View Poll Results: Should the NCAA give Penn State the "death penalty"?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. It's not fair to students, players, or coaches who had nothing to do with this scandal.

    27 29.03%
  • Yes, for one year.

    12 12.90%
  • Yes, for two years.

    10 10.75%
  • Yes, for three years.

    9 9.68%
  • Yes, for four (or more) years.

    32 34.41%
  • Not sure.

    5 5.38%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 484

Thread: NCAA Sanctions: "DP" for Penn Football, or...?

  1. #176
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Good round up on what the sanctions mean...posting for Bowden's quote:

    http://www.centurylink.net/news/read..._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."

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Reader For This Useful Post:


  3. #177
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    9,382
    Quote Originally Posted by waltzingmatilda View Post
    4 yr postseason football ban....

    taking reporters questions now
    What does a post-season football ban mean?
    For Travis Alexander, a human being. Justice will prevail.


    *Gitana (means "Gypsy girl"). Pronounced "hee tah nah."

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gitana1 For This Useful Post:


  5. #178
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    27,274
    Quote Originally Posted by gitana1 View Post
    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-...ms-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.)
    Buttons updated 07/22/2014-2014



    Thinking of Sue

    Thanks Steadfast for the spinning Buffalo Bills Emu

    Made by HD ----->

    Warning: Some buttons may be offensive!
    BAD WORDS AND OFFENSIVE MATERIAL
    AND STUFF LIKE THAT THERE!!




  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:


  7. #179
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    27,274
    My bad. It's not hundreds of thousands. It's millions.

    http://www.centurylink.net/news/read..._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....
    Buttons updated 07/22/2014-2014



    Thinking of Sue

    Thanks Steadfast for the spinning Buffalo Bills Emu

    Made by HD ----->

    Warning: Some buttons may be offensive!
    BAD WORDS AND OFFENSIVE MATERIAL
    AND STUFF LIKE THAT THERE!!




  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:


  9. #180
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    27,274
    Oops! Here's another mistake I made. It's corrected by the same article as my post above; http://www.centurylink.net/news/read..._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
    Buttons updated 07/22/2014-2014



    Thinking of Sue

    Thanks Steadfast for the spinning Buffalo Bills Emu

    Made by HD ----->

    Warning: Some buttons may be offensive!
    BAD WORDS AND OFFENSIVE MATERIAL
    AND STUFF LIKE THAT THERE!!




  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:


  11. #181
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The beautiful roundabout of Context, Veracity, and JUSTICE
    Posts
    11,434
    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?
    You can hold back from the suffering of the world. You have free permission to do so and it is in accordance with your nature.
    But perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could have avoided.
    Franz Kafka

    Be not simply good. Be good for something.
    HDT

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ynotdivein For This Useful Post:


  13. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by ynotdivein View Post
    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.

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to raeann For This Useful Post:


  15. #183
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    Oops! Here's another mistake I made. It's corrected by the same article as my post above; http://www.centurylink.net/news/read..._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/...ould-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.

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to BigCat For This Useful Post:


  17. #184
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise AKA San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,457
    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.
    "I have lived many years and, after many trials and tribulations, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing is blonde, 12-year-old girls. Two of them, whenever possible."
    --Woody Allen, Love and Death, 1975

    "Mr. Allen's resort to the typical 'scorned woman' defense is an injudicious attempt to to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult."

    --Judge Elliott Wilk, June 7, 1993

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to IzzyBlanche For This Useful Post:


  19. #185
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,266
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    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/...ould-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.

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  21. #186
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    27,274
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    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.
    Buttons updated 07/22/2014-2014



    Thinking of Sue

    Thanks Steadfast for the spinning Buffalo Bills Emu

    Made by HD ----->

    Warning: Some buttons may be offensive!
    BAD WORDS AND OFFENSIVE MATERIAL
    AND STUFF LIKE THAT THERE!!




  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:


  23. #187
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    22,198
    Can Penn State's hometown survive NCAA sanctions? (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
    We are, I know not how, double in ourselves, so that what we believe we disbelieve, and cannot rid ourselves of what we condemn. (Michel de Montaigne)

  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to wfgodot For This Useful Post:


  25. #188
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Mama-cita View Post
    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.
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rlaub44 For This Useful Post:


  27. #189
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Angels_Not_Forgotten View Post
    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...z/-/index.html
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Rlaub44 For This Useful Post:


  29. #190
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post
    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

  30. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to BigCat For This Useful Post:


  31. #191
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    27,274
    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/bi...?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....
    Buttons updated 07/22/2014-2014



    Thinking of Sue

    Thanks Steadfast for the spinning Buffalo Bills Emu

    Made by HD ----->

    Warning: Some buttons may be offensive!
    BAD WORDS AND OFFENSIVE MATERIAL
    AND STUFF LIKE THAT THERE!!




  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:


  33. #192
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    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!

  34. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Reader For This Useful Post:


  35. #193
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    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.
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to Rlaub44 For This Useful Post:


  37. #194
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    5,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post
    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.


    What happened to former Centre County DA Ray Gricar?

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to J. J. in Phila For This Useful Post:


  39. #195
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila View Post
    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.
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

  40. #196
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    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-foo...panier-schultz
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

  41. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Rlaub44 For This Useful Post:


  42. #197
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise AKA San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    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.
    "I have lived many years and, after many trials and tribulations, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing is blonde, 12-year-old girls. Two of them, whenever possible."
    --Woody Allen, Love and Death, 1975

    "Mr. Allen's resort to the typical 'scorned woman' defense is an injudicious attempt to to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult."

    --Judge Elliott Wilk, June 7, 1993

  43. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to IzzyBlanche For This Useful Post:


  44. #198
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post
    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.

  45. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BigCat For This Useful Post:


  46. #199
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise AKA San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post
    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.
    "I have lived many years and, after many trials and tribulations, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing is blonde, 12-year-old girls. Two of them, whenever possible."
    --Woody Allen, Love and Death, 1975

    "Mr. Allen's resort to the typical 'scorned woman' defense is an injudicious attempt to to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult."

    --Judge Elliott Wilk, June 7, 1993

  47. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to IzzyBlanche For This Useful Post:


  48. #200
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by IzzyBlanche View Post
    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.
    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.
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

  49. The Following User Says Thank You to Rlaub44 For This Useful Post:


Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM
  2. USC hit hard by NCAA sanctions
    By Dark Knight in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-11-2010, 03:50 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-15-2003, 07:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •