the crime of not reporting child rape. And that group of family and friends of the current and incoming football players will also be outrage at the unfairness of closing down the program, for whatever time the NC2A deems necessary.

But here's the thing: while it may appear that the wrong people are being punished by taking away the program, what's really going on is Penn State no longer deserves the trust and goodwill for its program and for that matter its administration.

If you have a bar or tavern that continues to have bloody battles or serves underage drinkers or a hospital that keeps making deadly mistakes, you shut them down. And when this happens it appears a lot of innocent people have to do without.

While I too have an allegency to a college football team or two (Purde and ASU) I have to look at the big picture. There are other college teams across the country where players can transfer and where fans can direct their cheers.

Penn State needs to stop the motion. They need to focus on the schools reputation now. Time does heal.

However, I sincerely hope that when it comes time for a decision to be made to put the PS football program on hold, the decision comes from within the University. That will be a big step toward accepting its punishment.

just my O

Reader
07-14-2012, 06:36 PM
Penn State deserves NCAA wrath

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8160717/college-football-penn-state-nittany-lions-earned-wrath-ncaa

If Ohio State can't play in a bowl game this season because former Buckeyes coach Jim Tressel lied to NCAA investigators about his players' receiving free tattoos, how can Penn State play in the postseason after former coach Joe Paterno helped cover up the horrific actions of a serial child rapist?

If North Carolina can't play in the postseason this season because some of its players received improper benefits from agents and committed academic fraud, how can Penn State be eligible for the postseason after its former president and vice president, athletic director and legendary coach fostered a culture in which a pedophile used the school's facilities, sideline passes to games and bowl trips like candy to lure the young boys he molested?...........

And the Nittany Lions should get hammered more than any other school in NCAA history............

Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz, athletic director Tim Curley and Paterno did more than protect Sandusky for more than 14 years. When Sandusky retired in 1999, a year before the janitor witnessed him sexually assaulting a young boy, Penn State officials sent him out with a golden parachute -- a lump sum payment of $168,000 -- and allowed him to walk away as a revered member of the football program, instead of as a child rapist. ..........

During the next several months, the NCAA will weigh whether the Nittany Lions will face on-field sanctions for the Penn State administration's lack of action in stopping a child predator.

Fortunately, Freeh and his group already have done the NCAA's work. If a massive cover-up of a child rapist's disgusting actions isn't a major violation, I'm not sure anything else is.

More at link.....

HMSHood
07-14-2012, 06:45 PM
Penn State football team should disband.

IzzyBlanche
07-15-2012, 03:08 AM
From link below:

While some have said the entire sordid mess is outside of the NCAA’s purview, we all should argue the exact opposite. If the NCAA can’t penalize a coach and university that likely committed crimes by covering up heinous, violent acts by one of its leaders, then what is the point of existing?

http://www.pnj.com/article/20120715/SPORTS/307150024/Commentary-Paterno-s-victories-worthless?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAG E%7Cs

Reader
07-15-2012, 04:49 PM
Phil Sheridan: Penn State deserves NCAA sanctions

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/20120715_Phil_Sheridan__Penn_State_deserves_NCAA_s anctions.html?c=r

You wonder.

Now that you know unimaginable things about Penn State, you begin to wonder about the things you thought you knew. How does it all fit together?..........

Was it the other way around? Was Paterno so secretive and frequently surly with the media because there were such dark secrets?..........

Sandusky was conferred with emeritus status, which required a bending of the existing rules and allowed him rights and privileges that he used to assault children.

Why do all of that for a 54-year-old employee who has just been questioned by police about inappropriate contact with a young boy? Why give Sandusky unlimited access to the facilities he'd admitted using to shower with two young boys?

It just makes no sense unless there is a cause-and-effect relationship.........

They agreed not to report the (2001) incident. A few months later, Penn State sold a parcel of land to the Second Mile for much less than its full value.

These events may be unrelated. They sure look bad, knowing what we know now..........

But the unsavory implications of the university's deals with Sandusky make serious NCAA sanctions seem more appropriate. At the very least, the NCAA should further investigate whether Penn State effectively rewarded Sandusky for stepping away from the football program and maintaining his own silence.

If the NCAA sanctions athletic programs because players get free tattoos or cash, then it must act in the case of a university financing a pedophile in order to maintain the pristine image of its football program.

That really is the picture the dots form, even if Freeh wasn't completely able to connect them...........

The cover-up and the possible hush money, however, are very much a football scandal. And the football program should be punished accordingly.

LNL
07-15-2012, 05:40 PM
Graham Spanier, disgraced ex-Penn State president, epitomized NCAA hypocrisy

There is one instance in the Freeh Commission report where Graham Spanier, the disgraced former Penn State president, said enough is enough. One instance when he slammed down his authoritative fist to protect the welfare of his charges and the reputation of his institution.

It wasn't against Jerry Sandusky, of course.

It was December 1997 and Spanier was soon to learn that the longtime Penn State defensive coordinator had been accused of molesting a young boy while showering with him in the Penn State locker room, according to the Freeh report. But Spanier wouldn't stand up to old Jer, because that wouldn't be the "humane" way of handling it. Or so he wrote in an email.

No, Sandusky got to keep fondling right under Spanier's nose for years to come.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--graham-spanier-penn-state-freeh-report-joe-paterno-curtis-enis-jeff-nalley.html

Pensfan
07-15-2012, 10:36 PM
Phil Sheridan: Penn State deserves NCAA sanctions

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/20120715_Phil_Sheridan__Penn_State_deserves_NCAA_s anctions.html?c=r

You wonder.

Now that you know unimaginable things about Penn State, you begin to wonder about the things you thought you knew. How does it all fit together?..........

Was it the other way around? Was Paterno so secretive and frequently surly with the media because there were such dark secrets?..........

Sandusky was conferred with emeritus status, which required a bending of the existing rules and allowed him rights and privileges that he used to assault children.

Why do all of that for a 54-year-old employee who has just been questioned by police about inappropriate contact with a young boy? Why give Sandusky unlimited access to the facilities he'd admitted using to shower with two young boys?

It just makes no sense unless there is a cause-and-effect relationship.........

They agreed not to report the (2001) incident. A few months later, Penn State sold a parcel of land to the Second Mile for much less than its full value.

These events may be unrelated. They sure look bad, knowing what we know now..........

But the unsavory implications of the university's deals with Sandusky make serious NCAA sanctions seem more appropriate. At the very least, the NCAA should further investigate whether Penn State effectively rewarded Sandusky for stepping away from the football program and maintaining his own silence.

If the NCAA sanctions athletic programs because players get free tattoos or cash, then it must act in the case of a university financing a pedophile in order to maintain the pristine image of its football program.

That really is the picture the dots form, even if Freeh wasn't completely able to connect them...........

The cover-up and the possible hush money, however, are very much a football scandal. And the football program should be punished accordingly.

The answer lies with Jer's establishment and position with The Second Mile. Penn State closely associated itself with TSM which at that time and place was as reputable as Special Olympics. Someone made the very flawed assumption that the goodwill toward the TSM's would reflect nicely on PSU. Therefore, Jer was given an office and he wormed his way back into the showers and nobody had the cajones or mercy (for his victims) to stop him.

Reader
07-15-2012, 10:50 PM
Graham Spanier, disgraced ex-Penn State president, epitomized NCAA hypocrisy

There is one instance in the Freeh Commission report where Graham Spanier, the disgraced former Penn State president, said enough is enough. One instance when he slammed down his authoritative fist to protect the welfare of his charges and the reputation of his institution.

It wasn't against Jerry Sandusky, of course.

It was December 1997 and Spanier was soon to learn that the longtime Penn State defensive coordinator had been accused of molesting a young boy while showering with him in the Penn State locker room, according to the Freeh report. But Spanier wouldn't stand up to old Jer, because that wouldn't be the "humane" way of handling it. Or so he wrote in an email.

No, Sandusky got to keep fondling right under Spanier's nose for years to come.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--graham-spanier-penn-state-freeh-report-joe-paterno-curtis-enis-jeff-nalley.html

Thanks for the link, LNL......interesting about how Spanier operated in the NCAA:


The NCAA is often vilified. It isn't the workers at the Indianapolis headquarters who deserve scorn. It's the Spanier types, the presidents and commissioners who write the rules one committee meeting at a time (usually from a Florida beachfront hotel).

He was a model of self-interest, distorted ethics and misplaced authority, much of it derived from the false concept that Penn State football operated on a higher ethical level than the rest of the country.

"He'd always lean on the Penn State thing," said one administrator who served alongside Spanier on NCAA committees. "He always made the Penn State part known. Like, 'Well, we do it within the rules and still win at Penn State, at Penn State football. Why can't you? Why lower the bar? What's wrong with you?' "

It was a lie and Graham Spanier knew it. Not just in the case of Sandusky. There's plenty more in the Freeh report. Incidents of the athletic department not following its own policies, not reporting potential violations, allowing head coach Joe Paterno's outsized influence on discipline and other issues. For years the school didn't even adhere to the federal Clery Act, which requires reporting crimes committed on campus.

believe09
07-16-2012, 08:44 AM
I struggle with the answer to this, tbh. I dont think the students should be punished because of administration. I think we need a lot more information about the motivation the big 4 had for having handled it this way, and I mean that sincerely. Not murky things alluded to in handwritten notes or incomplete emails. I feel in my heart that the whole truth needs to be told and I bet the spoils, so to speak (lightest sentence) will go to the one who comes nearest to the truth after making a deal with the DA's office. That being said, if the largest part of the motivation for the cover up is for the potential impact on the football program, then I think there has to be some kind of punishment.

I dont know if anything will ever be enough. To go to Penn State now as a football player is going to be pretty tough to brag about.

BigCat
07-16-2012, 11:10 AM
The answer lies with Jer's establishment and position with The Second Mile. Penn State closely associated itself with TSM which at that time and place was as reputable as Special Olympics. Someone made the very flawed assumption that the goodwill toward the TSM's would reflect nicely on PSU. Therefore, Jer was given an office and he wormed his way back into the showers and nobody had the cajones or mercy (for his victims) to stop him.

On page 57 of the Freeh report there is a letter from Paterno to Sandusky informing him that he would not be the next head coach BECAUSE of his association the Second Mile.

On page 58, Sandusky responds with a letter requesting the following as part of his retirement:


One of the documents provided from Paterno's file is a letter signed by Sandusky, dated May 28, 1999. In the letter Sandusky acknowledged that he would not be the next Penn State football head coach, and outlined options for his future. Sandusky wanted an on-going relationship between the Second Mile and Penn State, as well as continuing "visibility" at Penn State. Sandusky also wanted "active involvement in developing outreach program featuring Penn State Athletes" and sought "ways for (him) to continue to work with young people through Penn State."

In the next paragraph Sandusky requested to start a middle school youth camp. Paterno noted that "Volunteer Position Director -- Postive Action for Youth."

So there's really no evidence for what you're suggesting. Paterno did not appear to be concerned with the Second Mile. It was merely a distraction to someone who wanted the all-important job of head football coach at Penn State University.

Sandusky requested the association with Penn State football and the Second Mile because he knew the Second Mile was nothing without that assocation. Or to put it another way: his ability to seduce and groom young boys without the lure of Penn State football would be greatly diminished. And he was right. After he was no longer allowed to bring children on campus, after 2001, the rate of his crimes slowed considerably (based on the crimes he was convicted of. There may have been more we aren't aware of).

All that said, I do hope the Second Mile is thoroughly investigated. If anyone in that organization was aware of and covered up Sandusky's crimes, they need to go to prison.

Here's part of the statement released by the organization after Sandusky was indicted:


"The most recent reports we’ve read this past weekend state that Mr. Sandusky met the alleged victims through The Second Mile. To our knowledge, all the alleged incidents occurred outside of our programs and events.

Does anyone know if this is still a true statement?


JMO

believe09
07-16-2012, 01:30 PM
To our knowledge, all the alleged incidents occurred outside of our programs and events.


Clearly it isnt. Sandusky's convictions included molestations that occurred at out of town games, IIRC. I will bring the conviction post over from one of the threads.

believe09
07-16-2012, 01:39 PM
The charges he was convicted of:



http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...t_complet.html (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html)

VICTIM 1

Count 1: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 2: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 3: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 4: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 5: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 6: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 2

Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 3

Count 12: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 13: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 14: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 15: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 4

Count 16: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Charge was dismissed

Count 17: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 18: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Charge was dismissed

Count 19: Aggravated indecent assault
Verdict: Charge was dismissed

Count 20: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 21: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 22: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 23: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 5

Count 24: Indecent assault
Verdict: Not guilty.

Count 25: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 26: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 27: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 6

Count 28: Indecent assault
Verdict: Not guilty.

Count 29: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 30: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 31: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 7

Count 32: Criminal attempt to commit indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 33: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Charge was dismissed

Count 34: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 35: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 8

Count 36: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 37: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 38: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 39: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 40: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 9

Count 41: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 42: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 43: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 44: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 45: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 46: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

VICTIM 10

Count 47: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 48: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 49: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 50: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 51: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 52: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.
(http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html)

Since Jer was found guilty, I edited the original victim status to remove the alleged.

BigCat
07-16-2012, 01:45 PM
Clearly it isnt. Sandusky's convictions included molestations that occurred at out of town games, IIRC. I will bring the conviction post over from one of the threads.

You're correct. He molested victim 4 at bowl games in Florida and Texas. Those, however, were Penn State events. The Second Mile was, at one point, claiming that there are no known instances of abuse at their events.

believe09
07-16-2012, 01:58 PM
You're correct. He molested victim 4 at bowl games in Florida and Texas. Those, however, were Penn State events. The Second Mile was, at one point, claiming that there are no known instances of abuse at their events.

My bad. I misread the quote.

There is no way, imo, that there was no cross over. I bet LE is already looking at events that were either sponsored in part by Penn State or had any type of planning by Sandusky. Lots of opportunity to groom...

I wonder how many letters he wrote? Chances are good that most of the victims destroyed them...my heart breaks completely for them.

BigCat
07-16-2012, 03:43 PM
This is a follow-up post to my previous one on Sandusky, Penn State, and the Second Mile.

Here's a quote from page 225 and 226 of his autobiography, Touched:


The month of June came around, and I was involved with coaching in the summer camps. Those camps had become such huge part of me. I had been in charge of the on-field operations, and now I had to decide what I was going to do. I thought of all the young people who had come through those football camps -- as well as the Second Mile camps -- and how they had touched my life. I wondered what they would think of me no longer being associated with Penn State football.

Sandusky's version does appear consistent with the Freeh report. pg 21.


A retirement agreement with Sandusky is reached in June 1999, including a unusual lump sum of $168,000, an agreement for the university to "work collaboratively" with Sandusky on Second Mile and other community activities, and free lifetime use of the East Area Locker Room facilities.

Sandusky needed an association with Penn State football to attract boys. It was essential.

Here's where I think the Paterno loyalists are going with their defense of JoePa: Schultz never told Curley the sexual nature of the allegations in 98 (who knows? It could been check fraud or grand theft), and, thus, Curley never told Paterno. Had Curley and Paterno known the nature of the allegations, they would have never negotiated a retirement settlement that basically set the stage for Sandusky's future crimes.

I'm not saying I buy it; I just see the arguments on the PSU football boards headed in that direction.

If evidence turns up that Paterno knew specifically about the sexual nature of the allegations, they would have to find another fall back position. I'm sure they'll come up with something.

ynotdivein
07-16-2012, 04:00 PM
Small OT, but we are now a Forum, and I want to get this information out there...


Since the Sandusky case has now evolved into a feautured case discussion forum, someone might want to start a new thread on this particular aspect.

Done.

Forums are a bit different, peeps. For example, we will eventually do away with the General Discussion Thread altogether, and each topic will be assigned its own thread within this forum.

Some threads you might find helpful now or in the future:

- JS Sentencing
- Legal Action Against Spanier
- Legal Action Against Curley
- Legal Action Against Schultz
- Sanctions for Penn State Football? (potential poll thread)
- Statue of JoePa (another good potential poll thread)
- All Things Second Mile
- Paterno Family Response to Freeh Report

And more.

To create a new thread, go to the first page of the forum and look for the "New Thread" button just underneath the Sticky where the old General Discussion forums are.

As we add more threads, please do your best not to turn any of them back into a General Discussion thread--if a comment on the Freeh Report makes you think of something about Spanier, then post it on the Spanier thread.

Also, when you think of a thread topic, check first to make sure it is not a duplicate of a thread that already exists perhaps with a slightly different name.

Enjoy exploring your new space (and thanks to JBean, Kimster, Beach, SoSueMe, and everyone who helped build it for us!)...

:seeya:

Ynot

Concerned Papa
07-17-2012, 07:06 AM
I'm an old man now, but I still feel the excitement and pride generated by college football. It played a role in who I am today. No one can fully appreciate the tremendous range of emotion felt when running out of a tunnel onto a field in front of 100,000 screaming fans unless you've suited up for your school.

Because many years ago I ran out of that tunnel on fall afternoons, it hurts me deeply to know of the heinous acts against humanity whose roots were associated with one of the greatest college football programs of all time. It hurts me to so fully understand and relate to the pain that must be felt by all Penn State alumni and fans.

The harshest penalty ever given to a football program by the NCAA was a 2 year "death penalty" to SMU in 1987. Their '87 season was cancelled and all home games for '88. Even though the sanction allowed play at the away games on their schedule for '88, SMU elected not to play those as well.

You know what the infraction was over? Recruiting rules violations including a slush fund that paid players amounts ranging from around $50 up to $700 per month. Pretty tame stuff stacked up next to the Penn State situation.

Was it fair to the tens of thousands of SMU alumni and fans? Absolutely not, but as a result of the NCAA sanctions, SMU emerged as a clean strong athletic program.

I can see no remedy for Penn State other than a "death penalty" period for their football program. A banishment of 2-5 years should ensure that all tentacles of a cancerous air of entitlement allowing a pedophile to run free in their program are removed.

cityslick
07-17-2012, 08:27 AM
I disagree on a 'death penalty'. And I ask those who want a 'death penalty', why? At the end of the day, what do you think will be accomplished? Do you believe that giving Penn State the death penalty or disbanding the football program will be a deterrent for sex abuse at other campus'? It won't be. Anyone who knows how the NCAA operates knows that they are very bad when it comes to getting involved with real world issues and penalties. Ask USC how bad that are doing now based on the Reggie Bush infractions. (answer: not bad at all) Not only that, but it hasn't stopped agents from infiltrating campus' (see: Ohio State and UNC).

I disagree with that harsh of a penalty because I don't think there is any penalty you can infract on the football program or even the university that will answer for the horrible tragedy that occurred. The people directly responsible are going to jail (one already there, the others will be there soon). And one of them is already dead. Penn State will have to deal with the demons of this, as well as the damage to it's reputation, not only to the football program but the university as a whole, forever. Some might say that's a pretty damning penalty right there, more harsh then anything to NCAA could do.

costalpilot
07-17-2012, 10:07 AM
The answer lies with Jer's establishment and position with The Second Mile. Penn State closely associated itself with TSM which at that time and place was as reputable as Special Olympics. Someone made the very flawed assumption that the goodwill toward the TSM's would reflect nicely on PSU. Therefore, Jer was given an office and he wormed his way back into the showers and nobody had the cajones or mercy (for his victims) to stop him.


SOMEONE


Well even though Joepa was in charge, that doesnt mean he made all the big decisions...of course, he signed off on all the big ones, and used his "president" as his finger man, when he needed to, but who knows who that someone really was? spanier would be my wild guess?

costalpilot
07-17-2012, 12:09 PM
heres what the NCAA President had to say about it last night:

"....Reading between the lines of comments by NCAA president Mark Emmert, it appears Penn State has some serious explaining to do if it wants to avoid major sanctions for its handling of sexual abuse claims against Jerry Sandusky.
"I've never seen anything as egregious as this in terms of just overall conduct and behavior inside a university and
hope never to see it again," Emmert said during the interview. "What the appropriate penalties are, if there are determinations of violations, we'll have to decide."

Emmert said the NCAA would wait to hear Penn State's response to the Freeh Report, but wouldn't equivocally take a possible death penalty to the football program off the table.

"We'll hold in abeyance all of those decisions until we've actually decided what we want to do with the actual charges should there be any. And I don't want to take anything off the table."

(more)


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/07/ncaa-mark-emmert-death-penalty-penn-state/1

costalpilot
07-17-2012, 12:37 PM
personally i am unconvinced by those who say the transgressions were legal in nature and therefore outside the purview of the NCAA and unassociated with the football program. That is a wrong opinion, imo, and I see from what the President of the NCAA has said that he doesn't agree with the claim either.


The fact is the NCAA can and will do anything it wants. for instance it punished USC severely when a booster bought star Regie Bush's parents a house. otoh just a year or two later, the NCAA created a new rule that allowed the father of Cam Newton to sell his sons services to various colleges, under the innovative and clearly absurd notion that the student MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN his father was selling his services. It was an absurd assertion upon which to base the witholding of sanctions against the player, yet the NCAA did it. They have the power and authority to do whatever they want. They decide. Noone else.

I am also unmoved by the assertions that punishment should not extend to current players and penn state personnel and associated vendors, who are completlely innocent of the transgressions. The NCAA always punishes retroactively, due to many factors, among which, among others, is the turtle like nature of their investigations, and the manner in which almost all institutions attempt to lessen their punishment by self imposing their own sanctions and by summarily firing anyone associated with the rule breaking. The NCAA ALWAYS punishes the innocent. ALways. These many assertions that such a thing would be unfair are completly spurious and completly ignore the reality of the NCAA's history as to institutional sanctions. This is so well known in the sports community that anyone making the assertion is either 1. ignorant of NCAA processes and practices, or 2. engaged in argument rather than discussion. At the very least anyone advancing the argument that the NCAA should not punish the innocent Penn State players and community should acknowledge that their argument is directly invalidated by the manner in which the NCAA has conducted its institutional sanctions in the past. The examples are too many to list. Miami, USC, Alabama, OSU...the list is extensive. The NCAA hasd consistently punished institutions for their violations after the institutions have fired ALL the transgressors and got rid of all the people that were guilty of the rule breaking.

as to the supposedly heart breaking claim that the innocent new players shouldnt be punished because they will then be added Sandusky victims. all the penn state players will have the option to wait out the one or two year shut down if they desire or they will be free to go play at another institution, and they will all be given scholarships to do so, that is certain. if they were good enought to be offered a scholarship to happy valley, other schools will line up to give them scholarships. so at the very least their football career will be interupted if they chose to wait out the shut down or they will have to go play somewhere else. imo they should have considered these possibilities before they signed to play at Penn state. for those who signed prior to the legal problems, that is a sad reality of NCAA sanctions. Current players just never know if a school they play for will be given sanctions for violations that happened before they came on campus. it is a fact of life and it is certainly no reason to withold proper sanctions.

costalpilot
07-18-2012, 09:16 AM
here is the definition of "institutional control", which is the statute which the NCAA can use to punish Penn state. many sports commentators SAY "institutuional control" is not an issue in this case because much of the rule breaking was officially outside the "football program" and therefore not an "institutional" problem what they are doing is narrowing the definition of "institutional" to the football department in an attempt to define the sanction so that it doesnt apply here. that is total bs....it is clear "institutional control" referes to the entire administration of the school. and its monitoring of the football program. which is clearly where penn state failred miserably. not surprisingly, the head of the NCAA made this point on Monday in his comments on the tavis smiley show. the real crux is whether or not that man, the President of the nCAA wants to punish Penn State. just now my local sports talk show host is saying the 2A shouldnt punish the ":innocent" players there now, and tony barhart, his guest, a national sports commentator blathered on about fixing the problem...anywys here is the statute. imo most sports enthusiasts do not want the 2A to hurt the penn state football program. http://compliance.pac-12.org/thetools/instctl.pdf

justathought
07-18-2012, 10:15 AM
In the beginning, maybe the 4 didn't really understand or want to accept the seriousness of the allegations....2012 is a lot different than even 1998 in that regard but subsequently they surely did.
One can't help but wonder, what was the card Sandusky held?...some sort of recruiting, academic etc. violations.......surely this is what the NCAA is looking for in addition to the institutional questions. One can't help but think there has to be something.

costalpilot
07-18-2012, 10:54 AM
Penn State begins to address the NCAA demand for answers to its letter. Interestingly Erickson points to a 2.7 million dollar "donation" from the athletic department to a child abuse agency as part of Penn States self imposition of penalty. Colleges do that every time they feel vulnerable to NCAA sanctions. They self impose retsrictions and penalties on themselves, hoping the 2A goes easier on them, and indeed, sometimes the 2A accepts the self imposed sanctions. Erickson indicates Penn State will have to do more. I wonder if he will try and say that the huge civil law suits they will be forced to pay by the legal system should be looked as as if they are penlties that the school should get credit for, which he just did with the "2.6 million" dollar "donation." Talk about self serving.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2119811,00.html



lots of info.

HMSHood
07-18-2012, 10:56 AM
I'm an old man now, but I still feel the excitement and pride generated by college football. It played a role in who I am today. No one can fully appreciate the tremendous range of emotion felt when running out of a tunnel onto a field in front of 100,000 screaming fans unless you've suited up for your school.

Because many years ago I ran out of that tunnel on fall afternoons, it hurts me deeply to know of the heinous acts against humanity whose roots were associated with one of the greatest college football programs of all time. It hurts me to so fully understand and relate to the pain that must be felt by all Penn State alumni and fans.

The harshest penalty ever given to a football program by the NCAA was a 2 year "death penalty" to SMU in 1987. Their '87 season was cancelled and all home games for '88. Even though the sanction allowed play at the away games on their schedule for '88, SMU elected not to play those as well.

You know what the infraction was over? Recruiting rules violations including a slush fund that paid players amounts ranging from around $50 up to $700 per month. Pretty tame stuff stacked up next to the Penn State situation.

Was it fair to the tens of thousands of SMU alumni and fans? Absolutely not, but as a result of the NCAA sanctions, SMU emerged as a clean strong athletic program.

I can see no remedy for Penn State other than a "death penalty" period for their football program. A banishment of 2-5 years should ensure that all tentacles of a cancerous air of entitlement allowing a pedophile to run free in their program are removed.

Well said. Penn State deserves severe penalties.

HMSHood
07-18-2012, 10:59 AM
I disagree on a 'death penalty'. And I ask those who want a 'death penalty', why? At the end of the day, what do you think will be accomplished? Do you believe that giving Penn State the death penalty or disbanding the football program will be a deterrent for sex abuse at other campus'? It won't be. Anyone who knows how the NCAA operates knows that they are very bad when it comes to getting involved with real world issues and penalties. Ask USC how bad that are doing now based on the Reggie Bush infractions. (answer: not bad at all) Not only that, but it hasn't stopped agents from infiltrating campus' (see: Ohio State and UNC).

I disagree with that harsh of a penalty because I don't think there is any penalty you can infract on the football program or even the university that will answer for the horrible tragedy that occurred. The people directly responsible are going to jail (one already there, the others will be there soon). And one of them is already dead. Penn State will have to deal with the demons of this, as well as the damage to it's reputation, not only to the football program but the university as a whole, forever. Some might say that's a pretty damning penalty right there, more harsh then anything to NCAA could do.

I have to disagree with you. There should be consequences levied against Penn State. They need to pay a steep price, more so than SMU. Was it unfair to all of SMU?

costalpilot
07-18-2012, 11:09 AM
In the beginning, maybe the 4 didn't really understand or want to accept the seriousness of the allegations....2012 is a lot different than even 1998 in that regard but subsequently they surely did.
One can't help but wonder, what was the card Sandusky held?...some sort of recruiting, academic etc. violations.......surely this is what the NCAA is looking for in addition to the institutional questions. One can't help but think there has to be something.

interesting comment...since, according to the Freeh report, the big four did everything they could do to cover up the allegations in order to protect the program from the damage that would be done due to adverse publicity, it seems they accepted the seriousness at the beginning, as soon as they were told about it. As Joe told McQueary, "You did what you had to do and now I need to figure out what we want to do."

well he figured that out pretty quickly. They wanted to prevent the information that a pedohile was raping children in the showers from getting out. And they did.

the 2A, imo, can do whatever it wants. Erickson knows this. His response so far has been typical. "we gave 2.6 million dollars to our rape center. Football money." He's naturally attempting to self impose to ameliorate the 2A's penalties. But, as Emmertt indicated, there is no precedent for this failure of leadership. If the 2A imposes it doesnt need typical run of the mill violations. and it wont look for them. Complete institutuional oversight failure is enough to shut down the football program as long as the 2A wants. who knows what they will do.

Tipstaff
07-18-2012, 12:12 PM
"as to the supposedly heart breaking claim that the innocent new players shouldnt be punished because they will then be added Sandusky victims. all the penn state players will have the option to wait out the one or two year shut down if they desire or they will be free to go play at another institution, and they will all be given scholarships to do so, that is certain. if they were good enought to be offered a scholarship to happy valley, other schools will line up to give them scholarships. so at the very least their football career will be interupted if they chose to wait out the shut down or they will have to go play somewhere else. imo they should have considered these possibilities before they signed to play at Penn state. for those who signed prior to the legal problems, that is a sad reality of NCAA sanctions. Current players just never know if a school they play for will be given sanctions for violations that happened before they came on campus. it is a fact of life and it is certainly no reason to withold proper sanctions." per Coastal Pilot

The above portion of the post by Costal Pilot - is what convinces me that the football program at Penn State will be and needs to be punished.

Current players will have the option to wait it out or move -on to another college football program. I see no reason the team needs to be punished but I do see the need for the coaching staff and administration to be held accountable.

costalpilot
07-18-2012, 01:41 PM
Here is an example of proper "institutional control" over a football program.

(Keep in mind that the only reason the NCAA (the2A) has ever levied the death penalty against a member institution, it was because of the failure of the institution to maintain control over the football program.)


In 2008 The University of Arkansas hired a new Athletic Director, Jeff Long, and a new head football coach, Bobby Petrino. The football program flourished under Petrino, so much so that Arkansas was the pick of many experts to vie for the National Championship in 2012. Petrino, as the Head Coach, was naturally seen as the reason for the great success, and was rapidly establishing himself as one of the most powerful head coaches in college football. if you dont know it, you need to know that Arkansas plays in the most feared division in college football, the mighty SEC West. A highly successful head coach in the SEC, like Petrino, is properly recognized as one of the most influential and powerful football coaches in the nation, bar none.

Yet in April, 2012, in the summer before Petrino was to lead his highly ranked football team on its quest for the national championship, Petrino was summarily fired by Long, the athletic director who had been hired the same year as the coach.

Many were shocked, but there it was. Petrino had hired what turned out to be his mistress into the football administration staff, and even though she was qualified for the post, when it was discovered, the athletic director fired the hottest new head coach in america. (He had also wrecked his Harley with her on the back and paid her 20,000 for....????)

(Petrino surfaced today, one of his first public appearances since his firing:
http://network.yardbarker.com/college_football/article_external/backyard/petrino_surfaces_as_golf_tourney_caddie/11239870?refmod=backyard&refsrc=foxsports)

Petrinos' firing is a perfect example of "institutional control" over a football program. many arkansas fans were enraged and shocked, but surprisingly, many accepted the firing as necessary and correct.

and that happened in SEC country, folks. This year. The mighty SEC, whose teams have won the last 7 National Champioships, where football is bigger than anywhere in the country, even in happy valley.

the difference between Arkansas and Penn Sate IS clear: at Arkansas, the University had control of the football program. That is properly recognized as "institutional control."


At Penn State, the football program controlled everything.


If EVER there has been a "lack of institutional control" in college football, it happened at the Penn state university throughout the decades long tenure of Paterno. For many decades, football controlled the penn state university and Paterno controlled football. make no mistake. thats the way it was.

costalpilot
07-18-2012, 03:18 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ncaa-penn-state-death-penalty-20120718,0,4725237.story

Tipstaff
07-18-2012, 06:24 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ncaa-penn-state-death-penalty-20120718,0,4725237.story

After reading this LA Times article it seems the NCAA would have to make their recommendation prior to the start of the season IF they select the death penalty. Otherwise what would happen to the players who play in the first game - could they then elect to go to other schools and would they be eligible to play in this current season?

costalpilot
07-19-2012, 09:08 AM
ivan maisall is on george lapides show in memphis this am and he acknowledges that "you could make a case, I guess for lack of institutuional control bu that a specific ncaa code wasnt broken"...the latter is a oft quoted reason by sports media types who just dont want psu to suffer 2A violations foir this. lapides is another. but lapides goes with the Lame and ignorant "these players are innocent and shouldnt suffer" lament. Lapides should know better but hes been doing sports for 50 years and just doesnt care about accuracy.

"could make a case fopr instiutional control"..."could"...what world are these people operating in?

costalpilot
07-19-2012, 09:20 AM
After reading this LA Times article it seems the NCAA would have to make their recommendation prior to the start of the season IF they select the death penalty. Otherwise what would happen to the players who play in the first game - could they then elect to go to other schools and would they be eligible to play in this current season?

the 2A has only done the death penalty once. it is hard to believe the 2A would impose the DP after the season has begun.

normally the 2A takes FOREVER to issue rulings, but this is so different a case. in fact the 2A president just last week sent PSU a letter requesting them to respond to its original letter asap and psu responded they would in 7 to 10 days.

i think it would be impossible for the 2A to impose the DP after the season began. the players could not go elsewhere...too late.

i think the 2A breaks all precedent and moves with lighning speed in this case and does whatever it will do within six weeks, b4 the season starts.

keep in mind the president of the 2A made damning statements against psu last week, indicating that the DP is in play. I believe he did this because so many sports media types are DISMISSING the DP as a correct response. the fact is most media types dont want psu to get the DP but Emmerett specifically stated it was on the table. the media types are undaunted. they continue to dismiss it. its running about 85% against the DP and 15% for. some of the larger newspapers are for the DP: orlando, atlanta, chicago...its a crap shoot.

costalpilot
07-19-2012, 10:32 AM
Considerations for NCAA Penalties against Penn State

1. PSU is the only truly national power in college football (CFB) in the northeast. It has won two national championships in the modern era and has a stadium that seats 108,000 fans and a international following.
2. As such the DP would negatively impact a MAJOR PLAYER in the NCAA, which is made up of the member institutions . The 2A would be damaging a big player in its membership.
3. The 2A has only imposed the DP once, that was against SMU and it was because SMU continued to pay its players after the 2A warned them to stop. Nevertheless, the mantle the 2A used to impose the DP was “lack of institutional control.”
4. But most experts have felt over the years that the 2A will not impose the DP again,as SMU has never recovered from the penalty. (otoh, SMU would never have been a major player if it hadn’t been paying players and since they cant pay them any longer its not surprising they are no longer that competitive)
5. Most sports media professionals are vociferously against the DP for PSU. Its running about 75% against…these are only opinions, but it’s a fact. Their reasoning is completely flawed. But here it is: 1. The PSU players had nothing to do with it and are innocent…(so are 97% of all the previous CFB players who have been impacted by 2A sanctions. Universities always clean house prior to penalties from the 2A, in hopes that it will lessen the penalties. 2. No NCAA violations were made in this criminal, civil matter (this is absurd and the 2A President Mark Emmert had to make a statement thru the media last week asserting that the DP was most definitely in play) 3. The local economy would be hurt. This is true, but it has nothing to do with proper penalties .
6. Nevertheless a few national media players have called for the DP.
7. Gravity of the offense…as the President of the 2A said last week, the day after he instructed PSU to respond asap to the 2A’s Nov. 2011 letter requesting a response, this has been the most “egregious” failure of institutional control “ in the history of the 2A. The letter the 2A sent to pSU on Nov 17,2011 is POINTED and highly accusatory in its flavor against the transgressions at PSU…I encourage you to read it carefully. …. http://www.ncaa.com/content/ncaa-letter-penn-state
8. Time is pressing. IF the 2A is going to act it must do so with record speed, as the season is less than 60 days away.
9. But given all this, based on what the 2A has said, in its letter, and in the words of President Emmert last week, it would not surprise me if the 2A gives Penn State a 1 to 2 year death penalty. The content of the letter, the gravity of the transgression particularly as they relates to Paterno calling the shots and the University administrators fasilure to maintaini control of football..its the definition of lack of institutional control…its just too much for the 2A to stomache.,,,paternos failure really was the NCAA’s greatest fear. That a rogue football coach could dominate a University and operate independently on his own.
10. I think emmert is going to make Penn state pay, “with extreme prejudice.”
11. I could be wrong…the 2A does what it wants to do and is the final authority. There is no recourse to what the 2A chooses to do or not do. It is just interesting to me that SO MANY sports media types are against the DP for PSU. What are they thinking?


........General Corman: He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops.

Civilian: Terminate with extreme prejudice. ..........
.

BigCat
07-19-2012, 10:38 AM
Wow. I find this following story to be unbelievable, but it comes from the Chronicle of Higher Education, so it must have merit.

Jim Delany Wants the Power to Fire Coaches

http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/jim-delany-wants-the-power-to-fire-coaches/30771


The Big Ten is mulling a proposal that would give its commissioner, already one of the most powerful men in college sports, the authority to fire coaches himself, The Chronicle reports today.

The proposal, part of a plan being circulated among Big Ten leaders, would give James E. Delany, who has overseen the league since 1989, and a powerful committee of conference presidents the ability to penalize individual members of an institution, should their actions significantly harm the league’s reputation.

This power grab could be the first step in the Big 10 conference penalizing Penn State. This scandal -- and Penn State's lack of action -- is severely harming the Big 10's brand. I wouldn't be surprised if the conference acts before the NCAA to punish PSU.

Tipstaff
07-19-2012, 10:49 AM
Below is the 2012 game schedule - it is but a mere 6 weeks before the first game and the pressure on to make a decision to impact this season.

The other reason I posted the schedule is because the fate of Penn State football has a large impact on the $$$$ brought to each team they are scheduled to play along with money from the TV rights. (for both Penn State and the teams they play).

Imagine the lobbying by everybody involved at this point.

2012 Penn State Nittany Lions Football Schedule


September 1

Ohio U

Home - Noon





September 8

Virginia

Away - Noon





September 15

Navy

Home - 3:30 PM





September 22

Temple

Home





September 29

Illinois

Away





October 6

Northwestern - Homecoming Game


Home - Noon





October 13

Open







October 20

Iowa

Away - 8PM





October 27

Ohio State

Home - 6PM





November 3

Purdue

Away





November 10

Nebraska

Away





November 17

Indiana

Home





November 24

Wisconsin

Home


Dec. 1 Big Ten Championship Game (Site TBA)

azwriter
07-19-2012, 02:44 PM
interesting comment...since, according to the Freeh report, the big four did everything they could do to cover up the allegations in order to protect the program from the damage that would be done due to adverse publicity, it seems they accepted the seriousness at the beginning, as soon as they were told about it. As Joe told McQueary, "You did what you had to do and now I need to figure out what we want to do."

well he figured that out pretty quickly. They wanted to prevent the information that a pedohile was raping children in the showers from getting out. And they did.

the 2A, imo, can do whatever it wants. Erickson knows this. His response so far has been typical. "we gave 2.6 million dollars to our rape center. Football money." He's naturally attempting to self impose to ameliorate the 2A's penalties. But, as Emmertt indicated, there is no precedent for this failure of leadership. If the 2A imposes it doesnt need typical run of the mill violations. and it wont look for them. Complete institutuional oversight failure is enough to shut down the football program as long as the 2A wants. who knows what they will do.

Penn State can throw all the money it wants and then crow about "doing good." But when it came to the truth, NO ONE stepped up. What's that old adage: A day late and a dollar short!

Reader
07-19-2012, 06:28 PM
Wow. I find this following story to be unbelievable, but it comes from the Chronicle of Higher Education, so it must have merit.

Jim Delany Wants the Power to Fire Coaches

http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/jim-delany-wants-the-power-to-fire-coaches/30771



This power grab could be the first step in the Big 10 conference penalizing Penn State. This scandal -- and Penn State's lack of action -- is severely harming the Big 10's brand. I wouldn't be surprised if the conference acts before the NCAA to punish PSU.

Here's another source: (altho it quotes the Chronicle of Higher Education)

Big Ten mulls authorizing commish to fire coaches, possible Penn State ouster

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19614092

...........Such extreme measures are on the table in response to the extreme scandal at Penn State, where late coach Joe Paterno and a small handful of university administrators repeatedly turned a blind eye to allegations of sexual abuse by longtime defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky over more than a decade. (Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of sexually abusing children last month.) According to the Chronicle, an 18-page proposal currently under consideration by Big Ten members is designed to target coaches and other officials who "interfere with normal admissions, compliance, hiring, or disciplinary processes," and calls for university presidents and athletic directors to have policies in place for resisting inappropriate meddling by boosters and trustees.

Part of that discussion will involve whether to allow Penn State to remain in the conference at all. PSU is already facing crippling judgments from the NCAA and the Department of Education, including the possibility that the football program will be shut down under the "Death Penalty." Current language in the 2011-12 Big Ten handbook requires any member that fails to show complete and accurate information during an investigation to "show cause why its membership in the conference should not be suspended or terminated." At the final stage, expulsion would require a vote of at least 70 percent, or eight of twelve member schools.

More at link....

costalpilot
07-20-2012, 03:36 AM
different perspective on sanctions.....actually one that makes sense...looks at the 2A inquiry letter as "painting the NCAA into a box" rather than a true indicator of how the 2A is actually viewing the transgressions....Bilas, like many involved in sports (Bilas was a former major player) doesnt want the DP for PSU but he at leats recognizes the hostile and threatening attitude the 2A is taking towards PSU...as a matter of fact this is one of the few sports columnists that has referred to the letter at all, even though the letter is a clanging bell in all of this...it is threatenening and predictive in its tone. The letter makes me think the 2A is outraged at PSU and is going to give them the DP, but Bilas sees it as "painting the 2A into a corner", and he is trying to give them a way out of the corner without giving the the DP...this manner of sanctioning would be effective, and seem an attractive alternative to the DP....but the outrage is so great, the lack of control so "egregious" (Emmert's word) how could they not termniate with extreme prejudice?:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8162149/ncaa-better-sanction-penn-state-administrators

costalpilot
07-20-2012, 03:50 AM
Penn State can throw all the money it wants and then crow about "doing good." But when it came to the truth, NO ONE stepped up. What's that old adage: A day late and a dollar short!

weazelly...they supposedly gave the money originally as a sign they were sorry...now they bring it up as a sign they are "self sanctioning", which means they want to soften the penalty the 2A might impose. it is a common practice...and it works quite a bit..its interesting to me that Erickson goes so low as to define the "contribution" as a loss of money to the athetic department. he redefines the purpose of its being given in the first place, originally the money was offered as retribution and acknowledgment: we are sorry we did this, so here is some money to make up for it and to help prevent child abuse...but now, he is saying to the ncaa...see we are self imposing financial hardships on our program, so you dont need to impose hardships on us.

sickening really.

costalpilot
07-20-2012, 04:09 AM
heres one of the FEW sports reporters I agree with:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8163189/penn-state-cannot-allowed-football-team


although i'm ok with a few years DP...its interesting that MOST sports media types don't understand the true institutional failings in all this....and dont see any reason to punish the institution.....they just dont get it.

costalpilot
07-20-2012, 09:37 AM
mike and mike this am apparently have read the 2A letter and recent comments from Emmert and they understand the the 2A is seriously considering the DP and IS itself very serious about serious consequences for psu, but M n M are against a shutdown, as are most. but they are joing what is becoming an increasing number of commentators who say:

let the program play (cause, you know, all the innocent people involved) but make it pay bigtime...use the great majority of the money it makes to further child sexual abuse prevention.

One or tw0 commentators floated this idea yesterday, in the face of widespread indifference or ignorance on the part of the media that wasnt paying attention to the signs from the 2A that it was SERIOUS and not going to give psu a free pass. so now they are beginning to understand, but still do not want the program shut down.

it was very interesting to me how many media types were missing the huge signs from the 2A and kept insisting: 1. psu broke no ncaa rules, and 2. no sense penalyzing the innocent players there now. but now the media has seen that the 2A is not going to go that route, and the media doesnt want to appear out of touch, or just plain stupid....

it only took them a few months...Emmert sent the letter in NOVEMBER, but he made the comments last week. it was like Emmert was saying: people pay attention. this is not going unpunished by US. the media is finally getting it,

Reader
07-20-2012, 05:37 PM
Penn State scandal warrants 4-year football suspension

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/07/19/jerry-sandusky-crimes-joe-paterno-complicity-warrant-four-year-suspension-for-penn-state/xW6KRryEEezGxk0o5Rf0jL/story.html

The typical college football scandal involves violations of recruiting rules or of athletes’ amateur status. These are serious issues, but the scandal at Penn State involves something truly sinister: the sexual abuse of children, made possible by — and then covered up by — the outsize power of legendary coach Joe Paterno’s football program. The university’s worshipful deference to football enabled former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky to prey on at least 10 young boys — most notoriously in the team’s locker room. This attitude has to be uprooted. Confronted with the unprecedented nature of these events, the National Collegiate Athletic Association should impose a four-year suspension on the football program — a long enough period for Penn State to work the Paterno era out of its system.............

michmi
07-20-2012, 07:13 PM
I disagree on a 'death penalty'. And I ask those who want a 'death penalty', why? At the end of the day, what do you think will be accomplished? Do you believe that giving Penn State the death penalty or disbanding the football program will be a deterrent for sex abuse at other campus'?


Two reasons:
1. The culture at that university that football runs that place needs to be eradicated. All other football programs need an example of what happens when 1 man (Paterno) is allowed this much power and has this many people deferring to him.

2. Although I haven't seen any investigations into recruiting or adherence to NCAA regulations at PSU, it is quite likely, given the amount of absolute power and lack of opposition Paterno had, that a multitude of NCAA violations have occurred. Anyone who would actively protect a child molester and facilitates his ability to continue his activities while still looking the other way really has NO moral compass at all and probably also believes rules don't apply to him or his program.

Sometimes it takes a sledgehammer to get a point through and in the case of Penn State and its fans' continued protection of the memory of Paterno, the sledgehammer is the death penalty.

It's less about teaching other programs about not allowing sex abuse and more about not allowing one sports program and a coach to unofficially run an entire university.

J. J. in Phila
07-20-2012, 09:07 PM
First of all, I am not a football fan.

Second, I think there are a number of factors:

1. Because the 1998 incident was properly reported, and there is currently no evidence of improper influence from PSU, I don't think that incident should come into play. I will change my opinion if evidence surfaces to the contrary.

2. In 2001, this was university scandal, not a football scandal. The decisions, while involving the football coach and a GA, did not involve the playing of football or the recruiting of players. The offender was not part of the program.

3. The principals are no longer involved in the administration of the school.

4. The was a lack of institutional control, but that extended to mismanagement and criminality well beyond the football program. Some it, however, did impact the program.

This is deserving of a penalty, but what is the proper penalty?

A. The death penalty, along with all other NCAA penalties, is not meant to enforce criminal law, nor is meant to correct maladministration outside of the sports realm. The penalties should be inflicted only to cover the sports aspect.

B. The death penalty will have adverse effects on:

i. Current players.

ii. The economy of the Centre County region.

iii. The University, by removing a source of funding.

Based on that, I have to reluctantly that the death penalty is inappropriate.

A penalty is appropriate, and I would look at something like this:

I. No bowl games for four years.

II. No off campus recruiting for four years.

III. Reduction in the number of football scholarships for four years.

IV. Expulsion from the Big Ten, with possible readmission after four years. No affiliation with any other conference during that period.

V. Five year probation, of course.

ynotdivein
07-20-2012, 09:26 PM
What would expulsion from the Big Ten mean in terms of real impact on student-players and the university?

passionflower
07-20-2012, 09:44 PM
My husband loves college games, but he feels that there should be a DP on PSU.
I can't vote because I just don't know.
I feel so bad for the students.

J. J. in Phila
07-20-2012, 09:51 PM
What would expulsion from the Big Ten mean in terms of real impact on student-players and the university?

It would probably cut into their television revenue. It will hurt, but it won't kill.

They might have a problem scheduling with "name" teams.

BigCat
07-21-2012, 12:49 AM
First of all, I am not a football fan.

Second, I think there are a number of factors:

1. Because the 1998 incident was properly reported, and there is currently no evidence of improper influence from PSU, I don't think that incident should come into play. I will change my opinion if evidence surfaces to the contrary.

2. In 2001, this was university scandal, not a football scandal. The decisions, while involving the football coach and a GA, did not involve the playing of football or the recruiting of players. The offender was not part of the program.

3. The principals are no longer involved in the administration of the school.

4. The was a lack of institutional control, but that extended to mismanagement and criminality well beyond the football program. Some it, however, did impact the program.

This is deserving of a penalty, but what is the proper penalty?

A. The death penalty, along with all other NCAA penalties, is not meant to enforce criminal law, nor is meant to correct maladministration outside of the sports realm. The penalties should be inflicted only to cover the sports aspect.

B. The death penalty will have adverse effects on:

i. Current players.

ii. The economy of the Centre County region.

iii. The University, by removing a source of funding.

Based on that, I have to reluctantly that the death penalty is inappropriate.

A penalty is appropriate, and I would look at something like this:

I. No bowl games for four years.

II. No off campus recruiting for four years.

III. Reduction in the number of football scholarships for four years.

IV. Expulsion from the Big Ten, with possible readmission after four years. No affiliation with any other conference during that period.

V. Five year probation, of course.

The problem with expulsion from the Big 10 is that it would mean expulsion for ALL Penn State sports teams. That's a big deal. I know Penn State has won national championships in recent years in both wrestling and women's volleyball, so the sports program, as a whole, benefits greatly from membership in the conference.

The death penalty would be football specific, and I think it's only fair to localize the punishment, as much as possible, to the football program. I could see your other four suggested penalties as a substitute for the death penalty. They might even be more severe than the DP in the long run.

IzzyBlanche
07-21-2012, 01:25 AM
I suddenly had a flashback to the U.S.'s decision to boycott the 1980 Olympics.

And all those kids who had trained so hard for years having their hopes and dreams dashed.

The PSU situation is not neatly analogous with that, but my point is that history is rife with examples of innocents being punished for the actions of a few.

It is nothing new and no reason not to mete out deserved punishment for the institution that enabled that few.

As a college football fan, when I conjure the mental image of a Penn State home game being televised this fall, and the camera panning across the spectators as it always does, and them cheering and signaling #1 with their index fingers as fans always do in that situation, even if they are from East Cheese Fries State that has a 1-8 record, I just want to vomit.

I truly believe nothing could be more sickening, and more disrespectful to the victims, than allowing that kind of football business-as-usual to take place in just a few short weeks from now.

Death penalty? I'm not sure. But I do believe that PSU needs to, on its own, take at least a year off from football for reflection and reform.

For those who say that this will unfairly punish local businesses whose livelihoods rely in large part on the football economy, I reply that PSU should set up a claims fund from its billion dollar or so endowment to compensate those not at fault yet apt to suffer from the institution's actions or in this case non-action.

Compensate all the victims of the cover-up, not solely JS's direct victims, although they of course should stand first in line.

J. J. in Phila
07-21-2012, 01:25 AM
The problem with expulsion from the Big 10 is that it would mean expulsion for ALL Penn State sports teams. That's a big deal. I know Penn State has won national championships in recent years in both wrestling and women's volleyball, so the sports program, as a whole, benefits greatly from membership in the conference.


Two points:

1. I said that this not a football problem, so I'm not adverse to punishing the university as a whole. Football subsidized these programs for decades.

2. Would it be possible, if desired, to just suspend the football team from participating in the Big Ten?



The death penalty would be football specific, and I think it's only fair to localize the punishment, as much as possible, to the football program. I could see your other four suggested penalties as a substitute for the death penalty. They might even be more severe than the DP in the long run.

As I said, this is not a football scandal but a Penn State scandal. Basically, a fitting punishment is for football fanatics, alumni, and residents to look at Spanier, Garban, those "country club" Trustees, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Sandusky and think, "You did this to us."

Twindad
07-21-2012, 07:18 AM
It has been demonstrated the M.O. to cover up Sandusky has been used in other cases by PSU. Look at the Michael Mann and Antonio Lasaga incidents for example both outside sports. If just football gets punished, the whole act can be moved over to wrestling, basketball and/or hockey and do nothing to change the environment which led to this.
Also I feel "you did this to us" would allow many to disassociate themselves to what happened and deflect blame from the university as a whole. The healing may be better served by attitudes other than us against them.

J. J. in Phila
07-21-2012, 08:52 AM
It has been demonstrated the M.O. to cover up Sandusky has been used in other cases by PSU. Look at the Michael Mann and Antonio Lasaga incidents for example both outside sports. If just football gets punished, the whole act can be moved over to wrestling, basketball and/or hockey and do nothing to change the environment which led to this.
Also I feel "you did this to us" would allow many to disassociate themselves to what happened and deflect blame from the university as a whole. The healing may be better served by attitudes other than us against them.

Well, I do think the bulk of Penn State and the community were not involved.

BigCat
07-21-2012, 08:56 AM
Two points:

1. I said that this not a football problem, so I'm not adverse to punishing the university as a whole. Football subsidized these programs for decades.

2. Would it be possible, if desired, to just suspend the football team from participating in the Big Ten?

As I said, this is not a football scandal but a Penn State scandal. Basically, a fitting punishment is for football fanatics, alumni, and residents to look at Spanier, Garban, those "country club" Trustees, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Sandusky and think, "You did this to us."

1. Never again can the athletic director at Penn State be the "errand boy" to the football coach (that description of Curley is from a senior administrator at PSU quoted in the Freeh report). One way to do that is punish the entire university, as you suggest.

2. Won't happen. Notre Dame has wanted to join the Big 10 for years in every sport except football. ND does not want to share the television revenue it receives from NBC for the rights to televise the school's home games. The Big 10 demanded full membership from ND, so ND joined the Big East conference for every sports except football. Big East, however, was recently relegated to minor status as a conference (Boise State recently joined the conference. Yes, Boise State is in the Big East!)

The Atlantic Coast Conference could be a possible alternative, down the road, for Penn State, if they are expelled from the Big 10. It would be a drop in status for the football program, but the ACC is strong in other sports. Also, academically, it would be good fit for Penn State, joining with universities like U of Va, U of NC, Syracuse, etc.

wfgodot
07-21-2012, 02:52 PM
Well, ya know, sometimes life isn't fair. Consider it a lesson learned during college days, students and players. As for coaches - meh. We saw something of the college game's inner workings during this sad fiasco. Don't count on any sympathy from me for college coaches.

Death penalty. Three years minimum, five max.

IzzyBlanche
07-21-2012, 03:35 PM
Well, I do think the bulk of Penn State and the community were not involved.

That is true of any school that the NCAA sanctions.

J. J. in Phila
07-21-2012, 03:47 PM
That is true of any school that the NCAA sanctions.

Not necessarily. Some have shown widespread problems.

wfgodot
07-21-2012, 08:48 PM
78.57% for some form of program death penalty at the moment.

IzzyBlanche
07-21-2012, 09:50 PM
Not necessarily. Some have shown widespread problems.

Really? Which ones? I don't mean to sound sarcastic; I am curious as to what you mean.

Thinking through recent NCAA sanctions--in football as that's the only college sport I follow much--I come up with:

Ohio State
USC
Oklahoma
Miami maybe? I haven't paid much attention to that.

I can't recall widespread problems (which I am defining as university-wide, not just athletic-department wide) in these instances, or within the surrounding community.

J. J. in Phila
07-21-2012, 11:22 PM
Really? Which ones? I don't mean to sound sarcastic; I am curious as to what you mean.

SMU, obviously. It actually dealt with payoffs. In terms of what the administrators and board did, it was much more blatant that the current Penn State situation. Penn State's crime was inaction, failure to report. SMU's crime, with the participation of the president and board, actually involved a slush fund.



I can't recall widespread problems (which I am defining as university-wide, not just athletic-department wide) in these instances, or within the surrounding community.

The NCAA should not be involved in college wide problems, beyond sports. Where they intersect with sports, and to the extent that they do, it should punish.

As opposed to kicking Penn State out of the Big Ten, can they prohibit live television or prevent the school from getting any revenue from it?

Tipstaff
07-22-2012, 09:47 AM
NCAA president Mark Emmert has decided to punish Penn State with severe penalties likely to include a significant loss of scholarships and loss of multiple bowls, a source close to the decision told ESPN's Joe Schad on Sunday morning.

But Penn State will not receive the so-called "death penalty" that would have suspended the program for at least one year, the source said.

The penalties, however, are considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable, the source said.

The NCAA will announce "corrective and punitive measures" for Penn State on Monday morning, it said in a statement Sunday. Emmert will reveal the sanctions at 9 a.m. ET in Indianapolis at the organization's headquarters along with Ed Ray, the chairman of the NCAA's executive committee and Oregon State's president, the news release said.

(snip)

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/ncaa-reveal-penn-state-sanctions-monday

BigCat
07-22-2012, 10:18 AM
If sanctions are happening this soon, then they were probably agreed upon by the university. The PSU administration probably believes the upcoming criminal trials will do nothing to exonerate the previous adminstration.


JMO

michmi
07-22-2012, 11:32 AM
I'm hearing no death penalty and I hope I'm wrong.

elmomom
07-22-2012, 11:57 AM
I'm pretty much football naive, so forgive me for a stupid question. Can the NCAA throw PSU out of the "big 10" and if so, what would that mean to the team, exactly?

waltzingmatilda
07-22-2012, 12:30 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027/ncaa-to-announce-unprecedented-penalties-against-penn-state-football

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/us/penn-state-paterno-statue/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I got these links from scout.com message board. Lot's of rumors there re the possible sanctions.

wm

SherlockKittyCat
07-22-2012, 01:05 PM
As someone who witnessed the NCAA "death penalty" first hand (my alma mater Southern Methodist--1987) I can tell you that it is TOO HIGH a price to pay.

Once ranked nationally, SMU has NEVER recovered. I believe it contributed to the demise of the Southwest Conference, too.

No school should have NCAA death penalty, esp. for non-football violations.

Just my 0.02c!

IzzyBlanche
07-22-2012, 01:22 PM
As someone who witnessed the NCAA "death penalty" first hand (my alma mater Southern Methodist--1987) I can tell you that it is TOO HIGH a price to pay.

Once ranked nationally, SMU has NEVER recovered. I believe it contributed to the demise of the Southwest Conference, too.

No school should have NCAA death penalty, esp. for non-football violations.

Just my 0.02c!

What price do you feel is not "too high" for enabling child rape?

And how is this a non-football violation when it was done to shield the football program from bad publicity?

J. J. in Phila
07-22-2012, 02:03 PM
What price do you feel is not "too high" for enabling child rape?

And how is this a non-football violation when it was done to shield the football program from bad publicity?

I think it was to shield the University from bad publicity. 2001 only tangentially involved the football program. Had this been reported to DPW, football program would only provided witnesses to an act, with no coverup.

BigCat
07-22-2012, 02:25 PM
I think it was to shield the University from bad publicity. 2001 only tangentially involved the football program. Had this been reported to DPW, football program would only provided witnesses to an act, with no coverup.

Protecting the football program -- and Joe Paterno's legacy -- were central to the coverup. Schultz and Spanier were ok with notifying DPW. It was the athletic director, aka "Paterno's errand boy," who talked them into changing the plan after discussing it over with the head football coach.

JMO

BetteDavisEyes
07-22-2012, 02:32 PM
This could be moot tomorrow morning when/if NCAA sanctions Penn State.


July 22, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Writers pick Michigan to win Big Ten championship over Wisconsin
By Matt Charboneau
The Detroit News

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120722/SPORTS0203/207220327#ixzz21NT6WrXC

wfgodot
07-22-2012, 02:49 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/us/penn-state-paterno-statue/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


(CNN) -- Penn State University will face "significant, unprecedented penalties" from the National Collegiate Athletic Association, but it will not face the so-called "death penalty" that would have prevented the football team from playing in the fall, a source familiar with the case tells CNN.
---.
"If I were Penn State or any other school and were given both options, I'd pick the death penalty," the source said, adding the range of sanctions "is well beyond what has been done in the past" and "far worse than closing the program for a year."
---
.....

BetteDavisEyes
07-22-2012, 02:50 PM
Source: Severe penalties set for Penn State

Paterno statue removed from outside football stadium

Author: By Ross Levitt and Susan Candiotti CNN

Published On: Jul 22 2012 08:04:09 AM EDT Updated On: Jul 22 2012 02:45:15 PM EDT

Craig Houtz / Reuters
(CNN) -
Penn State University will face "significant, unprecedented penalties" from the National Collegiate Athletic Association, but it will not face the so-called "death penalty" that would have prevented the football team from playing in the fall, a source familiar with the case tells CNN.

But the source says the school might have preferred a one-year suspension because of the severity of the scholarship losses, postseason sanctions and other penalties the source wouldn't specify.

"If I were Penn State or any other school and were given both options, I'd pick the death penalty," the source said, adding the range of sanctions "is well beyond what has been done in the past" and "far worse than closing the program for a year."...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Source-Severe-penalties-set-for-Penn-State/-/1719418/15634044/-/sp7jiiz/-/index.html

J. J. in Phila
07-22-2012, 03:08 PM
Protecting the football program -- and Joe Paterno's legacy -- were central to the coverup. Schultz and Spanier were ok with notifying DPW. It was the athletic director, aka "Paterno's errand boy," who talked them into changing the plan after discussing it over with the head football coach.

JMO


But how would it have damaged that legacy? The damage was caused by not reporting Sandusky. They report it, and they are home free.

IzzyBlanche
07-22-2012, 03:15 PM
Source: Severe penalties set for Penn State

Paterno statue removed from outside football stadium

Author: By Ross Levitt and Susan Candiotti CNN

Published On: Jul 22 2012 08:04:09 AM EDT Updated On: Jul 22 2012 02:45:15 PM EDT

Craig Houtz / Reuters
(CNN) -
Penn State University will face "significant, unprecedented penalties" from the National Collegiate Athletic Association, but it will not face the so-called "death penalty" that would have prevented the football team from playing in the fall, a source familiar with the case tells CNN.

But the source says the school might have preferred a one-year suspension because of the severity of the scholarship losses, postseason sanctions and other penalties the source wouldn't specify.

"If I were Penn State or any other school and were given both options, I'd pick the death penalty," the source said, adding the range of sanctions "is well beyond what has been done in the past" and "far worse than closing the program for a year."...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Source-Severe-penalties-set-for-Penn-State/-/1719418/15634044/-/sp7jiiz/-/index.html

Works for me. :rocker:

BigCat
07-22-2012, 04:25 PM
But how would it have damaged that legacy? The damage was caused by not reporting Sandusky. They report it, and they are home free.

Being exposed caused the damage. They almost got away with it. Joe Pa managed to hang around long enough to get the all-time wins record.

Reader
07-22-2012, 04:26 PM
But how would it have damaged that legacy? The damage was caused by not reporting Sandusky. They report it, and they are home free.

I understand what you are saying and that may have been true if there was only 2001 to consider. But I think Paterno et al were concerned that by reporting in 2001, the 1998 incident would come out and the fact that they all knew about it too.

I know no charges were made by the DA but that is separate to me and I think most people, from them realizing that JS was a pedophile and still did not take him out of the football program by firing him, and letting him continue to bring children to the facilities after 1998. Also they would have to answer why they gave him such a good retirement in 1999, knowing this previous situation. And there is no good answer to that other than JS had something on Paterno or the others. Maybe Paterno was afraid JS would talk to protect himself.

And most of the public knows, as his own lawyer said, a pedophile does not just begin at age 50, they have been that way all along. Paterno knew this and knew the public would ask why he allowed JS to continue his association with boys at the school for so long, and why Paterno and the rest continued their association with 2nd Mile/JS even after he retired, knowing what they knew.

It would still have been a scandal in 2001 even if they reported, with the history of them allowing JS to continue to bring boys to the school and molest them there, bringing them to games, other events and out of town trips, all under the eye of Paterno, who knew what he was. The only difference is they would not have faced charges for lying and not reporting.

This is IMO...

back2back19
07-22-2012, 04:29 PM
I still believe Penn State deserves the death penalty and nothing the "sources" tell the media is going to change my mind. And I think it sucks that Penn State has still done nothing to sanction itself. They couldn't even take the statue down without being pressured into it. They still have no accountability.

J. J. in Phila
07-22-2012, 05:19 PM
Being exposed caused the damage. They almost got away with it. Joe Pa managed to hang around long enough to get the all-time wins record.

The damage would have been minimal to nonexistent. Paterno was not the one molesting children. Just turn it over to LE and let them handle it.

J. J. in Phila
07-22-2012, 05:37 PM
I understand what you are saying and that may have been true if there was only 2001 to consider. But I think Paterno et al were concerned that by reporting in 2001, the 1998 incident would come out and the fact that they all knew about it too.

I know no charges were made by the DA but that is separate to me and I think most people, from them realizing that JS was a pedophile and still did not take him out of the football program by firing him, and letting him continue to bring children to the facilities after 1998. Also they would have to answer why they gave him such a good retirement in 1999, knowing this previous situation. And there is no good answer to that other than JS had something on Paterno or the others. Maybe Paterno was afraid JS would talk to protect himself.


What they "knew" was that the DA and DPW investigated, and didn't find anything criminal, or even improper (from DPW).

Even a finding of abuse doesn't rise to the level of a criminal charge. One comment from a former GA stated that it was common for staff to shower with children, especially their own, in those facilities.

I started high school at 11 and had gym classes, where a shower was required. Looking back on it, I'm sure that there were seniors there who were 18 or older, in the shower or in the locker room. There was never any physical contact, but I'm sure we were naked.

Gricar and Lauro gave Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno the ultimate out for reporting Sandusky in 2001. It wasn't the crime, as far as these guys are concerned. It was the coverup. This is basically Watergate, with cut rate Nixons.

LNL
07-22-2012, 06:20 PM
Mark Emmert's swift, bold action against Penn State might mark a new era in NCAA enforcement

So now comes Monday morning in Indianapolis, when in a show of force Mark Emmert, the fifth president of the NCAA, will seize long-dormant power and announce significant sanctions on the Penn State football program for its role in the Jerry Sandusky sexual molestation crisis.

Sources say the school will continue to field a team. However, it will deal with heavy scholarship losses over the next three-to-five years as well as a multiyear ban in postseason competition and multimillion dollar financial penalties.

The standard line rippling through college sports Sunday is that while Penn State will be spared the death penalty, the penalties will make them wish they weren't.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mark-emmert-ncaa-penn-state-sanctions-joe-paterno-graham-spanier-.html

costalpilot
07-22-2012, 07:00 PM
Mark Emmert's swift, bold action against Penn State might mark a new era in NCAA enforcement

So now comes Monday morning in Indianapolis, when in a show of force Mark Emmert, the fifth president of the NCAA, will seize long-dormant power and announce significant sanctions on the Penn State football program for its role in the Jerry Sandusky sexual molestation crisis.

Sources say the school will continue to field a team. However, it will deal with heavy scholarship losses over the next three-to-five years as well as a multiyear ban in postseason competition and multimillion dollar financial penalties.

The standard line rippling through college sports Sunday is that while Penn State will be spared the death penalty, the penalties will make them wish they weren't.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mark-emmert-ncaa-penn-state-sanctions-joe-paterno-graham-spanier-.html

very interesting...espn radio this afternoon in the person of a mark wilson is reacting negatively to all this, and has been complaining all afternoon as to the extent of the punishments and the manner in whcih the 2A has arrived at these sanctions...espn has put other experts on, all leaning towards questioning the 2A's proceedures and actions in this case. the on air guy complains bitterely against all this.

while its obviously true the 2A has stepped way outside its normal operating proceedure here, the football world at large still doesnt understand that KING FOOTBALL must be disciplined and controlled by the universities that host the game. lots of football fans just dont get this, but, thank God, the President of the NCAA does.

psu is gonna pay. the football program is gonna suffer, despite the disbelief and dismay of the many gung ho footballers nation wide. i mean, they are whinning about the "process the 2A used and they are saying no NCAA laws were actually violated" Thats their problem with making penn state pay big time. penn state folks are flumoxed...many of them thought the program wouldnt be hurt by this mess at all. Really. they did. they figgured they were gonna walk cause, in their opinion, no ncaa laws were violated. they just missed the little problem of the football program running the university rather than the other way around. that they consider not relevant I guess. mark emmert disagrees with them, and its his opinion that matters.

whew..thankfully.

michmi
07-22-2012, 07:09 PM
As someone who witnessed the NCAA "death penalty" first hand (my alma mater Southern Methodist--1987) I can tell you that it is TOO HIGH a price to pay.

Once ranked nationally, SMU has NEVER recovered. I believe it contributed to the demise of the Southwest Conference, too.

No school should have NCAA death penalty, esp. for non-football violations.

Just my 0.02c!

Frankly, I don't care if their stupid football program EVER recovers. This was an institutional coverup for MANY years. The program reaped the benefits while they were looking the other way as Sandusky raped children in their showers. This is their own doing (or undoing) and it is richly deserved. Nothing can ever be done to repair the lives of the people who were hurt while this animal was allowed to come and go on the campus long after he stopped working there.

I only wish Joe Paterno could have lived long enough to see the football program go down the tubes, however it goes down.

costalpilot
07-22-2012, 07:13 PM
oh for gosh sakes, "SMU has never recovered"...well yeah, they have never recovered to the statuts of their program when they were cheating and lying and paying players like a pro team. when they had to stop that, they became as bad as they were b4 they started doing it...and folks act like they were somehow supposed to be as good when they cant cheat as they were when they could. like they are supposed to be vying for national champioships like they did even though they could cheat.

they recovered all right. right back to where they belonged all along.

Twindad
07-22-2012, 07:59 PM
http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57477382&feed_id=null&videofeed=null

We'll find out tomorrow!

BigCat
07-22-2012, 08:30 PM
NCAA could fine Penn State as much as $60M as part of Sandusky sanctions

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027

back2back19
07-22-2012, 08:30 PM
Yeah, I'm just not impressed with these "bold" sanctions. Okay, so they lose scholarships, have a multi-year ban from bowls and a big financial hit, I still don't think that's enough and the commenting that PSU "will wish they had the death penalty" because of the "bold" sanctions against them is a joke.

Penn State's complete lack of accountability is appalling and clearly they need to be pounded, not spared.

But I suppose we shall see how tomorrow goes...

ynotdivein
07-22-2012, 09:02 PM
Apart from the "death penalty" for however many years, what are the other options the NCAA might take?

IzzyBlanche
07-22-2012, 09:42 PM
Apart from the "death penalty" for however many years, what are the other options the NCAA might take?

Loss of scholarships and bans on post-season play for a number of years, forfeiture of past wins.

USC lost I think 10 schollys a year and was banned from post-season play for two years after the Reggie Bush thing.

I would love to see past wins vacated, thereby eliminating JP's status as winningest NCAA Div 1 coach. Even if only by an asterisk after his name. That would be true poetic justice in my view.

I believe PSU deserves worse punishment as well, of course.

J. J. in Phila
07-22-2012, 09:54 PM
Apart from the "death penalty" for however many years, what are the other options the NCAA might take?

Several have been mentioned.

Loss of scholarships.

No off campus recruiting.

No bowl games.

No live television.

A reduction in coaching staff.

A heavy fine.

Some of these are from other cases where there were sanctions.

Keep in mind that things like no recruiting will hurt the team 3-4 years after the sanctions are over. So even a one year sanction will be felt until 2015 or 2016.

BigCat wrote a few days ago:


I could see your other four suggested penalties as a substitute for the death penalty. They might even be more severe than the DP in the long run.

He could very well be right. These could be, for lack of a better description, "death penalty-lite."

Look, I was one of those people who wanted to wait until there was solid evidence. I'm a Penn State alumnus, and while not a football fan, I had a great deal of respect and admiration for Paterno's conduct in putting academics first. Couple that with writing a blog about someone involved. I'm not unsympathetic to Penn State or Centre County.

After what I've seen and heard, I cannot in any way justify these acts and feel that there should be severe punishment.

This was not just a football scandal, this was a Penn State University scandal. The institution is responsible for some of this. I'm now more worried about the effect on the community.

J. J. in Phila
07-22-2012, 09:58 PM
I would love to see past wins vacated, thereby eliminating JP's status as winningest NCAA Div 1 coach. Even if only by an asterisk after his name. That would be true poetic justice in my view.



I don't like to rewrite history and I don't see anything that the Big Four did that effected the outcome a game, or even an extra field goal in a 40-7 victory.

Give Paterno a hollow title and remind everyone just how hollow it is.

wfgodot
07-22-2012, 10:06 PM
CBS, who initially reported that Penn State's punishment would be "unprecedented," is now reporting that the NCAA will fine Penn State at least $30 million and could fine the school as much as $60 million and create an endowment for "children's causes" with the money.
---
the rest here: Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/5928112/ncaa-may-fine-penn-state-up-to-60-million)

IzzyBlanche
07-22-2012, 10:08 PM
I don't like to rewrite history and I don't see anything that the Big Four did that effected the outcome a game, or even an extra field goal in a 40-7 victory.

It's abstract and amorphous, to be sure, but I still think covering up the scandal to preserve JP's good-guy image (among other reasons) could be construed as an unfair recruiting advantage. And who knows how many wins JP would have amassed had players opted to go somewhere else if Sandusky's actions and PSU's looking the other way had been publicly revealed in 2001.


Give Paterno a hollow title and remind everyone just how hollow it is.

Interesting idea. What kind of reminder do you envision?

Simply letting the record stand as is will only provide ammunition for the Joepologist football fans.

J. J. in Phila
07-22-2012, 11:14 PM
It's abstract and amorphous, to be sure, but I still think covering up the scandal to preserve JP's good-guy image (among other reasons) could be construed as an unfair recruiting advantage. And who knows how many wins JP would have amassed had players opted to go somewhere else if Sandusky's actions and PSU's looking the other way had been publicly revealed in 2001.

Had Penn State officials been party to covering up 1998, I would agree. There is, so far, no evidence of that. It would have been one rotten apple that was tossed out.




Interesting idea. What kind of reminder do you envision?

Simply letting the record stand as is will only provide ammunition for the Joepologist football fans.

Always put an asterisk after that, "Fired a week later because of his role in reporting child molestation." Maybe put up a commemoration to the victims on campus. You can admit that Paterno had a great football record, and a horrible person. His own words say it best, "Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good."

IzzyBlanche
07-22-2012, 11:55 PM
Had Penn State officials been party to covering up 1998, I would agree. There is, so far, no evidence of that. It would have been one rotten apple that was tossed out.

I have said this before but I will say it once more.

Agreed. No evidence that PSU officials tried to cover up 1998 at the time.

However. If the 2001 incident had been made public, and it came out at that time that PSU officials knew about the 1998 incident but made no effort afterward, at the very least to prevent JS from bringing kids onto campus, or making sure he was chaperoned, or any other of numerous actions they could have taken knowing about 1998, then scandal would have erupted and recruiting gone down the drain.

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 12:48 AM
However. If the 2001 incident had been made public, and it came out at that time that PSU officials knew about the 1998 incident but made no effort afterward, at the very least to prevent JS from bringing kids onto campus, or making sure he was chaperoned, or any other of numerous actions they could have taken knowing about 1998, then scandal would have erupted and recruiting gone down the drain.

The thing is, they have cover. You have this, supposedly, hard hitting DA that doesn't charge, and is there to attempt to justify his actions. You have DPW, that has a much lower standard of evidence saying there was problem in 1998.

The Big Four can easily say, **Hey, we assumed this guys knew what they were doing.**

gngr~snap
07-23-2012, 03:40 AM
After reading this LA Times article it seems the NCAA would have to make their recommendation prior to the start of the season IF they select the death penalty. Otherwise what would happen to the players who play in the first game - could they then elect to go to other schools and would they be eligible to play in this current season?
no. is what I am thinking.

Well, I do think the bulk of Penn State and the community were not involved.


Several have been mentioned.

Loss of scholarships.

No off campus recruiting.

No bowl games.

No live television.

A reduction in coaching staff.

A heavy fine.

Some of these are from other cases where there were sanctions.

Keep in mind that things like no recruiting will hurt the team 3-4 years after the sanctions are over. So even a one year sanction will be felt until 2015 or 2016.

BigCat wrote a few days ago:



He could very well be right. These could be, for lack of a better description, "death penalty-lite."

Look, I was one of those people who wanted to wait until there was solid evidence. I'm a Penn State alumnus, and while not a football fan, I had a great deal of respect and admiration for Paterno's conduct in putting academics first. Couple that with writing a blog about someone involved. I'm not unsympathetic to Penn State or Centre County.

After what I've seen and heard, I cannot in any way justify these acts and feel that there should be severe punishment.
Direct solely at those responsible and no one else!

This was not just a football scandal, this was a Penn State University scandal. The institution is responsible for some of this. I'm now more worried about the effect on the community.
It was a ONE sick pedophile who preyed on young boys and used Penn State as way to hide his sickness.

Get rid of those tied to Sandusky. Take their pensions away.
Don't squash the dreams of the young guys that are not related to this!
Chances are that most of the players would love to leave and play somewhere else!
If that can be arranged I might change my mind.
moo

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 06:39 AM
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/22/report-psu-sanctions-include-multi-year-bowl-ban-crippling-scholarship-losses/related/

But consider this snippet from the NCAA’s website related to charges a program can face:


“However, if an institution agrees with the facts that the investigation has uncovered, the case can enter the summary-disposition process before a notice of allegations is provided. In summary disposition, the school and the enforcement staff agree on the facts and a set of penalties to be imposed; no hearing before the Committee on Infractions is necessary.”

Such a case would bypass the normal NCAA investigative protocol, and indeed that’s what we have here.

Hmmmm. After reading the bolded part, I would bet that Erikson is already aware of the NCAA's sanctions and has agreed to them. Hence, the removal of the statue at such an odd time of day on a Sunday. It makes me wonder if 2A will take away some of JP's wins. The city of Grambling sent a letter requesting they do so, I read somewhere. (GU's coach held the most wins record til JP surpassed it.) All just my speculation.

I guess we'll find out at 9 am. It's gonna be a busy news day!

moo

wm

costalpilot
07-23-2012, 08:55 AM
let me say this, 20 minutes before Penn Satate learns its penalties from the NCAA, I have been listening to national sports talk radio this weekend, and I tell you the disguisting manner in which the national sports media has reacted to the news that psu will receive "unprecedented penalties" makes clear how all this happened in the first place. the national sports media is inhabited by short sighted lemmings who apparently have difficulty thinking for themselves and are most comfortable repeating what a few others have said.


even at this late date, the national sports media doesnt understand the football program at penn state should be given these UNPRECEDENTED penalties. these people are showing how joepa wAS able to fool so many for so long. THEY were the people who kept repeating, over and over, year after year, what a moral, honorable, different kind of man Paterno was. And all the while, it wasnt true but it was their mantra and they ran with it, cause it was the easiest thing to do.

they were putty in paternos hands.

a shamed industry, imo.

wfgodot
07-23-2012, 08:58 AM
Announcement link: http://www.ncaa.com/live/player?vid=2012/521

costalpilot
07-23-2012, 09:02 AM
I have said this before but I will say it once more.

Agreed. No evidence that PSU officials tried to cover up 1998 at the time.

However. If the 2001 incident had been made public, and it came out at that time that PSU officials knew about the 1998 incident but made no effort afterward, at the very least to prevent JS from bringing kids onto campus, or making sure he was chaperoned, or any other of numerous actions they could have taken knowing about 1998, then scandal would have erupted and recruiting gone down the drain.

NO KIDDING. It isnt what they did in 1998. Its what they didnt do. They had a warning and they ignored it. Because they were able to. They didnt exercise ther\ care a gardnerer does over his bean crop and they had been put on notice that there was a rabbit ion the garden. but they looked away and did nothing, said nothing. didnt even watch out.

just because a social worker says he doesn t undrestand something doesnt mean the entire administration has to avert their eyes as sandusky continued to molest boys in broad daylight.

they looked away. they averted their eyes. they failed those boys right then and there. in 1998.

and they did it because of KING FOOTBALL

BetteDavisEyes
07-23-2012, 09:04 AM
Live presser link:

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/live/network/espn?cid=hero_media

LaLaw2000
07-23-2012, 09:10 AM
Wow, 60 million dollar fine.........

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 09:10 AM
fine of 60 million! = 1 yrs revenue of fball team!

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 09:12 AM
vacates alll wins since '98

LaLaw2000
07-23-2012, 09:12 AM
fine of 60 million! = 1 yrs revenue of fball team!

Not too tough then, I guess.

wfgodot
07-23-2012, 09:12 AM
All wins since '98 vacated. (This should mean that Grambling's Eddie Robinson should again be the winningest college football coach. Paterno had passed him.)

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 09:13 AM
This is bad!!!! Just wow!!!


The current playeers will be allowed to transfer.

wfgodot
07-23-2012, 09:15 AM
4-year bowl ban, loss of scholarships (from 25 to 15, next four years), 5 years' probation.

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 09:16 AM
4 yr postseason football ban....

taking reporters questions now

Tipstaff
07-23-2012, 09:17 AM
Vacating all wins since 1998 - who would have expected? Since the first incident...wow just wow.

wfgodot
07-23-2012, 09:18 AM
Sports Illustrated ‏@SInow
The NCAA will impose an 'Integrity Monitor" on Penn State to report quarterly on the Board of Trustees for five years
.....


The Associated Press ‏@AP
BREAKING: NCAA says #PennState perpetuated "football first" culture that must change.

LaLaw2000
07-23-2012, 09:21 AM
Well.

TobyWong*
07-23-2012, 09:25 AM
1st impression listening to this was tears for the ripple sandusky has caused for so many people. Then anger that this kind of punishment even had to be brougt on. Right now to me this is fair & just. Though I do think this year of football should have been closed. It's sad how inconsequnetial the money figure really is. Ha 1 year revenue.

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 09:25 AM
Vacating all wins since 1998 - who would have expected? Since the first incident...wow just wow.

I suspected Tipstaff! Read my post on pg 4, it's the very last one.

wm:rocker:

BetteDavisEyes
07-23-2012, 09:27 AM
All wins since '98 vacated. (This should mean that Grambling's Eddie Robinson should again be the winningest college football coach. Paterno had passed him.)

Paterno family won't like this :what:

TobyWong*
07-23-2012, 09:27 AM
Vacating all wins since 1998 - who would have expected? Since the first incident...wow just wow.

Perfect imo

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 09:28 AM
All wins since '98 vacated. (This should mean that Grambling's Eddie Robinson should again be the winningest college football coach. Paterno had passed him.)

Probably either Robinson with an asterisk or Paterno with an asterisk. I'm happy about that.

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 09:30 AM
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/22/report-psu-sanctions-include-multi-year-bowl-ban-crippling-scholarship-losses/related/

But consider this snippet from the NCAA’s website related to charges a program can face:


“However, if an institution agrees with the facts that the investigation has uncovered, the case can enter the summary-disposition process before a notice of allegations is provided. In summary disposition, the school and the enforcement staff agree on the facts and a set of penalties to be imposed; no hearing before the Committee on Infractions is necessary.”

Such a case would bypass the normal NCAA investigative protocol, and indeed that’s what we have here.

Hmmmm. After reading the bolded part, I would bet that Erikson is already aware of the NCAA's sanctions and has agreed to them. Hence, the removal of the statue at such an odd time of day on a Sunday. It makes me wonder if 2A will take away some of JP's wins. The city of Grambling sent a letter requesting they do so, I read somewhere. (GU's coach held the most wins record til JP surpassed it.) All just my speculation.

I guess we'll find out at 9 am. It's gonna be a busy news day!

moo

wm

I rarely bump my own post, but I was pondering the possibility of JP/PSU being stripped of wins. I am still speechless that it;s wins all the way back to '98!

wm

LRinCA
07-23-2012, 09:31 AM
Mark Emmert wrote a letter to Penn State President Rodney Erickson in November that included four questions he wanted the university to answer.

The NCAA felt the questions were answered by the Freeh report and therefore it could act before the university responded, a source familiar with the case said.

Full article - KTLA Los Angeles

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-paterno-statue-removal,0,118890.story

Tipstaff
07-23-2012, 09:31 AM
I suspected Tipstaff! Read my post on pg 4, it's the very last one.

wm:rocker:

You read all the signs WM - I read about Grambling filing to have PS wins vacated but just never suspected the NCAA would go back to 1998.

Good call WM.

LRinCA
07-23-2012, 09:32 AM
Probably either Robinson with an asterisk or Paterno with an asterisk. I'm happy about that.

I'm betting on no asterisk and no mention of the name Paterno.

Tipstaff
07-23-2012, 09:33 AM
Probably either Robinson with an asterisk or Paterno with an asterisk. I'm happy about that.

Where is Bobby Bowden in the ranking now?

LRinCA
07-23-2012, 09:34 AM
Good call, waltzingmatilda!

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 09:35 AM
I think it is fair, though I might have more punitive, regarding television. At least the money will go to a good cause.

Tipstaff
07-23-2012, 09:42 AM
I think it is fair, though I might have more punitive, regarding television. At least the money will go to a good cause.

Thinking the networks will pull the televising of the games after all things shake out.

Angels_Not_Forgotten
07-23-2012, 09:43 AM
You know, yesterday thinking about this. I thought there was no way that it will be close to being a fair or just punishment. I wanted the dp. But honestly, that's to good for them.

See to these guys, its always been about football. So basic. A game. A sport. I had over thought this to the highest level, hoping, praying I would/could understand. And I finally got it.

It wasn't such the building of a man into a god,it was about a game. A silly game. To be dp'ed for a year and then to be right back at where they were in the game...it was to good for them.

I still think no punishment could be severe enough, but, I'm actually feeling OK about it. Hit them where it will hurt them. The next 5 years will be horrible for that program. Take their power. Make them feel small and insignificant.

Note: I know in the grand scheme of it how I feel doesn't matter in the least. I just pray that when those courageous victims see this coverage, they are feeling some sort of peace.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

back2back19
07-23-2012, 09:46 AM
Not severe enough IMO but at least the NCAA did something, which I didn't expect. Now, hopefully the Big Ten will follow suit with sanctions of their own. I did like vacating the wins. I like the acknowledgement that virtually everyone has that JoePa could have and should have done more. That he had the power to do something and he didn't... taking away those wins was good.

They should have been banned from TV, but maybe the Big Ten can do that? Or maybe they can make sure PSU can't get the money from tv? I don't know if that's possible.

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 09:49 AM
I think it's fair too, J.J. I was hoping 2A would let the team play. There are so many fball players, faculty, students, alumni, vendors with whom I empathize. My emotional side would say 5 yrs dp so I didn't vote.

I think the sanctions are much worse than the death penalty.

moo

BigCat
07-23-2012, 09:50 AM
I think it is fair, though I might have more punitive, regarding television. At least the money will go to a good cause.

I'm sure the thinking is that there is no need to punish Penn St's opponents.

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 09:50 AM
Legacy protection never works.

costalpilot
07-23-2012, 09:55 AM
1st impression listening to this was tears for the ripple sandusky has caused for so many people. Then anger that this kind of punishment even had to be brougt on. Right now to me this is fair & just. Though I do think this year of football should have been closed. It's sad how inconsequnetial the money figure really is. Ha 1 year revenue.

l\ yeah but it is gross revenue....their profit is only 15 million a year...so thats 4 years...and the football program funds all the other sports...if they took away much more they would be taking it away from the lessor sports that would have had to not play cause they didnt get the football money.

the reports were right. this was worse than the DP for a year or two.

back2back19
07-23-2012, 10:00 AM
Legacy protection never works.

It does not. Vacating the wins was excellent. Although in a bit of weirdness, McQueary is now the last winning qb in 1997.

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 10:02 AM
You know, yesterday thinking about this. I thought there was no way that it will be close to being a fair or just punishment. I wanted the dp. But honestly, that's to good for them.

See to these guys, its always been about football. So basic. A game. A sport. I had over thought this to the highest level, hoping, praying I would/could understand. And I finally got it.

It wasn't such the building of a man into a god,it was about a game. A silly game. To be dp'ed for a year and then to be right back at where they were in the game...it was to good for them.

I still think no punishment could be severe enough, but, I'm actually feeling OK about it. Hit them where it will hurt them. The next 5 years will be horrible for that program. Take their power. Make them feel small and insignificant.

Note: I know in the grand scheme of it how I feel doesn't matter in the least. I just pray that when those courageous victims see this coverage, they are feeling some sort of peace.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Your post reminded me of this....

Andy Griffith Football Story from 1953 - YouTube

believe09
07-23-2012, 10:08 AM
Umm wow. I think it is fair too.

Angels_Not_Forgotten
07-23-2012, 10:20 AM
Your post reminded me of this....

Andy Griffith Football Story from 1953 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNxLxTZHKM8&feature=share)

:D I love that and have never heard it! Ty!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 10:24 AM
I've heard the Big 10 will be issuing at 11:00 AM. https://twitter.com/sganim/

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 10:24 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/penn-state-ncaa-punishment-fines-vacate-ban_n_1694219.html

rundown of sanctions at link....

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 10:57 AM
Where is Bobby Bowden in the ranking now?

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48283426/ns/sports-college_football/

By vacating 112 Penn State victories over a 14-year period, the sanctions cost Paterno 111 wins. Former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden will now hold the top spot in the NCAA record book with 377. Paterno, who was fired days after Sandusky was charged, will be credited with 298 wins.

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 11:03 AM
Big Ten said Penn State can't share in television revenues for 4 years, but I'm not certain if that's overall or just bowls. $13 million lost.

It is in addition: http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/7/23/3177599/penn-state-sanctions-big-ten-bowl-money-championship-game-penalties

costalpilot
07-23-2012, 11:16 AM
Paterno family won't like this :what:

good....the sun isnt dawning in paternoville anytime soon. they can handle it...

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 11:19 AM
http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1204565.html

Penn State responds to sanctions.

BetteDavisEyes
07-23-2012, 11:30 AM
I was pleased to hear that current and/or incoming students will have the opportunity to transfer to other schools if they want to do so. Those with exceptional talent should not be denied the exposure that comes with bowl games and other NFL recruiting activities. :moo:

costalpilot
07-23-2012, 11:42 AM
http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1204565.html

Penn State responds to sanctions.

i have spent too much time on the penn statew message board and listening to national sports talk shows.

their most rabid fans dont get it, but psu evidently does. this is a strong indication to me that the administration at psu understands what has happened to them and what they need to do.

the acceptance of the penalties and sanctions means a lot to me. their fans are in shock.

ynotdivein
07-23-2012, 11:56 AM
I think between the loss of scholarships and the no-Bowl-games over the next four years, this is actually worse than the DP, especially if it had only applied for a year or two. This weakens the football program for a much longer time... They won't be able to recruit a full roster of scholarship players until what, the 2017-2018 incoming class? Ouch. Definitely supports the goal of weakening the "football first" culture.

wfgodot
07-23-2012, 11:58 AM
Deadspin - which has covered the Sandusky matter well, and heavily - with its take on the NCAA and the penalties:

---
Blowing up Penn State gives perfect cover for every other big football school that is now, to use NCAA president Mark Emmert's phrase, "too big to fail," which describes all of them, and which describes the NCAA, too, while we're at it. It creates the illusion that everything is on the up-and-up again, and that other schools will see Penn State and totally get it now (they won't).
---

http://deadspin.com/5928204/the-ncaa-is-using-penn-state-to-justify-its-own-horrid-existence

TallCoolOne
07-23-2012, 12:06 PM
So I was outside and I kept hearing this smacking sound followed by wailing, curious to what it could have been I hurried into the house to check here for answers.

Now I realize it was just Penn St. receiving their much deserved spanking.

Today is a good day.

LOL !

StellarsJay
07-23-2012, 12:09 PM
As a result, the NCAA imposed a $60 million sanction on the university, which is equivalent to the average gross annual revenue of the football program. These funds must be paid into an endowment for external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/23/penn-state-gets-fined-postseason-ban-scholarship-reduction/related/

I'm glad that although Penn State may plan to create some worthwhile work on abuse as part of demonstrating change, they won't get to benefit from the fine.

Well done personal opinion: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/23/3269657/football-programs-mystique-shattered.html

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 12:09 PM
i have spent too much time on the penn statew message board and listening to national sports talk shows.

their most rabid fans dont get it, but psu evidently does. this is a strong indication to me that the administration at psu understands what has happened to them and what they need to do.

the acceptance of the penalties and sanctions means a lot to me. their fans are in shock.

Agreed, coastalpilot! I cannot imagine the shock of PSU fans and am glad the University is being proactive. (Not a PSU fan but shocked nonetheless)

Sorry if you found my link offensive.

gaia
07-23-2012, 12:29 PM
There is NO punishment strong enough - not when it comes to this horror show for countless? children!!

Mama-cita
07-23-2012, 12:31 PM
Wow wow wow. This is WORSE than the death penalty. Gives coaches and administers all over the country a loud, clear message: don't cover up for child rapists. It's so symbolic and poetic that they are vacating wins back to 1998, the first time Paterno and company could have stopped Jerry and didn't. The true irony is that the program Paterno worked so hard to build and protect (at the expense of those innocent little boys) is crumbling down because of his own inaction. I wish he would have lived to see it. He got off really easy...IMO

Mama-cita
07-23-2012, 12:39 PM
http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1204565.html

Penn State responds to sanctions.

Thanks for this link WM, I am pleased to see them accepting the punishments.

seattlechiquita
07-23-2012, 01:05 PM
Wow wow wow. This is WORSE than the death penalty. Gives coaches and administers all over the country a loud, clear message: don't cover up for child rapists. It's so symbolic and poetic that they are vacating wins back to 1998, the first time Paterno and company could have stopped Jerry and didn't. The true irony is that the program Paterno worked so hard to build and protect (at the expense of those innocent little boys) is crumbling down because of his own inaction. I wish he would have lived to see it. He got off really easy...IMO

My thoughts exactly. I wish -sorta- that he was alive, in horrible cancer pain, and exposed as the pedophile enabler he is. Stripped of everything he ever had, just like he allowed those children to be stripped of their innocence and dreams.

StellarsJay
07-23-2012, 01:29 PM
My thoughts exactly. I wish -sorta- that he was alive, in horrible cancer pain, and exposed as the pedophile enabler he is. Stripped of everything he ever had, just like he allowed those children to be stripped of their innocence and dreams.

Describes Curley, though he may have beaten the cancer. I had been looking for the right nasty words about Curley-- I'll add that he probably hurts more over the football sanctions than he has for the victims.

back2back19
07-23-2012, 01:30 PM
I saw tweets re: the BoT reactions and they're whining. Evidently they think PSU "rolled over and played dead." They should just not say anything, especially comments like that. At least pretend.

wfgodot
07-23-2012, 01:35 PM
Shocker: NCAA does the right thing (http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/penn-state-punishment-ncaa-does-the-right-thing-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky-072312) (Fox Sports)

I thought the 24 hours leading up to NCAA president Mark Emmert’s Monday morning news conference was a smokescreen, a public-relations scheme executed to make a slap on the wrist feel like the death penalty.

I thought the leaks to CBS and ESPN and the tearing down of Joe Paterno’s statue at Beaver Stadium were an orchestrated propaganda campaign to convince us the NCAA took a fearless stand against the worst corruption we’ve ever seen in shamateur athletics.

I thought it was the “Okeydoke.”

I was wrong.
---
the rest at link above

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 01:41 PM
I saw tweets re: the BoT reactions and they're whining. Evidently they think PSU "rolled over and played dead." They should just not say anything, especially comments like that. At least pretend.

I think it was either play dead, or be dead.

wfgodot
07-23-2012, 02:01 PM
The Associated Press ‏@AP
BREAKING: Joe #Paterno family calls #NCAA sanctions a "panicked response" that punish #PennState students.
God they're clueless.

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 02:04 PM
Paterno family accused the NCAA of acting to defame Paterno's legacy.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paterno_family_says_ncaa_s.html#incart_river_d efault

Lubrano outraged that he wasn't consulted.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/23/3269994/penn-state-trustee-lubrano-outraged.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 02:19 PM
Here is the statement:

"The release of the Freeh report has triggered an avalanche of vitriol, condemnation and posthumous punishment on Joe Paterno. The NCAA has now become the latest party to accept the report as the final word on the Sandusky scandal. The sanctions announced by the NCAA today defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach and educator without any input from our family or those who knew him best.

"That the President, the Athletic Director and the Board of Trustees accepted this unprecedented action by the NCAA without requiring a full due process hearing before the Committee on Infractions is an abdication of their responsibilities and a breach of their fiduciary duties to the University and the 500,000 alumni. Punishing past, present and future students of the University because of Sandusky’s crimes does not serve justice. This is not a fair or thoughtful action; it is a panicked response to the public's understandable revulsion at what Sandusky did.

"The point of due process is to protect against this sort of reflexive action. Joe Paterno was never interviewed by the University or the Freeh Group. His counsel has not been able to interview key witnesses as they are represented by counsel related to ongoing litigation. We have had no access to the records reviewed by the Freeh group. The NCAA never contacted our family or our legal counsel. And the fact that several parties have pending trials that could produce evidence and testimony relevant to this matter has been totally discounted.

"Unfortunately all of these facts have been ignored by the NCAA, the Freeh Group and the University."

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paterno_family_says_ncaa_s.html#incart_river_d efault

My comment:

The President and Board run PSU, not the Paterno family. It is PSU, and not the Paterno family or Joe Paterno, that is being punished. It is PSU that gets to accept or challenge the punishment, not the Paterno family. It is PSU who made the decision to investigate, not the Paterno family. Based on that conclusions in that report, it is PSU who makes the decision not to challenge.

If the Paterno family wants to have a thorough investigation, they a perfectly free to finance one. If it is well researched, unbiased, and reaches a different conclusion, they are free to send it to the board. They have had six months to begin that process and, so far, they have not.

LRinCA
07-23-2012, 02:22 PM
I get the impression that Spanier, the Paterno family, et al are forgetting what seems to be the very pertinent fact that Penn State ordered this investigation, paid for this investigation and presumably did so in an attempt to move forward from this horrific decade (plus) of coverup and abuse.

Again, it becomes obvious that so much of this was about money, egos, prestige and, of course, legacy.

The Penn State trustees opened up the university's extensive database to investigation by Louis Freeh and his associates. This was obviously necessary due to the years of subterfuge orchestrated by an elite inner-circle who thought they were well-shielded from scrutiny. I just posted on another thread "Spanier wants to be heard." Of course he does. Now. But he didn't want anyone else to be heard for all those years. Oh, the irony. How it must burn.

LRinCA
07-23-2012, 02:25 PM
Re: "a panicked response"

I would call what happened in 1998 and 2001 a set of panicked responses. The only difference being, at that time the first, second and third responders had the power to sweep it all under the rug. Now they don't. I simply cannot muster up even one nanoparticle of pity.

seattlechiquita
07-23-2012, 02:26 PM
God they're clueless.

OMG they need to SHUT THE FFFF UP!!! :maddening:

Mama-cita
07-23-2012, 02:27 PM
The Paterno family needs a public relations team stat! They put their foot in their mouth every time they open it!

J. J. in Phila
07-23-2012, 02:33 PM
I get the impression that Spanier, the Paterno family, et al are forgetting what seems to be the very pertinent fact that Penn State ordered this investigation, paid for this investigation and presumably did so in an attempt to move forward from this horrific decade (plus) of coverup and abuse.

Again, it becomes obvious that so much of this was about money, egos, prestige and, of course, legacy.

The Penn State trustees opened up the university's extensive database to investigation by Louis Freeh and his associates. This was obviously necessary due to the years of subterfuge orchestrated by an elite inner-circle who thought they were well-shielded from scrutiny. I just posted on another thread "Spanier wants to be heard." Of course he does. Now. But he didn't want anyone else to be heard for all those years. Oh, the irony. How it must burn.


I think he be heard at his hearing to remove his tenure and/or at his criminal trial.

cityslick
07-23-2012, 02:59 PM
Absolutely worse than a DP. This cripples the program for a long time, perhaps forever. The loss of scholarships is the major blow here. Operating with only 65 instead of 85 is really bad. Consider the fact that FCS schools (Div 1-A) only get 64 scholarships max.

I think the vacating of the wins is more of a footnote to JP's legacy. The vacating wins penalty seems to have more to do with JP than anything else.

I said before, there was never going to be a penalty that would be big enough to account for all that happened. But this at least sets things in the right direction. It ensures that for many years down the road, football will not be bigger than the university.

LNL
07-23-2012, 03:36 PM
NCAA's Mark Emmert establishes with Penn State sanctions that he's in charge like no one else

INDIANAPOLIS – Mark Emmert kicked ass and took names Monday. He also took bowl games, scholarships, tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of victories and any last illusion of purity away from Penn State.

After atomizing a program that used to operate under the self-congratulatory motto of "Success With Honor," the man who had just swung the biggest hammer in NCAA presidential history sat down with Yahoo! Sports for an exclusive interview in the association's headquarters. He said Penn State could have been hit harder.

Emmert told Y! Sports that a multi-year suspension of the football program was "vigorously discussed" with members of the Division I Board of Directors. Ultimately, Penn State's willingness to take its medicine – commissioning, accepting and making public the damaging Freeh Commission report, and accepting massive NCAA penalties without due process – helped save the school from a complete shutdown of football for a season or longer, Emmert said.

"The resolve demonstrated by Penn State to get past this was very important in people's minds," he said.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mark-emmert-ncaa-president-penn-state-sanctions-exclusive-interview-joe-paterno.html

BrownRice
07-23-2012, 04:26 PM
Paterno family accused the NCAA of acting to defame Paterno's legacy.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paterno_family_says_ncaa_s.html#incart_river_d efault

Lubrano outraged that he wasn't consulted.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/23/3269994/penn-state-trustee-lubrano-outraged.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

The Paterno family needs to shut the heck up and play dead. I'm sick of their continuing drivel.

costalpilot
07-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Agreed, coastalpilot! I cannot imagine the shock of PSU fans and am glad the University is being proactive. (Not a PSU fan but shocked nonetheless)

Sorry if you found my link offensive.

not at all. i was very glad to see it. it was the fist thing I have seen since this has happened that gave me any faith that psu was really contrite and really uderstood how much they needed to change. sorry if i confused you. i responded in a flurry. quite a day.:)

costalpilot
07-23-2012, 04:39 PM
The Paterno family needs to shut the heck up and play dead. I'm sick of their continuing drivel.

they are getting little publicity from THIS latest evidence of their incredible audAcity and stupidity.

noone much is buying theior sthick, except their own lawyers, who are gleefully stoking the fires. and why not. they are gonna be getting the paterno millions now.

waltzingmatilda
07-23-2012, 05:03 PM
not at all. i was very glad to see it. it was the fist thing I have seen since this has happened that gave me any faith that psu was really contrite and really uderstood how much they needed to change. sorry if i confused you. i responded in a flurry. quite a day.:)

Thanks for the reply coastalpilot! I am on information overload. Yes quite a day indeed!

I am sensitive to the emotions of our members must be going thru who are PSU fans, empolyees, students, alumnus, etc. I'm dunno if you are PSU or not but don't wish to type anything in haste that is hurtful.:blushing:

wm xo

Steely Dan
07-23-2012, 05:26 PM
Paterno family accused the NCAA of acting to defame Paterno's legacy.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paterno_family_says_ncaa_s.html#incart_river_d efault

Lubrano outraged that he wasn't consulted.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/23/3269994/penn-state-trustee-lubrano-outraged.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

I watched the press conference live this morning on ESPN. The NCAA spokesman said that the Freeh report was more in depth than any investigation that the NCAA has ever run.

I understand the Paterno's anger at this because it's their father, husband, uncle etc. and it's never easy to accept something like this about a close relative. Especially when that relative had been deified for forty years.

Obviously, IMO, the NCAA thinks JP had a big part in this cover up. The vacating of wins is a singular slap at Paterno and not much at all at Penn state. It takes 111 wins from JP's record and knocks him down from the winningest HC in NCAA history to the eighth winningest HC. IIRC, the Freeh report suggests that Paterno may have committed perjury in his GJ testimony last year.

The family has to put their emotions aside and look at the facts. It has to be extremely difficult to believe that your father facilitated the molestation of many kids, but apparently that's exactly what he did. JMO

Reader
07-23-2012, 07:09 PM
Here is the statement:

"The release of the Freeh report has triggered an avalanche of vitriol, condemnation and posthumous punishment on Joe Paterno. The NCAA has now become the latest party to accept the report as the final word on the Sandusky scandal. The sanctions announced by the NCAA today defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach and educator without any input from our family or those who knew him best.

"That the President, the Athletic Director and the Board of Trustees accepted this unprecedented action by the NCAA without requiring a full due process hearing before the Committee on Infractions is an abdication of their responsibilities and a breach of their fiduciary duties to the University and the 500,000 alumni. Punishing past, present and future students of the University because of Sandusky’s crimes does not serve justice. This is not a fair or thoughtful action; it is a panicked response to the public's understandable revulsion at what Sandusky did.

"The point of due process is to protect against this sort of reflexive action. Joe Paterno was never interviewed by the University or the Freeh Group. His counsel has not been able to interview key witnesses as they are represented by counsel related to ongoing litigation. We have had no access to the records reviewed by the Freeh group. The NCAA never contacted our family or our legal counsel. And the fact that several parties have pending trials that could produce evidence and testimony relevant to this matter has been totally discounted.

"Unfortunately all of these facts have been ignored by the NCAA, the Freeh Group and the University."

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paterno_family_says_ncaa_s.html#incart_river_d efault

My comment:

The President and Board run PSU, not the Paterno family. It is PSU, and not the Paterno family or Joe Paterno, that is being punished. It is PSU that gets to accept or challenge the punishment, not the Paterno family. It is PSU who made the decision to investigate, not the Paterno family. Based on that conclusions in that report, it is PSU who makes the decision not to challenge.

If the Paterno family wants to have a thorough investigation, they a perfectly free to finance one. If it is well researched, unbiased, and reaches a different conclusion, they are free to send it to the board. They have had six months to begin that process and, so far, they have not.

Thanks for the quote, J. J. and for the BBM, maybe the family doesn't want to admit it, but most of the public also has 'revulsion' for what Paterno did also in helping to cover up this abuse of children.

I just want to say I absolutely agree with your post. When will the family realize they do not run PSU anymore? The legacy is OVER folks so do us a favor and just quietly disappear please.

I wish there was some way the school could penalize them financially every time they issue one of these stupid comments since money seems to be the only thing they care about.

Reader
07-23-2012, 08:30 PM
Good round up on what the sanctions mean...posting for Bowden's quote:

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?ps=1013&rip_id=%3CDA06KUS82%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=19014094&src=most_popular_viewed&page=2

Excerpt:


By vacating 112 Penn State victories from 1998-2011, the sanctions cost Paterno 111 wins. Former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden will now hold the top spot in the NCAA record book with 377 major-college wins. Paterno, who was fired days after Sandusky was charged, will be credited with 298 wins. Vacated wins are not the same as forfeits — they don't count as losses or wins for either school.

"I didn't want it to happen like this," Bowden told the AP. "Wish I could have earned it, but that's the way it is."

gitana1
07-23-2012, 09:18 PM
4 yr postseason football ban....

taking reporters questions now

What does a post-season football ban mean?

Steely Dan
07-23-2012, 09:38 PM
What does a post-season football ban mean?

It means that Penn State cannot participate in any bowl games even if they qualify for one by record. This is a significant hit because bowl games can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and offer the university great publicity.

The scholarship loss isn't as bad as people think. I remember reading an article about how USC's scholarship loss through NCAA sanctions was meaningless. I looked for the article, but couldn't find it. I did find this article stating that seven new teams will be starting up in 2013 and they'll have 420 scholarships available. I seem to recall that USC also had 60 scholarships prior to their 20 lost. http://www.lindyssports.com/college-football-continues-to-grow-with-the-debut-of-five-more-teams-in-2012.php

When you consider that every team has 22 starters on their football teams it's not a big deal in the long run. They need to, IMO, take away all scholarships for a given time. (I'd suggest four years because that would be like a total reboot for the program.)

Steely Dan
07-23-2012, 09:42 PM
My bad. It's not hundreds of thousands. It's millions.

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?ps=1013&rip_id=%3CDA06KUS82%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=19014094&src=most_popular_viewed&page=2

...The Big Ten announced that Penn State would not be allowed to share in the conference's bowl revenue during the NCAA's postseason ban, an estimated loss of about $13 million. And the NCAA reserved the right to add additional penalties....

Steely Dan
07-23-2012, 09:49 PM
Oops! Here's another mistake I made. It's corrected by the same article as my post above; http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?ps=1013&rip_id=%3CDA06KUS82%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=19014094&src=most_popular_viewed&page=2

...The scholarship reductions mean Penn State's roster will be capped at 65 scholarship players beginning in 2014. The normal scholarship limit for major college football programs is 85. Playing with 20 less is devastating to a program that tries to compete at the highest level of the sport....

However, I still stick to my point that the loss of scholarships is meaningless. 65 scholarships when you have a 22 starter team is a drop in the bucket. JMO

ynotdivein
07-23-2012, 10:00 PM
Can one of our resident college sports analysts help clarify this for me? I took the Big Ten's separate announcement that Penn State will not share in the Bowl revenues to be a separate sanction from the NCAA's decision that they will not be allowed to play in any Bowl games, even if they qualify by record.

I took this to mean that all Big Ten teams take some share in revenues from Big Ten bowl games, whether they play in them or not. Is that correct?

raeann
07-23-2012, 10:23 PM
Can one of our resident college sports analysts help clarify this for me? I took the Big Ten's separate announcement that Penn State will not share in the Bowl revenues to be a separate sanction from the NCAA's decision that they will not be allowed to play in any Bowl games, even if they qualify by record.

I took this to mean that all Big Ten teams take some share in revenues from Big Ten bowl games, whether they play in them or not. Is that correct?

Yes, all of the conference schools receive a portion of the bowl revenues from whatever teams play bowls from that conference. By not allowing them to receive funds, the BIG 10 was basically paralleling the NCAA decision regarding bowls. I believe that money could have been redistributed to the other schools, but by allocating to charities, it keeps the Big 10 from appearing to "profit" by the Penn State sanctions.

BigCat
07-23-2012, 11:21 PM
Oops! Here's another mistake I made. It's corrected by the same article as my post above; http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?ps=1013&rip_id=%3CDA06KUS82%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=19014094&src=most_popular_viewed&page=2

...The scholarship reductions mean Penn State's roster will be capped at 65 scholarship players beginning in 2014. The normal scholarship limit for major college football programs is 85. Playing with 20 less is devastating to a program that tries to compete at the highest level of the sport....

However, I still stick to my point that the loss of scholarships is meaningless. 65 scholarships when you have a 22 starter team is a drop in the bucket. JMO

I have to disagree. The loss of scholarships will hurt Penn State BIG time. Will it hurt them enough? That's a a more difficult question. I'm only suggesting that it is a very substantial penalty. It will take Penn State a long time to recover, in my opinion.

Scholarship penalties could crush PSU

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53718/scholarship-penalties-could-crush-psu


A reasonable conclusion: Penn State football might not be back to normal in terms of its roster until the 2020 season or so.

IzzyBlanche
07-24-2012, 02:32 AM
Something was niggling around at the back of my mind today and it finally came to the forefront. It's from Rocky Horror Picture Show

[PSU], say goodbye to all this...

Audience: GOODBYE ALL THIS!

...and hello to...oblivion

Audience: HELLO OBLIVION! HOW'S THE WIFE AND KIDS?

I admit to schadenfreude at JP's disgrace. All his holier-than-thouness and media exaltation has rubbed me the wrong way for a long time.

However my gloating is vastly tempered by the knowledge of what JS's victims endured, and will continue to endure, for the rest of their lives. :(

cityslick
07-24-2012, 08:58 AM
I have to disagree. The loss of scholarships will hurt Penn State BIG time. Will it hurt them enough? That's a a more difficult question. I'm only suggesting that it is a very substantial penalty. It will take Penn State a long time to recover, in my opinion.

Scholarship penalties could crush PSU

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53718/scholarship-penalties-could-crush-psu

Look at it from a recruiting standpoint also. They were already hamstrung in recruiting due to public perception, reducing the scholarships and taking away the bowls put a huge dent in recruiting.

Ask yourself for at least four years, what is a kids motivation to play at Penn State now? What's the sell point when the coach comes into the living room of a potential recruit?

If Penn State played in a lesser conference like say Conference USA that I'd agree the scholarship aspect isn't as big of a deal but they play in the Big Ten, that's big boy football. They will not be able to compete with the teams in their conference with what they are are going to be able to field. That's not even getting into how many transfers they are going to have. They'll be lucky to compete against teams like Indiana and Northwestern.

Steely Dan
07-24-2012, 09:28 AM
Look at it from a recruiting standpoint also. They were already hamstrung in recruiting due to public perception, reducing the scholarships and taking away the bowls put a huge dent in recruiting.

Ask yourself for at least four years, what is a kids motivation to play at Penn State now? What's the sell point when the coach comes into the living room of a potential recruit?

If Penn State played in a lesser conference like say Conference USA that I'd agree the scholarship aspect isn't as big of a deal but they play in the Big Ten, that's big boy football. They will not be able to compete with the teams in their conference with what they are are going to be able to field. That's not even getting into how many transfers they are going to have. They'll be lucky to compete against teams like Indiana and Northwestern.

I still believe that the loss of scholarships isn't a big deal. However, I do agree that it will be a hard sell to convince a kid to go to Penn State. Until this fades into the shadows they'll have to be happy with the kids who don't get offers from any other school, and the kids of fanatical Penn State fans or alumni.

They will eventually get back on their feet.

wfgodot
07-24-2012, 02:29 PM
Can Penn State's hometown survive NCAA sanctions? (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBC_PENN_STATE_ABUSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-24-03-37-32) (AP)

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- Many in this leafy, vibrant college town nicknamed "Happy Valley" worry the temporary evisceration of Penn State's football program might inflict similar damage on a community that, for years, thrived as fans flocked to home games at the massive football stadium and a far-flung alumni base stayed connected by loyalty - and by checkbook.
---
in-depth article at link above

Rlaub44
07-24-2012, 05:20 PM
Wow wow wow. This is WORSE than the death penalty. Gives coaches and administers all over the country a loud, clear message: don't cover up for child rapists. It's so symbolic and poetic that they are vacating wins back to 1998, the first time Paterno and company could have stopped Jerry and didn't. The true irony is that the program Paterno worked so hard to build and protect (at the expense of those innocent little boys) is crumbling down because of his own inaction. I wish he would have lived to see it. He got off really easy...IMO

The strange thing is, the part I bolded is the one thing I do disagree with about the NCAA sanctions. In 1998, the Police department, the Department of Welfare, and the District Attorney investigated and gave Sandusky a pass. Vacating wins from 1998 through 2001, when Penn State officials decided to cover up Sandusky's crimes sends a strange message; that somehow the football program should be responsible for what the proper authorities didn't do.

Rlaub44
07-24-2012, 05:25 PM
You know, yesterday thinking about this. I thought there was no way that it will be close to being a fair or just punishment. I wanted the dp. But honestly, that's to good for them.

See to these guys, its always been about football. So basic. A game. A sport. I had over thought this to the highest level, hoping, praying I would/could understand. And I finally got it.

It wasn't such the building of a man into a god,it was about a game. A silly game. To be dp'ed for a year and then to be right back at where they were in the game...it was to good for them.

I still think no punishment could be severe enough, but, I'm actually feeling OK about it. Hit them where it will hurt them. The next 5 years will be horrible for that program. Take their power. Make them feel small and insignificant.

Note: I know in the grand scheme of it how I feel doesn't matter in the least. I just pray that when those courageous victims see this coverage, they are feeling some sort of peace.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Victim 4's attorney wishes the NCAA/PSU had consulted the victims; he isn't sure this is what his client would want.

http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna-valley/state/Victim-No-4-s-attorney-talks-about-PSU-sanctions/-/9758860/15655368/-/t4e8fgz/-/index.html

BigCat
07-24-2012, 06:52 PM
The strange thing is, the part I bolded is the one thing I do disagree with about the NCAA sanctions. In 1998, the Police department, the Department of Welfare, and the District Attorney investigated and gave Sandusky a pass. Vacating wins from 1998 through 2001, when Penn State officials decided to cover up Sandusky's crimes sends a strange message; that somehow the football program should be responsible for what the proper authorities didn't do.

I'm on the complete opposite side. I think vacating the wins back to 1998 was the most important part of the punishment. It sent the message to every university in the nation that just because local law enforcement clears one of your players or coaches of criminal wrongdoing, that does mean you are in the clear. Freeh stressed, in his press conference, that the least Paterno could have done was notifiy his staff and keep a watchful eye on Sandusky. Instead, he said nothing. In fact, JP didn't even force him to resign (I was sure he did. I guess I gave him too much credit). Instead, he said Sandusky could coach as long as he wanted or take a golden parachute and continue to bring kids on campus.

Also, Sandusky was allowed to take victim 4 to bowl games AFTER the 1998 incident. Inexcusable. It does not matter that the local, elected official did not press charges against Sandusky. He may have had his own reasons for not wanting to pursue the matter. It's more important that the university's own investigator recommended pressing charges. The university had an obligation to protect children, or at the very least to prevent children from being assaulted on campus or at university sponsored events.

I'm passionate about this issue because I have some understanding of the pressure on LE to do no harm to the local football team. You are absolutely correct to point out that it's a strange world when local communities place football players and coaches above the law. But it happens. The NCAA had to send a message.

JMO

Steely Dan
07-24-2012, 07:12 PM
I think this shows how former players are struggling with JP's public and locker room image with the stuff coming out now.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article962169.ece?twobillsdrive

Scott admits he'd think twice
By Nick Veronica
News Sports Reporter

...The inner conflict of learning what Paterno really was hasn't been easy for him. Paterno was an idol.

"For a while, I was struggling with separating the message from the messenger," Scott said. "It's kind of hard, because he's close to me and meant so much to me, but obviously, he dropped the ball....

Reader
07-24-2012, 08:55 PM
I'm on the complete opposite side. I think vacating the wins back to 1998 was the most important part of the punishment. It sent the message to every university in the nation that just because local law enforcement clears one of your players or coaches of criminal wrongdoing, that does mean you are in the clear. Freeh stressed, in his press conference, that the least Paterno could have done was notifiy his staff and keep a watchful eye on Sandusky. Instead, he said nothing. In fact, JP didn't even force him to resign (I was sure he did. I guess I gave him too much credit). Instead, he said Sandusky could coach as long as he wanted or take a golden parachute and continue to bring kids on campus.

Also, Sandusky was allowed to take victim 4 to bowl games AFTER the 1998 incident. Inexcusable. It does not matter that the local, elected official did not press charges against Sandusky. He may have had his own reasons for not wanting to pursue the matter. It's more important that the university's own investigator recommended pressing charges. The university had an obligation to protect children, or at the very least to prevent children from being assaulted on campus or at university sponsored events.

I'm passionate about this issue because I have some understanding of the pressure on LE to do no harm to the local football team. You are absolutely correct to point out that it's a strange world when local communities place football players and coaches above the law. But it happens. The NCAA had to send a message.

JMO

Thanks was not enough, BigCat! This is what I've been trying to say in a couple of posts but you got it across so much better!

Rlaub44
07-24-2012, 09:05 PM
I'm on the complete opposite side. I think vacating the wins back to 1998 was the most important part of the punishment. It sent the message to every university in the nation that just because local law enforcement clears one of your players or coaches of criminal wrongdoing, that does mean you are in the clear. Freeh stressed, in his press conference, that the least Paterno could have done was notifiy his staff and keep a watchful eye on Sandusky. Instead, he said nothing. In fact, JP didn't even force him to resign (I was sure he did. I guess I gave him too much credit). Instead, he said Sandusky could coach as long as he wanted or take a golden parachute and continue to bring kids on campus.

Also, Sandusky was allowed to take victim 4 to bowl games AFTER the 1998 incident. Inexcusable. It does not matter that the local, elected official did not press charges against Sandusky. He may have had his own reasons for not wanting to pursue the matter. It's more important that the university's own investigator recommended pressing charges. The university had an obligation to protect children, or at the very least to prevent children from being assaulted on campus or at university sponsored events.

I'm passionate about this issue because I have some understanding of the pressure on LE to do no harm to the local football team. You are absolutely correct to point out that it's a strange world when local communities place football players and coaches above the law. But it happens. The NCAA had to send a message.

JMO

I appreciate the opportunity to read different opinions here, but this surprises me. I've had trouble understanding why so many people blame PSU officials for 1998.

Somehow, Sandusky convinced experienced LE officers, a respected DA, the state's Child Abuse investigator, and one of the two therapists that met with the child that he had done nothing more wrong than using poor judgment. And yet Judge Freeh felt that Paterno should have recognized that the experts were wrong, and that he should defame Sandusky with only his suspicions.

Of course, knowing what we know now, he would have been right to, but I still think going back to 98 to vacate the wins sends the wrong message, because it takes the emphasis away from 2001, which is when the Gang of Four made the real mistake, and of course they continued that up until the end, but IMO, Penn State shouldn't be held responsible for not taking action in 98.

As to your last sentence, I do agree that the NCAA had to send a message, but I feel including 1998-2000 in the sanctions makes it appear like a knee-jerk punishment, and to me, it's the one aspect of the sanctions that is hard to justify the rationale for, again in my opinion.

J. J. in Phila
07-24-2012, 09:15 PM
The strange thing is, the part I bolded is the one thing I do disagree with about the NCAA sanctions. In 1998, the Police department, the Department of Welfare, and the District Attorney investigated and gave Sandusky a pass. Vacating wins from 1998 through 2001, when Penn State officials decided to cover up Sandusky's crimes sends a strange message; that somehow the football program should be responsible for what the proper authorities didn't do.

I have to agree, though I think it makes little difference.

This wasn't a cover up by Penn State, so far as we know. There was no effort to interfere in the police investigation; the report was called thorough. Outside agencies made the decision, and there is no evidence anyone at Penn State influenced that decision.

However, I will add a caveat. If DPW or the DA's Office approached Penn State and suggested that there could be a problem, and that advice was ignored, I would agree.

I am troubled by the 10/13/98 meeting and I would not rule out the possibility of a warning.

Rlaub44
07-24-2012, 09:30 PM
I have to agree, though I think it makes little difference.

This wasn't a cover up by Penn State, so far as we know. There was no effort to interfere in the police investigation; the report was called thorough. Outside agencies made the decision, and there is no evidence anyone at Penn State influenced that decision.

However, I will add a caveat. If DPW or the DA's Office approached Penn State and suggested that there could be a problem, and that advice was ignored, I would agree.

I am troubled by the 10/13/98 meeting and I would not rule out the possibility of a warning.

But why meet with Ganter, if the warning was meant for Paterno? The only reason I can think of for a meeting with Ganter would be investigative. Did he contact them with his own concerns? Another of the mysteries left in the notes of the police report.

Rlaub44
07-24-2012, 09:33 PM
This column covers something I was thinking about earlier today: Tim Curley.

The only man who can truly unravel this sordid, surreal story now has a chance to do the right thing. To give abused children and their families closure; to give his university an understanding of the power of the few; to give the Paterno family a clear vision of their once-iconic patriarch’s utter failure in the biggest moment of his life.
To tell the ugly, unmentionable truth once and for all—prison be damned.
It’s all on Tim Curley’s shoulders now.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-07-23/penn-state-ncaa-penalties-sanctions-tim-curley-joe-paterno-spanier-schultz

IzzyBlanche
07-24-2012, 10:11 PM
I'm on the complete opposite side. I think vacating the wins back to 1998 was the most important part of the punishment. It sent the message to every university in the nation that just because local law enforcement clears one of your players or coaches of criminal wrongdoing, that does mean you are in the clear. Freeh stressed, in his press conference, that the least Paterno could have done was notifiy his staff and keep a watchful eye on Sandusky. Instead, he said nothing. In fact, JP didn't even force him to resign (I was sure he did. I guess I gave him too much credit). Instead, he said Sandusky could coach as long as he wanted or take a golden parachute and continue to bring kids on campus.

Also, Sandusky was allowed to take victim 4 to bowl games AFTER the 1998 incident. Inexcusable. It does not matter that the local, elected official did not press charges against Sandusky. He may have had his own reasons for not wanting to pursue the matter. It's more important that the university's own investigator recommended pressing charges. The university had an obligation to protect children, or at the very least to prevent children from being assaulted on campus or at university sponsored events.

I'm passionate about this issue because I have some understanding of the pressure on LE to do no harm to the local football team. You are absolutely correct to point out that it's a strange world when local communities place football players and coaches above the law. But it happens. The NCAA had to send a message.

JMO

BBM.

I totally agree and I don't understand why these points which have been made repeatedly, not only by you, are also repeatedly ignored. :waitasec:

BigCat
07-24-2012, 10:25 PM
But why meet with Ganter, if the warning was meant for Paterno? The only reason I can think of for a meeting with Ganter would be investigative. Did he contact them with his own concerns? Another of the mysteries left in the notes of the police report.

Perhaps Ganter was the man to see if someone wanted to get a message to Paterno. It was Ganter who delivered the phone number from the BOT to Paterno on the night he was relieved of his coaching duties.

IzzyBlanche
07-24-2012, 10:47 PM
I appreciate the opportunity to read different opinions here, but this surprises me. I've had trouble understanding why so many people blame PSU officials for 1998.

Somehow, Sandusky convinced experienced LE officers, a respected DA, the state's Child Abuse investigator, and one of the two therapists that met with the child that he had done nothing more wrong than using poor judgment. And yet Judge Freeh felt that Paterno should have recognized that the experts were wrong, and that he should defame Sandusky with only his suspicions.

Of course, knowing what we know now, he would have been right to, but I still think going back to 98 to vacate the wins sends the wrong message, because it takes the emphasis away from 2001, which is when the Gang of Four made the real mistake, and of course they continued that up until the end, but IMO, Penn State shouldn't be held responsible for not taking action in 98.

As to your last sentence, I do agree that the NCAA had to send a message, but I feel including 1998-2000 in the sanctions makes it appear like a knee-jerk punishment, and to me, it's the one aspect of the sanctions that is hard to justify the rationale for, again in my opinion.

BBM for focus.

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but the investigating officer did think there was enough evidence to charge Sandusky with a crime, and the other therapist, the one not affiliated with PSU, believed Sandusky fit the profile of a pedophile.

I don't think I've seen anyone blame PSU for 1998. It's what PSU did after that is the problem.

Maybe I can clarify with the rhetorical "you" in a theoretical scenario?

Say you have a young son that you allow to spend a lot of time with a grown man that you believe is a valuable mentor and father figure to your son.

Then you find out that authorities have investigated that man for possible sexual behavior with another young boy, even though nothing came of it and no charges were filed.

Would you continue to let your son spend time with that man unsupervised by you on the basis that since the authorities didn't press charges, everything must be A-OK?

Now take it one degree of separation. You don't find out yourself that this man has been investigated for this possible crime, but you do find out that this man's employers knew, yet did nothing to alert you or the organization through which this man met your son that this investigation had taken place.

When pressed why not, their answer is well, the authorities didn't find anything so we figured your son was still perfectly safe with him. And we didn't want to defame the man by telling anyone because after all, no charges were filed.

That's what PSU essentially did. If you think that was acceptable behavior on their part, then I do understand why you think the NCAA vacating wins back to 1998 is uncalled for.

Rlaub44
07-24-2012, 10:51 PM
BBM.

I totally agree and I don't understand why these points which have been made repeatedly, not only by you, are also repeatedly ignored. :waitasec:

I promise I am not ignoring the points; we all have our own opinions on things, and I believe discussion is healthy. I have read and listened to everything I can get my hands on regarding this case, including the Freeh report cover to cover, so my opinions aren't from a position of ignorance.

It can be difficult to not be in the majority here, but I think I have been respectful in sharing my viewpoints. If my facts are wrong, hopefully someone will point it out to me, but not everything is so black and white.

I love Websleuths for everything I can learn here from others, and for what everyone brings to the table. It would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed all of the time.

Big Cat made his/her point very well, but I just see it differently. That's OK. I'd share more about why I feel that way, but I'm afraid some won't want to read it, so I'll let it at that.

Reader
07-24-2012, 10:51 PM
Penn State loses one sponsor, others could follow

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19016023&ps=1013&srce=news_class&action=5&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_SHNWU00L5_UNEWS

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) — State Farm is pulling its ads from Penn State football broadcasts, while General Motors is reconsidering its sponsorship deal and Wall Street is threatening to downgrade the school's credit rating, suggesting the price of the sexual abuse scandal could go well beyond the $60million fine and other penalties imposed by the NCAA.

Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm said it had been reviewing its connection to Penn State since the arrest of retired assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky last November. The insurance company said it will pull ads from broadcasts of Nittany Lions home games but continue to advertise during Penn State's away contests.

"We will not directly support Penn State football this year," State Farm spokesman Dave Phillips said Tuesday. "We just feel it was the best decision."..............

With Penn State's once-sterling reputation in tatters, the university could face an exodus of sponsors unwilling to have their brands linked to scandal, said Kevin Adler, founder of Chicago-based Engage Marketing Inc.

Adler said he would advise current sponsors to pull out of their deals with Penn State, adding that most contracts have morality clauses giving advertisers an out.

More at link.....

Rlaub44
07-24-2012, 11:09 PM
BBM for focus.

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but the investigating officer did think there was enough evidence to charge Sandusky with a crime, and the other therapist, the one not affiliated with PSU, believed Sandusky fit the profile of a pedophile.

I don't think I've seen anyone blame PSU for 1998. It's what PSU did after that is the problem.

Maybe I can clarify with the rhetorical "you" in a theoretical scenario?

Say you have a young son that you allow to spend a lot of time with a grown man that you believe is a valuable mentor and father figure to your son.

Then you find out that authorities have investigated that man for possible sexual behavior with another young boy, even though nothing came of it and no charges were filed.

Would you continue to let your son spend time with that man unsupervised by you on the basis that since the authorities didn't press charges, everything must be A-OK?

Now take it one degree of separation. You don't find out yourself that this man has been investigated for this possible crime, but you do find out that this man's employers knew, yet did nothing to alert you or the organization through which this man met your son that this investigation had taken place.

When pressed why not, their answer is well, the authorities didn't find anything so we figured your son was still perfectly safe with him. And we didn't want to defame the man by telling anyone because after all, no charges were filed.

That's what PSU essentially did. If you think that was acceptable behavior on their part, then I do understand why you think the NCAA vacating wins back to 1998 is uncalled for.

Thanks for your input. Let me offer a scenario that I think explains my view. Suppose I am a teacher, and I am accused of child abuse. After a thorough investigation by CYS, the police, and even the District Attorney, I am told to be more aware of how my actions might appear (as when they suggested Sandusky stop showering with boys), but otherwise cleared.

How should my employer respond? If they take action to remove me, or warn parents that I have been investigated, I have a golden opportunity for lawsuits.

Again, we know that Sandusky was guilty of wrongdoing at that time, but there was no legal basis for that certainty back in 1998. If we begin taking actions against everyone who has ever been accused of wrongdoing before due process, there will be a lot of innocent people fired, defamed, etc.

Should the man in your example now expect punitive action to be taken against the Centre County District Attorney's office, the PA Dept of Welfare, the University Park Police? Because just as PSU did, they didn't take any action against him in 98, and we now know that there was reason to. Those agencies failed to protect his son, yet everyone seems to accept that, well, they just didn't have enough evidence at the time.

So they didn't have enough evidence, but Penn State should have. That is kind of why I disagree with the punishment for 1998-2000.

Reader
07-24-2012, 11:33 PM
Worrying about Penn State's records, reputation, recruits an insult to real victims

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-07-24/penn-state-sanctions-ncaa-records-recruits-paterno-sandusky-victims

We still have a problem figuring out who the victims are at Penn State. Who to blame and who to absolve. And we still have a problem figuring out exactly where football belongs.

That remains obvious the more we obsess over Joe Paterno’s win total, the players left behind at a detonated program and the future recruits they won’t get, and the “zero” win totals of 14 years’ worth of Penn State players.................

Speaking of killing the messenger, it’s time to start pointing the finger at the real perpetrators of the past, present and future wreckage of the Penn State program. Not at the NCAA for erasing all those Paterno wins, denying future prospects scholarships and making the lives of current players so chaotic.

Point it at Paterno, Jerry Sandusky, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and everybody who helped enable the enablers—all the people who didn’t care about the enormous consequences of their actions.

In the positions of authority they held and willingly accepted, they were obligated to protect the rights of all the students. They chose to protect themselves instead, and couldn’t have cared less about the damage their actions would do to current students and future generations................

Reader
07-24-2012, 11:57 PM
Thanks for your input. Let me offer a scenario that I think explains my view. Suppose I am a teacher, and I am accused of child abuse. After a thorough investigation by CYS, the police, and even the District Attorney, I am told to be more aware of how my actions might appear (as when they suggested Sandusky stop showering with boys), but otherwise cleared.

How should my employer respond? If they take action to remove me, or warn parents that I have been investigated, I have a golden opportunity for lawsuits.

Again, we know that Sandusky was guilty of wrongdoing at that time, but there was no legal basis for that certainty back in 1998. If we begin taking actions against everyone who has ever been accused of wrongdoing before due process, there will be a lot of innocent people fired, defamed, etc.

Should the man in your example now expect punitive action to be taken against the Centre County District Attorney's office, the PA Dept of Welfare, the University Park Police? Because just as PSU did, they didn't take any action against him in 98, and we now know that there was reason to. Those agencies failed to protect his son, yet everyone seems to accept that, well, they just didn't have enough evidence at the time.

So they didn't have enough evidence, but Penn State should have. That is kind of why I disagree with the punishment for 1998-2000.

It's not completely a legal matter...it's also a moral and ethical matter.

Yes, Penn State and Paterno in particular should have taken action in 1998 since he was Sandusky's direct supervisor, by forbidding him to bring any more children into the football facilities.

Even though charges were not made by the other agencies, with the knowledge he had about what JS had done with the boys, and the fact JS admitted that it was wrong and promised not to do it again, it was Paterno's responsibility to make sure JS kept his word, to protect additional children and the university's reputation in the workplace and during work-related activities.

The big mystery is why these BMOC were so scared or reluctant to face JS and penalize him for the problems he had caused at his workplace. They instead ended up rewarding him?? Something is not right about that, IMO...

Reader
07-25-2012, 12:02 AM
This column covers something I was thinking about earlier today: Tim Curley.

The only man who can truly unravel this sordid, surreal story now has a chance to do the right thing. To give abused children and their families closure; to give his university an understanding of the power of the few; to give the Paterno family a clear vision of their once-iconic patriarch’s utter failure in the biggest moment of his life.
To tell the ugly, unmentionable truth once and for all—prison be damned.
It’s all on Tim Curley’s shoulders now.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-07-23/penn-state-ncaa-penalties-sanctions-tim-curley-joe-paterno-spanier-schultz


Good article...I hope you don't mind if I post it in the new Curley thread also, TIA....

IzzyBlanche
07-25-2012, 12:05 AM
Thanks for your input. Let me offer a scenario that I think explains my view. Suppose I am a teacher, and I am accused of child abuse. After a thorough investigation by CYS, the police, and even the District Attorney, I am told to be more aware of how my actions might appear (as when they suggested Sandusky stop showering with boys), but otherwise cleared.

1* How should my employer respond? 2** If they take action to remove me, or warn parents that I have been investigated, I have a golden opportunity for lawsuits.

Again, we know that Sandusky was guilty of wrongdoing at that time, but there was no legal basis for that certainty back in 1998. If we begin taking actions against everyone who has ever been accused of wrongdoing before due process, there will be a lot of innocent people fired, defamed, etc.

Should the man in your example now expect punitive action to be taken against the Centre County District Attorney's office, the PA Dept of Welfare, the University Park Police? Because just as PSU did, they didn't take any action against him in 98, and we now know that there was reason to. Those agencies failed to protect his son, yet everyone seems to accept that, well, they just didn't have enough evidence at the time.

3***So they didn't have enough evidence, but Penn State should have. That is kind of why I disagree with the punishment for 1998-2000.

BBM and numbered for easy reference LOL

1* At minimum. Make darned sure you never shower with kids again using the school's facilities. Period.

2** You're right, your employer removing you when you have not been charged with a crime provides lawsuit opportunity. At the same time, however, although I am not a lawyer I believe there is a legal concept that "the truth is a defense." So I think your employer would be well within their rights to inform parents that you were investigated for this and no charges were filed (which is, by the way, not the same thing as being cleared). That is the truth, and therefore protection against any lawsuits you might choose to levy against them.

Also from your employer's standpoint, it is far more prudent to try to avoid lawsuits from parents for not having informed them, should you go on to molest one or more of their children, than to try to avoid a lawsuit from you for having informed them. As I expect PSU will find out.

3** PSU may not have had enough evidence to take action against JS, but at the very least, as the Freeh report concluded, they could have alerted PSU staff to keep an eye out when he brought young boys onto the campus, just in case. "Probably nothing, but still...just keep an eye out." Just as, I'm positive, your theoretical employer would have alerted your coworkers to do as well in the absence of legal grounds to sack you.

Thank you for the civilized dialogue. :seeya:

IzzyBlanche
07-25-2012, 12:23 AM
A bit O/T but I read somewhere that PSU's last win, because all the others since then have been vacated, was led by Mike McQueary at quarterback.

Now that's what you'd call ironic. [/Pirates of the Caribbean]

J. J. in Phila
07-25-2012, 12:41 AM
It's not completely a legal matter...it's also a moral and ethical matter.

Yes, Penn State and Paterno in particular should have taken action in 1998 since he was Sandusky's direct supervisor, by forbidding him to bring any more children into the football facilities.


Well, I'm going to try to put this in context.

In 1998, everyone at Penn State knew who the DA was. They also "knew," looking at his record, that he prosecuted weak cases, even to the point of having a judge toss the charges at the preliminary hearing. I can easily understand anyone at Penn State in 1998 thinking: Ray Gricar is a tough prosecutor who'll prosecute at the drop of a hat. If there was anything criminal, he'd prosecute it. There must not be anything wrong.

I can understand anyone at Penn State thinking: DPW is a big, nonpartisan, agency, filled with experts. If they didn't think there was any abuse, there wasn't any.

If you look at the internal emails and the police report, everyone thought DPW brought in a psychologist. They also probably didn't know about the Chambers' report. I can understand anyone at Penn State thinking: DPW brought in a psychologist, who must know what he's doing. He didn't find anything. Ole Jer must be fine.

We know today that Gricar's decision was so bad that there is a call for it to be investigated by a special prosecutor. Lauro's investigation was worse than Gricar's. Seasock was not a licensed psychologist at the time, and did not have a doctorate. The gang of four didn't know these things.



The big mystery is why these BMOC were so scared or reluctant to face JS and penalize him for the problems he had caused at his workplace. They instead ended up rewarding him?? Something is not right about that, IMO...

Why didn't they report the 2001 incident?

Reader
07-25-2012, 12:49 AM
From this link I posted earlier, the NCAA's reason for their decision:

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19014736&ps=1013&cat=&cps=0&lang=en&page=1



By throwing out all Penn State victories from 1998 to 2011, the NCAA stripped Paterno of the top spot in the record book. The governing body went all the way back to 1998 because, according to the investigative report, that is the year Paterno and other Penn State officials first learned of an allegation against Sandusky.

Reader
07-25-2012, 01:37 AM
Well, I'm going to try to put this in context.

In 1998, everyone at Penn State knew who the DA was. They also "knew," looking at his record, that he prosecuted weak cases, even to the point of having a judge toss the charges at the preliminary hearing. I can easily understand anyone at Penn State in 1998 thinking: Ray Gricar is a tough prosecutor who'll prosecute at the drop of a hat. If there was anything criminal, he'd prosecute it. There must not be anything wrong.

I can understand anyone at Penn State thinking: DPW is a big, nonpartisan, agency, filled with experts. If they didn't think there was any abuse, there wasn't any.

If you look at the internal emails and the police report, everyone thought DPW brought in a psychologist. They also probably didn't know about the Chambers' report. I can understand anyone at Penn State thinking: DPW brought in a psychologist, who must know what he's doing. He didn't find anything. Ole Jer must be fine.

We know today that Gricar's decision was so bad that there is a call for it to be investigated by a special prosecutor. Lauro's investigation was worse than Gricar's. Seasock was not a licensed psychologist at the time, and did not have a doctorate. The gang of four didn't know these things.

Why didn't they report the 2001 incident?

All true points, J. J. but still concerned with the legal issues involved and the big 4 seeking cover from the other agencies, in spite of what they themselves knew, and not taking the moral and ethical steps available to protect other children, themselves and the school.

I still say that as his direct supervisor, with the findings from the other agencies, Paterno knew or could have known if he wanted:

JS had showered with 2 unrelated boys after hours when no one else was present...

JS had insisted the boys shower next to him instead of their own shower.....

JS had soaped the boys himself and made a comment about squeezing their guts out...

JS had picked the boys up to hold under the shower in close contact with his body...

JS had made the boys very uncomfortable with his actions....

The parent of the one boy made a police complaint and wanted charges to be filed....

JS told this parent he knew it was wrong and promised to never do it again...

The investigator wanted to make a charge....

JS told the investigator and DPW worker he would not do this again...

All highly inappropriate actions with an unrelated minor child that took place in his workplace.

Therefore, as his direct supervisor Paterno had the right and obligation to his own employer to set rules for JS so such a situation would not reoccur and put the school in danger of more complaints, charges or suits by parents...
Paterno did not need a legal backup from any of those other agencies to require this of JS..all he needed was the power and responsibility he had as a supervisor and a care for children not to be treated inappropriately or even be abused in the workplace.

2001? Freeh found it was to protect the football program from bad publicity...I also personally think it was because they knew it would tie back to 1998 and THEY would look bad for not preventing JS from bringing children to the school and functions and trips for all those years in between, which is how it has turned out..

IzzyBlanche
07-25-2012, 01:41 AM
Interesting fallout WRT current/future PSU players:

From link:

It was an unprecedented step that has set off a flurry of activity among coaches from other teams, who are calling Penn State players and recruits, and those close to them, to gauge their interest in transferring or rescinding their commitments to the Nittany Lions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/sports/ncaafootball/for-penn-state-players-and-recruits-rush-is-on.html

IzzyBlanche
07-25-2012, 01:56 AM
JS told this parent he knew it was wrong and promised to never do it again...

You forgot to mention too (no criticism intended), that he also told the parent he wished he could be forgiven but knew it wouldn't be coming from that quarter, and that he wished he was dead.




2001? Freeh found it was to protect the football program from bad publicity...I also personally think it was because they knew it would tie back to 1998 and THEY would look bad for not preventing JS from bringing children to the school and functions and trips for all those years in between, which is how it has turned out..

BBM. Absolutely. The public at large--at least outside Happy Valley--would never buy that they had to give JS the benefit of the doubt because he hadn't been charged, instead of erring on the side of caution to protect his potential victims.

costalpilot
07-25-2012, 02:21 AM
a LOT of the sports media nationally do not approve of the 2A's penalties against psu.

I have listened with dismay at the negative reaction for the last two days.

I wondered why?

then I realized: these penalties and the unusual process the 2A used to arrive at them actually threaten KING FOOTBALL in america. at least in so far as they are unprecedented. ( not to mention that psu is a major player ).

and this reality: a large portion of sports media types paychecks are attributable to the popularity of KING FOOTBALL.

Dont mess with KING FOOTBALL. Thats the reality behind the criticism, but of course they arent saying that. they dont even know.

imo.

J. J. in Phila
07-25-2012, 08:16 AM
All true points, J. J. but still concerned with the legal issues involved and the big 4 seeking cover from the other agencies, in spite of what they themselves knew, and not taking the moral and ethical steps available to protect other children, themselves and the school.


Okay, first, the Big 4 did not "seek" cover. This was reported to both DPW and the DA's Office before they knew about it.



I still say that as his direct supervisor, with the findings from the other agencies, Paterno knew or could have known if he wanted:


These were there findings that the Big 4 were faced with in 1998.

DPW had three choices for findings, founded, indicated, or unfounded. "Founded" would mean that DPW thought that Sandusky abused a child. This required a lower standard than a criminal prosecution. "Indicated" means, in effect, that maybe something happened, but they really couldn't be sure. Both of these would have landed Sandusky on a child abuse list.

DPW determined that the the charge was "unfounded," beaning that nothing happened, not even a maybe answer. This finding was reached after a "psychologist," supposedly an expert, said nothing happened.

Then we move to the DA's Office. A hard charging DA, who never cut Penn State a break, looked at the case and said, no charges. In this case, Gricar was known to the Big 4, and frankly to Schreffler, and respected.

If, not being an expert in child abuse, I was faced with that, I'd reach the conclusion that nothing happened, that whatever Sandusky did, it wasn't abuse or perversion.

[And I will concede the possibility that Gricar warned Penn State that something was wrong. Even then, he didn't further investigate, nor keep an eye on Sandusky.]



2001? Freeh found it was to protect the football program from bad publicity...I also personally think it was because they knew it would tie back to 1998 and THEY would look bad for not preventing JS from bringing children to the school and functions and trips for all those years in between, which is how it has turned out..

2001 is different. The Big Four wouldn't look bad if they had reported 2001 and even said, **There was this thing in 2001, though Sandusky was cleared,** and given them a copy of their files. DPW and the DA's Office would have looked bad.

cityslick
07-25-2012, 09:50 AM
a LOT of the sports media nationally do not approve of the 2A's penalties against psu.

I have listened with dismay at the negative reaction for the last two days.

I wondered why?

then I realized: these penalties and the unusual process the 2A used to arrive at them actually threaten KING FOOTBALL in america. at least in so far as they are unprecedented. ( not to mention that psu is a major player ).

and this reality: a large portion of sports media types paychecks are attributable to the popularity of KING FOOTBALL.

Dont mess with KING FOOTBALL. Thats the reality behind the criticism, but of course they arent saying that. they dont even know.

imo.

I've seen some commentary yesterday by more than one lawyer who now say that a majority of these penalties are (or would be) outright illegal and Penn State would of had a very strong case of fighting it in court if they had not signed the document agreeing with them. Once they signed off on the penalties they are valid whether they were initially illegal or not.

I saw another interview with one of the Penn State presidents who also said it was a take it or suffer worse since there was talk of a multiple year death penalty on the table as well. I never agreed that they should of gotten the DP. A DP not only cripples Penn State in multiple ways, it also cripples State College which I wouldn't think is fair.

costalpilot
07-25-2012, 09:57 AM
a LOT of the sports media nationally do not approve of the 2A's penalties against psu.

I have listened with dismay at the negative reaction for the last two days.

I wondered why?

then I realized: these penalties and the unusual process the 2A used to arrive at them actually threaten KING FOOTBALL in america. at least in so far as they are unprecedented. ( not to mention that psu is a major player ).

and this reality: a large portion of sports media types paychecks are attributable to the popularity of KING FOOTBALL.

Dont mess with KING FOOTBALL. Thats the reality behind the criticism, but of course they arent saying that. they dont even know.

imo.

this morning Frank Deford was on the mike and mike show, the premire espn national sports talk show. deford is a long time sports writer and has written some of the best sports articles in the genre. He was despomdent in his criitique of KING FOOTBALL, indicating that it is out of the control of the universities who it is supposed to compliment and represent and serve. the tail wagging the dog. what was interesting was the response of M n M ; both grew noticeably reserved and extremely careful about their questions and their responses. Both M n M have spent the last two days nit picking the 2A for its unprecedented power play against KING FOOTBALL. they sat there in the exact same pose, their chins were supported by their right hands, which seemed a visual display of what they were going thru. it seemed to me they couldnt really respond to Deford the way they really wanted to, and they were stiffling their emotions.

they said goodbye to Deford and brought on the new head coach at penn state and spent the next 15 minutes feeling sorry for the innocent new coach and all the innocent new players.

all this cheered M n M up considerably and by the end of Bill Obriens interview the talk show hosts were back to normal and indicated that Obrien would be on ESPN all day, doing the national shows.

and so it goes. we are penn state.

cityslick
07-25-2012, 10:02 AM
this morning Frank Deford was on the mike and mike show, the premire espn national sports talk show. deford is a long time sports writer and has written some of the best sports articles in the genre. He was despomdent in his criitique of KING FOOTBALL, indicating that it is out of the control of the universities who it is supposed to compliment and represent and serve. the tail wagging the dog. what was interesting was the response of M n M ; both grew noticeably reserved and extremely careful about their questions and their responses. Both M n M have spent the last two days nit picking the 2A for its unprecedented power play against KING FOOTBALL. they sat there in the exact same pose, their chins were supported by their right hands, which seemed a visual display of what they were going thru. it seemed to me they couldnt really respond to Deford the way they really wanted to, and they were stiffling their emotions.

they said goodbye to Deford and brought on the new head coach at penn state and spent the next 15 minutes feeling sorry for the innocent new coach and all the innocent new players.

all this cheered M n M up considerably and by the end of Bill Obriens interview the talk show hosts were back to normal and indicated that Obrien would be on ESPN all day, doing the national shows.

and so it goes. we are penn state.

I actually agree with the penalties, but I don't think the current staff or players are guilty of anything or are responsible for anything that's happened. Do you think different?

J. J. in Phila
07-25-2012, 10:51 AM
I've seen some commentary yesterday by more than one lawyer who now say that a majority of these penalties are (or would be) outright illegal and Penn State would of had a very strong case of fighting it in court if they had not signed the document agreeing with them. Once they signed off on the penalties they are valid whether they were initially illegal or not.

I'd like to see that commentary. It appears to have followed the rules, at least at first blush.


I saw another interview with one of the Penn State presidents who also said it was a take it or suffer worse since there was talk of a multiple year death penalty on the table as well. I never agreed that they should of gotten the DP. A DP not only cripples Penn State in multiple ways, it also cripples State College which I wouldn't think is fair.

Well, it does sound like a plea bargain, but there could have been worse penalties that could have crippled Penn State Football into the mid 2020's. And yes, that probably would have severely damaged State College, Centre County, and Central Pennsylvania, abet to a lesser degree as the distances become greater.

A lot of alumni/fans attend the games as an event. It is an excuse to party. The score won't make a huge difference. Even in 2003-04, with a lackluster season, they were still doing about the same, maybe with a loss of less than a 1% drop in attendance.

2003 Penn State Nittany Lions football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 Penn State Nittany Lions football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2005 Penn State Nittany Lions football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006 Penn State Nittany Lions football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is like the Eagles in Philadelphia. The joke is, "Autumn in Philadelphia, that nip in the air, the leaves changing color, the Eagles choking." :) The team still has a huge fan base, and is hugely popular.

Reader
07-25-2012, 11:14 AM
Okay, first, the Big 4 did not "seek" cover. This was reported to both DPW and the DA's Office before they knew about it.



These were there findings that the Big 4 were faced with in 1998.

DPW had three choices for findings, founded, indicated, or unfounded. "Founded" would mean that DPW thought that Sandusky abused a child. This required a lower standard than a criminal prosecution. "Indicated" means, in effect, that maybe something happened, but they really couldn't be sure. Both of these would have landed Sandusky on a child abuse list.

DPW determined that the the charge was "unfounded," beaning that nothing happened, not even a maybe answer. This finding was reached after a "psychologist," supposedly an expert, said nothing happened.

Then we move to the DA's Office. A hard charging DA, who never cut Penn State a break, looked at the case and said, no charges. In this case, Gricar was known to the Big 4, and frankly to Schreffler, and respected.

If, not being an expert in child abuse, I was faced with that, I'd reach the conclusion that nothing happened, that whatever Sandusky did, it wasn't abuse or perversion.

[And I will concede the possibility that Gricar warned Penn State that something was wrong. Even then, he didn't further investigate, nor keep an eye on Sandusky.]



2001 is different. The Big Four wouldn't look bad if they had reported 2001 and even said, **There was this thing in 2001, though Sandusky was cleared,** and given them a copy of their files. DPW and the DA's Office would have looked bad.

I think at this point, J. J., we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just one more post on this subject to point out that the Freeh Report and most commentators recognize the validity of what I have posted and why the win record (the original question) was taken away from Paterno beginning in 1998 due to his lack of action to stop Sandusky after his knowledge of that report:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8159195/report-says-penn-state-nittany-lions-senior-officials-disregarded-children-welfare

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477633/penn-state-slammed-with-ncaa-sanctions-over-handling-of-jerry-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal/?google_editors_picks=true

Sexual abuse might have been prevented if university officials had banned Sandusky from bringing children onto campus after a 1998 inquiry, the report said. Despite their knowledge of the police probe into Sandusky showering with a boy in a football locker room, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz took no action to limit his access to campus, the report said.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8160763/public-accepts-findings-louis-freeh-investigation-consequences-penn-state-devastating-many-levels

Page after page, damning conclusion after damning conclusion, the Freeh report lays out the story of a stunning and systemic failure of leadership. The evidence contained in the report, including emails from 1998 and 2001 when Spanier, Paterno, Schultz and Curley concealed the Sandusky allegations, is devastating to the reputations and legacies of each.
"In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity," the report states, "the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse."

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8160430/college-football-joe-paterno-enabled-jerry-sandusky-lying-remaining-silent

Joe lied. It's that simple. And that heartbreaking.
Joe Paterno, who for so many decades represented all that was good and honorable in college athletics, lied. Through his teeth.
According to the 267-page Freeh report, Paterno lied -- to a grand jury, no less -- about his knowledge of a 1998 assault of a young boy (Victim 6) by longtime Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky in a football facility shower.
His lies and, worse yet, his silence from the time of that first reported assault in 1998 helped empower a sexual predator for the next 13 years. Paterno did nothing to stop Sandusky. He was, said former FBI director Louis Freeh, who wrote the report, "an integral part of this active decision to conceal."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/07/12/sports/ncaafootball/13pennstate-document.html?ref=ncaafootball

Neither Harmon nor Schultz's emails set forth, or suggest, that they planned to discuss the [1998] incident with Sandusky, to review or monitor his use of University facilities, to discuss his role at the Second Mile and his involvement in Second Mile overnight programs operated in Penn State facilities, or to consider the propriety of a continuing connection between Penn State and the Second Mile. There also is no mention of whether Sandusky should receive counseling.l

Me: What they could have done according to Freeh:

Further, the emails do not indicate that any officials attempted to determine whether Sandusky's conduct violated existing University policy or was reportable under The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. ? 1092(f) ("Clery Act").

The emails also do not indicate if any person responsible for Penn State's risk management examined Sandusky's conduct. A risk management review might have resulted in the University providing contractual notice to its insurers about the incident, imposition of a general ban on the presence of children in the Lasch Building, or other limitations on Sandusky's activities.m

After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno. 166 Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew "everything that was going on." 167

As Head Coach, he had the authority to establish permissible uses of his football facilities. Nothing in the record indicates that Curley or Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky.

Nothing in the record indicates that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno or Curley spoke directly with Sandusky about the allegation, monitored his activities, contacted the Office of Human Resources for guidance, or took, or documented, any personnel actions concerning this incident in any official University file. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that no effort was made to limit Sandusky's access to Penn State. 168

When Penn State officials considered meeting with Sandusky in 2001 in response to allegations that he brought children into the Lasch Building showers, Curley wrote "I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help." Exhibit 2-F (Control Number 00679428). m

Penn State officials were familiar with the issues of liability that could arise from Sandusky bringing minors to the Lasch Building. For example, notes maintained by Paterno reflect that Sandusky proposed several continuing connections with Penn State when he retired in 1999. Among these connections was that he would have continuing "[a]ccess to training and workout facilities." A handwritten note on this proposal reads: "Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile kids. No to 2nd Mile. Liability problems." Exhibit 2-G (Control Number JVP000027). l

Reader
07-25-2012, 11:34 AM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/8191025/was-penn-state-punishment-appropriate


Was the NCAA justified in penalizing Penn State?


74%
Yes


26%
No


(Total votes: 160,820)

J. J. in Phila
07-25-2012, 12:22 PM
I think at this point, J. J., we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just one more post on this subject to point out that the Freeh Report and most commentators recognize the validity of what I have posted and why the win record (the original question) was taken away from Paterno beginning in 1998 due to his lack of action to stop Sandusky after his knowledge of that report:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8159195/report-says-penn-state-nittany-lions-senior-officials-disregarded-children-welfare

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477633/penn-state-slammed-with-ncaa-sanctions-over-handling-of-jerry-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal/?google_editors_picks=true


I can't fault anyone in the administration for not thinking this was problem when the DA, and DPW, said there was not a problem.



Sexual abuse might have been prevented if university officials had banned Sandusky from bringing children onto campus after a 1998 inquiry, the report said. Despite their knowledge of the police probe into Sandusky showering with a boy in a football locker room, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz took no action to limit his access to campus, the report said.


The knowledge that had was that this wasn't child abuse, even by the lower DPW standard. That is the problem I have with 1998 regarding the University. The e-mails don't back up any pressure on Gricar or Lauro, or any communication between them and the Big Four.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8160763/public-accepts-findings-louis-freeh-investigation-consequences-penn-state-devastating-many-levels



"In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity," the report states, "the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse."

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8160430/college-football-joe-paterno-enabled-jerry-sandusky-lying-remaining-silent


In 2001, absolutely, but not in 1998. That is the part I'm having trouble with. In 1998, there was no cover up revealed. They sat back and the the wheels of justice turn. The Big Four knew about it, and knew that there was an investigation ongoing, but there is no evidence they tried to influence it at all. If they had, that would explain 2001.




Penn State officials were familiar with the issues of liability that could arise from Sandusky bringing minors to the Lasch Building. For example, notes maintained by Paterno reflect that Sandusky proposed several continuing connections with Penn State when he retired in 1999. Among these connections was that he would have continuing "[a]ccess to training and workout facilities." A handwritten note on this proposal reads: "Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile kids. No to 2nd Mile. Liability problems." Exhibit 2-G (Control Number JVP000027). l

That could have included injuries, like falling in the shower, or smashing your fingers in the weight room.

Reader
07-25-2012, 02:11 PM
ON FOOTBALL: Penn State Program Far From Dead

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/football-penn-state-program-dead-16849144

The mere suggestion that NCAA sanctions against Penn State were worse than receiving the so-called death penalty were enough to make first-year coach Bill O'Brien raise his voice a notch.

"No. We are playing football," O'Brien said forcefully during a conference call Tuesday with reporters. "We open our season on Sept. 1 in front of 108,000 strong against Ohio University. We're playing football and we're on TV. We get to practice. We get to get better as football players, and get to do it for Penn State."


More at link....

Rlaub44
07-25-2012, 03:08 PM
I've seen some commentary yesterday by more than one lawyer who now say that a majority of these penalties are (or would be) outright illegal and Penn State would of had a very strong case of fighting it in court if they had not signed the document agreeing with them. Once they signed off on the penalties they are valid whether they were initially illegal or not.

I saw another interview with one of the Penn State presidents who also said it was a take it or suffer worse since there was talk of a multiple year death penalty on the table as well. I never agreed that they should of gotten the DP. A DP not only cripples Penn State in multiple ways, it also cripples State College which I wouldn't think is fair.

Bolded by me:

The Board of Trustees is meeting to discuss whether President Erickson had the authority to sign the consent decree without board authorization.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_state_board_of_trustees_t.html

I don't think anything will come of this, as the only trustees that seem to be questioning this are the three newcomers that were elected by the alumni as reform candidates.

Rlaub44
07-25-2012, 03:29 PM
I've seen some commentary yesterday by more than one lawyer who now say that a majority of these penalties are (or would be) outright illegal and Penn State would of had a very strong case of fighting it in court if they had not signed the document agreeing with them. Once they signed off on the penalties they are valid whether they were initially illegal or not.

I saw another interview with one of the Penn State presidents who also said it was a take it or suffer worse since there was talk of a multiple year death penalty on the table as well. I never agreed that they should of gotten the DP. A DP not only cripples Penn State in multiple ways, it also cripples State College which I wouldn't think is fair.

Thanks for posting this cityslick, because it gave me a few jumping off points.

Regarding the section I bolded, I read that too, but Ed Ray, the Oregon State president who chairs the NCAA executive committee, tells it differently:

The only potential penalty that we had some extended discussion around was suspension of play, whether that ought to be part of a basket of punitive and corrective measures. There were people who felt that was appropriate, but the overwhelming position of members of both the executive committee and the Division I board was to not include suspension of play. And therefore we moved quickly to a consideration of the actions you heard about today. And that had unanimous support from both groups.

And referring to Rodney Erickson's statement that he had to sign to avoid the DP:

I've known Rod for a long time. I didn't hear what he said. I was on a plane flying back to Oregon. But I can tell you categorically, there was never a threat made to anyone about suspension of play if the consent decree was not agreed to.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53812/qa-ed-ray-discusses-psu-sanctions

costalpilot
07-25-2012, 06:08 PM
I actually agree with the penalties, but I don't think the current staff or players are guilty of anything or are responsible for anything that's happened. Do you think different?

the current football players have nothing to do with it, as did the players at the time. as to the staff, I have doubts that the rumors did not make their way around the staff, but only they know.

its immaterial. the reason it happened was KING FOOTBALL. the outrage was so great that it caused even KING FOOTBALL to be attacked, by the 2A, of all people, the organization that, in some folks mind, was instrumental in creating KING FOOTBALL in the first place. but thats just a theory.

what is clear is that KING FOOTBALL allowed the outrage. that some folks knew a monster "KING FOOTBALL", was loose in the american higher educational system, and those folks believe that not much has changed, that the monster still lives.

the tail is wagging the dog.

costalpilot
07-25-2012, 06:14 PM
Bolded by me:

The Board of Trustees is meeting to discuss whether President Erickson had the authority to sign the consent decree without board authorization.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_state_board_of_trustees_t.html

I don't think anything will come of this, as the only trustees that seem to be questioning this are the three newcomers that were elected by the alumni as reform candidates.

what a laugh....the Paterno boys won't go down without a fight. and just imagine they wormed their way unto the board after the truth had got out, when all but the most zealous of flag bearers had at least taken cover. and their goal: an apology by the board to good ole moral joe. and a return to power of KING FOOTBALL, PATERNO STYLE.

costalpilot
07-25-2012, 06:20 PM
I've seen some commentary yesterday by more than one lawyer who now say that a majority of these penalties are (or would be) outright illegal and Penn State would of had a very strong case of fighting it in court if they had not signed the document agreeing with them. Once they signed off on the penalties they are valid whether they were initially illegal or not.

I saw another interview with one of the Penn State presidents who also said it was a take it or suffer worse since there was talk of a multiple year death penalty on the table as well. I never agreed that they should of gotten the DP. A DP not only cripples Penn State in multiple ways, it also cripples State College which I wouldn't think is fair.

i've never heard of a member institution "fighting" an ncaa penalty in court, much less "winning one." of course I have heard a lot of chatter about the 2A's vulnerabilities in THIS matter. by folks with much to protect, who have circled the wagons at the outrageous attack by the 2A upon KING FOOTBALL. Lots of chatter. my point exactly. the 2A has threatened these folks and they are responding.

wfgodot
07-25-2012, 08:14 PM
PENN STATE PRESIDENT SAYS 4-YEAR BAN WAS FLOATED (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/penn-state-president-says-4-year-ban-was-floated) (AP)

A spokesman for Penn State president Rodney Erickson says the university faced a potential four-year ban on playing football before the NCAA issued its punishment for how the school handled the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal.
---
more at the link

cityslick
07-26-2012, 08:14 AM
PENN STATE PRESIDENT SAYS 4-YEAR BAN WAS FLOATED (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/penn-state-president-says-4-year-ban-was-floated) (AP)

more at the link

This goes along with my earlier post that they (Penn State) were in a take it or suffer worse mode. I think from Penn State's point of view, especially after hearing their coach speak to various media yesterday, the two main concerns of the university was to play football and to play football on TV. These current sanctions do not prevent those two things, thus they signed off on it.

IMO, I do think they were facing a multi-year death penalty, shutting down the football program for years. I saw Erikson's comment that they don't think these sanctions are worse than a DP and in one way he is correct, because shutting down the program would cost the university as well as the area in general millions upon millions of dollars. But he also fails to realize that these sanctions will have a lasting impact on the program. How long will it take for Penn State to reach the level of say an Ohio State or Michigan. 5 years? 10 years? Ever?

costalpilot
07-26-2012, 08:42 AM
This goes along with my earlier post that they (Penn State) were in a take it or suffer worse mode. .....
IMO, I do think they were facing a multi-year death penalty, shutting down the football program for years. I saw Erikson's comment that they don't think these sanctions are worse than a DP and in one way he is correct, because shutting down the program would cost the university as well as the area in general millions upon millions of dollars. But he also fails to realize that these sanctions will have a lasting impact on the program. How long will it take for Penn State to reach the level of say an Ohio State or Michigan. 5 years? 10 years? Ever?

plz say how it is you came to know what Erickson "realizes" or fails to realize?

as to how long it will take for PSU to rebound....I'd say 10 to 15 years, depending on the choices they make along the way. And thats from now. Penn state maintains a dominant position in east coast football and i see no reason they wont respond quickly once the sanctions are removed. But if they hire the wrong coaches, it could take longer.

Tipstaff
07-26-2012, 08:44 AM
The financial fall out for Penn State and other vendors of PS merchandise

.......from the Post-Gazette.com

Penn State sponsorship, merchandise sales slip
Mixed response to scandal a significant financial loss


By Teresa F. Lindeman / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Two years ago, fans bought $80 million worth of Penn State licensed merchandise, loading up on sweatshirts, key chains and paw print window stickers to publicly flaunt their Nittany Lions love.

This year, that number could drop below $50 million, said Matt Powell, a Scarborough, Maine-based analyst with SportsOneSource, a company that tracks the sporting goods industry.

It's not the typical response following a university athletic scandal, he said. Generally when schools get in trouble, sales of licensed gear improve as students and alums rally round. But that tends to be ..........................



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/penn-state-sponsorship-merchandise-sales-slip-646197/#ixzz21jRJvFVR

BigCat
07-26-2012, 09:22 AM
This goes along with my earlier post that they (Penn State) were in a take it or suffer worse mode. I think from Penn State's point of view, especially after hearing their coach speak to various media yesterday, the two main concerns of the university was to play football and to play football on TV. These current sanctions do not prevent those two things, thus they signed off on it.

IMO, I do think they were facing a multi-year death penalty, shutting down the football program for years. I saw Erikson's comment that they don't think these sanctions are worse than a DP and in one way he is correct, because shutting down the program would cost the university as well as the area in general millions upon millions of dollars. But he also fails to realize that these sanctions will have a lasting impact on the program. How long will it take for Penn State to reach the level of say an Ohio State or Michigan. 5 years? 10 years? Ever?

It really depends. If a large section of the Penn State community is focused on vindicating Paterno's legacy, the program may never recover. If, however, the large majority decide to move forward, the football team could be back in the hunt for the Big 10 title 7 years from now.

Here's a good sign:


PSU's O'Brien tells parents: 'This is the key team'

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=402680#.UBCXVexdHiI.twitter


O'Brien also told the parents that he has talked to Nike about changing Penn State's plain blue and white uniforms, a staple of the program for decades under former coach Joe Paterno. He also said he's looking to put names on the back of the jerseys.

costalpilot
07-26-2012, 10:46 AM
It really depends. If a large section of the Penn State community is focused on vindicating Paterno's legacy, the program may never recover. If, however, the large majority decide to move forward, the football team could be back in the hunt for the Big 10 title 7 years from now.

Here's a good sign:


PSU's O'Brien tells parents: 'This is the key team'

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=402680#.UBCXVexdHiI.twitter

my bold


first without knowing anything about the psu community, it would be hard to imagine a large part of that community being energized about restoring the paterno legacy.

however there is no doubt a very active, energetic and driven group that is intent on defending the legacy regardless of the consequences. yr problem I suppose is dealing with this vocal, energized and dedicated group of true believers. i think that is what the future of your program rests on. they are yr problem.

their problem is the truth and their inability to deal with reality. the latter is their fuel.

and truth needs support to withstand these zealots.

LNL
07-26-2012, 12:38 PM
It really depends. If a large section of the Penn State community is focused on vindicating Paterno's legacy, the program may never recover. If, however, the large majority decide to move forward, the football team could be back in the hunt for the Big 10 title 7 years from now.

Here's a good sign:


PSU's O'Brien tells parents: 'This is the key team'

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=402680#.UBCXVexdHiI.twitter

I really think O'Brien has shown good leadership through all of this. I hope it continues.

J. J. in Phila
07-26-2012, 01:33 PM
NCAA was considering the death penalty, along with a higher fine.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/25/3273208/ncaa-chief-penn-state-would-have.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

cityslick
07-26-2012, 02:16 PM
There will always be a contingent that supports JP and the 'legacy'. I would hope that a majority, especially as new students come through the university, move on and start looking toward the future. The first step in moving forward is acceptance. Once Penn State alumni and fans accept what has happened and these penalties, it'll go better for them. Some of the comments I hear now are just outright ridiculous though.

They interviewed one student after they announced the sanctions and her quote was 'JP and Penn State is getting penalized for all this stuff, how is Sandusky getting penalized?'. That's got to be one the most idiotic things I think I heard in a long time.

Mama-cita
07-27-2012, 12:18 PM
There will always be a contingent that supports JP and the 'legacy'. I would hope that a majority, especially as new students come through the university, move on and start looking toward the future. The first step in moving forward is acceptance. Once Penn State alumni and fans accept what has happened and these penalties, it'll go better for them. Some of the comments I hear now are just outright ridiculous though.

They interviewed one student after they announced the sanctions and her quote was 'JP and Penn State is getting penalized for all this stuff, how is Sandusky getting penalized?'. That's got to be one the most idiotic things I think I heard in a long time.

I read an article that some of these students won't "get it" until they grow up, mature, have children of their own and expect coaches, teachers and bus drivers to do right for their kids. Makes
sense. Although I live in Western PA and there are still the die hards (who do have kids) who talk crazy. I always say, "If it was your son or grandson in that shower, and you knew Paterno et al could have put a stop to it, would you feel the same way?". They usually have no response for that one.

Steely Dan
07-27-2012, 02:12 PM
I read an article that some of these students won't "get it" until they grow up, mature, have children of their own and expect coaches, teachers and bus drivers to do right for their kids. Makes
sense. Although I live in Western PA and there are still the die hards (who do have kids) who talk crazy. I always say, "If it was your son or grandson in that shower, and you knew Paterno et al could have put a stop to it, would you feel the same way?". They usually have no response for that one.

BBM

O/T But that's what really ticks me off about our country right now. A lot of people have great amounts of empathy for their families, but very little or none for strangers.

Reader
07-27-2012, 08:33 PM
Okay, first, the Big 4 did not "seek" cover. This was reported to both DPW and the DA's Office before they knew about it.

These were there findings that the Big 4 were faced with in 1998.

DPW had three choices for findings, founded, indicated, or unfounded. "Founded" would mean that DPW thought that Sandusky abused a child. This required a lower standard than a criminal prosecution. "Indicated" means, in effect, that maybe something happened, but they really couldn't be sure. Both of these would have landed Sandusky on a child abuse list.

DPW determined that the the charge was "unfounded," beaning that nothing happened, not even a maybe answer. This finding was reached after a "psychologist," supposedly an expert, said nothing happened.

Then we move to the DA's Office. A hard charging DA, who never cut Penn State a break, looked at the case and said, no charges. In this case, Gricar was known to the Big 4, and frankly to Schreffler, and respected.

If, not being an expert in child abuse, I was faced with that, I'd reach the conclusion that nothing happened, that whatever Sandusky did, it wasn't abuse or perversion.

[And I will concede the possibility that Gricar warned Penn State that something was wrong. Even then, he didn't further investigate, nor keep an eye on Sandusky.]



2001 is different. The Big Four wouldn't look bad if they had reported 2001 and even said, **There was this thing in 2001, though Sandusky was cleared,** and given them a copy of their files. DPW and the DA's Office would have looked bad.

BBM 1 - No, that is not what I meant by 'seeking cover', I meant that the guys at PSU used the fact that no charges were filed and [incorrectly] no finding of abuse made, to NOT follow up as had been indicated even by Seasock, and as Freeh said, that the LEAST they could have done was talk to Sandusky and advise others in the football program to watch what he was doing with boys.


115 Seasock recommended that someone speak with Sandusky about what is acceptable with young children and explained, "The intent of the conversation with Mr. Sandusky is not to cast dispersion (sic) upon his actions but to help him stay out of such gray area situations in the future."

Who better to do this 'talk' than his own supervisor, Paterno? especially since the showers occurred at the workplace....I realize that Scheffler and Lauro did but when your boss tells you not do do something and is JP, I think JS would have listened a little better...he apparently paid no attention to the others and went right along with his abusive actions at the school...

BBM 2 - Very much aware of the findings terms having worked child abuse in the past. What I'm very puzzled about in this 1998 investigation is how the Chambers report was ignored, since she had the REAL professional opinion plus consulted with her colleagues, and no conflicts with working for CPS. She also DID make a report to the child line.

Why was her report kept from Lauro and why did DPW go ahead and do the
2nd evaluation with Seasock even after Karen Arnold asked them to hold off for more investigation? It seems like they got what they wanted to clear JS from Seasock and didn't want to share the Chambers report so they had an excuse to drop the charges, IMO...


Chambers made a report to the Pennsylvania child abuse line 92 and also consulted with colleagues. Her colleagues agreed that "the incidents meet all of our 42 definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile's pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a 'loving,' 'special' relationship."93 That afternoon Schreffler contacted John Miller, a caseworker with the Centre County Children and Youth Services ("CYS") about the allegation.94 However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case95


According to Schreffler's notes, Lauro had received copies of the boy's recorded statement, 108 yet Lauro advised the Special Investigative Counsel that he did not have full access to the facts of the case and was unaware of psychologist Chambers' evaluation.109 Lauro said that if he "had seen [Chambers'] report, I would not have stopped the investigation," which he thought at the time fell into a "gray" area and involved possible "boundary" issues.110

Schreffler had a discussion with Arnold that day as well. Arnold told Schreffler to postpone a second psychological evaluation of the boy until an additional investigation could be completed. 111 Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, 1998 as part of DPW's investigation. Counselor John Seasock, who had a contract to provide counseling services to CYS, conducted the evaluation.112


BBM 3 - I think you mean 1998 there instead of 2001...

Reader
07-27-2012, 08:44 PM
Recruiting analysts: Penn State scandal will take a toll

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-25/sports/32828916_1_ross-douglas-christian-hackenberg-adam-breneman

IF RECRUITING truly is the lifeblood of college football, Penn State fans may want to drop their expectations over the next decade from low to lower. For the second straight year, fallout from the Jerry Sandusky scandal at State College has sent some Penn State commitments scrambling in a different direction.

Last year it was news of the scandal itself, as well as the subsequent firing of Joe Paterno, that broke up the class of 2012. This time around it is the resulting sanctions — specifically a 4-year bowl ban and the loss of multiple scholarships over that same time period — that threaten to decimate what looked to be a promising crop of 2013 recruits.

Although some members of the next recruiting class said Monday they remain committed to Penn State, the Nittany Lions over the weekend lost Greg Webb, a four-star defensive tackle from Sicklerville, N.J., to North Carolina. Then, just minutes after Monday's announcement of the NCAA's decision, four-star cornerback Ross Douglas, from Ohio, withdrew his commitment to the Nittany Lions.


More at link....

elmomom
07-27-2012, 08:49 PM
I have spent most of my career working for large companies, and a few universities. When there is an incident that brings unwanted outside attention, such as the 1998 incident at PSU, it normally causes numerous ripples and changes. This is what responsible corporations should do, IMHO. Even if no impropriety was found, there should have been an immediate and clear signal from the administration that the conditions that would ALLOW for any PERCEPTION of impropriety must be changed. New guidelines, such as no boys in the showers, or no juveniles accompanied by a single male... Etc. there were numeroous ways to change the conditions that allowed the acts to occur, and that allowed the possibility of the acts to occur. And even if they did not occur, my god, the authorities were in there investigating our program, our coach. No way would any responsible corporate environment look the other way, and move on. No company should risk this situation repeating itself, and the possibility of legal liability in the future. So I truly believe that 1998 was really a cover-up, because the university did not even move to protect itself. Instead, it looked to hide and cover up the appearance of a scandal, which only grew much worse over time.

J. J. in Phila
07-27-2012, 09:19 PM
First, yes, I meant 2001.


BBM 1 - No, that is not what I meant by 'seeking cover', I meant that the guys at PSU used the fact that no charges were filed and [incorrectly] no finding of abuse made, to NOT follow up as had been indicated even by Seasock, and as Freeh said, that the LEAST they could have done was talk to Sandusky and advise others in the football program to watch what he was doing with boys.


They basically could say, **But the experts, and a hard hitting DA, cleared Sandusky in 1998. There was nothing to it.**

Unless there was something more that happened in 1998, I don't see what they could warned Sandusky about.






BBM 2 - Very much aware of the findings terms having worked child abuse in the past. What I'm very puzzled about in this 1998 investigation is how the Chambers report was ignored, since she had the REAL professional opinion plus consulted with her colleagues, and no conflicts with working for CPS. She also DID make a report to the child line.


Neither report was admissible in court at the time, but DPW could have used it.


Why was her report kept from Lauro and why did DPW go ahead and do the
2nd evaluation with Seasock even after Karen Arnold asked them to hold off for more investigation? It seems like they got what they wanted to clear JS from Seasock and didn't want to share the Chambers report so they had an excuse to drop the charges, IMO...

There is no suggestion that the Big 4, Sandusky, or Gricar, had anything to do with bringing Seasock in to interview Victim 6. Further, unless they could have a good idea of what Seasock would do, they could not know before hand that his report would be favorable. Likewise, they couldn't know what weight Gricar would give the Seasock Report.

One very good question is why neither report was given to Lauro.

There has to be something more that happened in 1998.

Reader
07-27-2012, 09:20 PM
I really think O'Brien has shown good leadership through all of this. I hope it continues.

Bill O'Brien Extends Contract For Four Additional Years

http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2012/7/25/3187256/bill-obrien-extends-contract-for-four-additional-years

After what has been by most accounts a stellar round of media interviews, head football coach Bill O'Brien was granted four year extension to his contract today, keeping him ostensibly in State College through the 2020 season.

Reportedly a direct offset of the four bowl-less years that O'Brien will coach, there's been no clarification as to whether this changes any buyout amounts if the coach decides to buy out his contract and leave Penn State.


More at link....

BigCat
07-27-2012, 10:55 PM
First, yes, I meant 2001.

They basically could say, **But the experts, and a hard hitting DA, cleared Sandusky in 1998. There was nothing to it.**

Unless there was something more that happened in 1998, I don't see what they could warned Sandusky about.

On one of the Penn State football boards yesterday, a poster wrote that "if law enforcement had done its job in 98, Penn State wouldn't be in this mess today". Oh, the irony! If law enforcement had actually done its job in 98, the same guy would have been demanding the recall of Ray Gricar and spouting wild conspiracy theories about how Tom Ridge was out to destroy Joe Paterno.


Neither report was admissible in court at the time, but DPW could have used it.

There is no suggestion that the Big 4, Sandusky, or Gricar, had anything to do with bringing Seasock in to interview Victim 6. Further, unless they could have a good idea of what Seasock would do, they could not know before hand that his report would be favorable. Likewise, they couldn't know what weight Gricar would give the Seasock Report.

One very good question is why neither report was given to Lauro.

There has to be something more that happened in 1998.

Did we ever learn what specific work Seascock performed for Penn State between 2000-2006? Freeh just stated there was no evidence that it was connected to the 98 incident.

J. J. in Phila
07-27-2012, 11:29 PM
On one of the Penn State football boards yesterday, a poster wrote that "if law enforcement had done its job in 98, Penn State wouldn't be in this mess today". Oh, the irony! If law enforcement had actually done its job in 98, the same guy would have been demanding the recall of Ray Gricar and spouting wild conspiracy theories about how Tom Ridge was out to destroy Joe Paterno.

I had someone on alumni site telling me that Corbett should have known that there was a ten year old file as soon as he started the case.




Did we ever learn what specific work Seascock performed for Penn State between 2000-2006? Freeh just stated there was no evidence that it was connected to the 98 incident.

It was never reported.

Rlaub44
07-27-2012, 11:57 PM
One of the members of the Freeh Commission says that the NCAA should not have used the Freeh Report as the sole piece, or even a large piece, of their decision-making.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/27/3275727/freeh-team-member-says-ncaa-shouldnt.html

Reader
07-29-2012, 11:46 AM
One of the members of the Freeh Commission says that the NCAA should not have used the Freeh Report as the sole piece, or even a large piece, of their decision-making.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/27/3275727/freeh-team-member-says-ncaa-shouldnt.html

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8207795/report-freeh-report-source-criticizes-ncaa-penalties-penn-state-nittany-lions


A source familiar with the investigation into Penn State's response to former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child sex abuse scandal is speaking out against the NCAA.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, a person connected to the Freeh report, which condemned Penn State's handling of Sandusky's abuse, said the NCAA should not have based its harsh sanctions against the university on the investigation.

'Familiar with' and 'connected to' could mean anything, could be a distributor or a typist or somebody like us that read it and posted about it....does not mean it was a member of the team.

The Freeh team denies this:


According to The Chronicle, members of former FBI director Louis Freeh's investigative team can't speak publicly about the report. On Friday night, a spokesperson for the group denied that any member of the team spoke to The Chronicle.

"The Freeh Group emphatically stated that no member of its investigative team spoke to The Chronicle of Higher Education for its story," the spokesperson said. "The Freeh Group has no comment on the NCAA's use of the report."

costalpilot
07-29-2012, 01:32 PM
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8207795/report-freeh-report-source-criticizes-ncaa-penalties-penn-state-nittany-lions



'Familiar with' and 'connected to' could mean anything, could be a distributor or a typist or somebody like us that read it and posted about it....does not mean it was a member of the team.

The Freeh team denies this:

good catch...loose lips sink ships and loose designations mean a lot more than they should especially in the media/propaganda world.

"...one of the members....." REALLY ...well, no, not really.

Rlaub44
07-29-2012, 02:40 PM
good catch...loose lips sink ships and loose designations mean a lot more than they should especially in the media/propaganda world.

"...one of the members....." REALLY ...well, no, not really.


Here is the original article from the Chronicle of Higher Education, in which they clearly refer to the source as a member of the Freeh team. While the Freeh committee is denying any of it's members spoke to the Chronicle, I know from personal experience that is exactly what a body will claim when a member acts outside of the auspices of the group.

I'm not saying I can prove it was a member, just that I wouldn't so readily accept the Freeh commission's denial at face value. Truthfully, how can the committee be certain none of its members broke ranks?

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Group-Member-Criticizes/133213/

Reader
07-29-2012, 05:10 PM
Penn State's reconcilable differences

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8205420/penn-state-needs-work-reconciliation

Nothing is resolved. Sandusky, Paterno, Penn State, the jackhammered statue, the Freeh report, the NCAA sanctions -- all of it rushed, unfinished, provisional. The Grand Experiment fails and the race to forget begins. The contract extension kicks in, the civil suits line up, the opportunists circle the parking lots, and we're talking about money and Hawaii and which players stay and which players go as if it were all over. Tim Curley and Gary Schultz don't have trial dates yet. Jerry Sandusky hasn't even been sentenced.

"It's time to punch back." All due respect coach, but are you out of your mind? The penalties fall and the punishments drop -- none of them even a week old -- and already the language rings defiant, as if there's been a persecution, an injustice done against Penn State football. Who are the real victims here? And who are the martyrs?...........

Where's the effort at reconciliation? The restoration of trust in your own community? Where's the contrition? Financial compensation, no matter how lavish, is not by itself restitution. Money alone heals no one. ............