|
| Posted by: Perm Dude
- [39961218] Mon, Nov 07, 2011, 23:46
This is a story which is going to blow up Penn State football.
I've always like Penn State--they seem to try to get it right. But the fact that Jerry Sandusky did what he did for so long, and that Papa Joe didn't call the police when alerted is going to make for a multiple reputation-busting scandal. |
| | | 1 | Frick
ID: 387512315
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 08:17
|
I agree, and JoePa's excuse of, well I told my boss, nothing more I should do, shouldn't get him off the hook. Actually, I don't think that anyone who was in any way related or had knowledge of this situation should still be around when the dust settles.
Looking at JoePa's track record, I almost think this will make him more likely to come back and coach next year.
|
|
| | | 2 | Judy
ID: 54203110
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 12:13
|
Where was his wife when he had all those little boys sleeping in the basement of their home? There has been NO mention of her.
|
|
| | | 3 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 14:09
|
Joe Paterno had 'some' information about these incidents second hand from an underling. He took the proper legal steps and went to his superiors with the information and put it into their hands.
He is being persecuted in the media for not going to the cops with the info when we do not even know specifically what info he had.
Meanwhile, the person who actually witnessed the incident and had specific info isn't getting so much as a second thought. Yet he did *exactly* what Joe Paterno did. He went to his superior to alert him to the activity.
If there is to be a witch-hunt (and that is all this is concerning Paterno who did the right thing) it should either be:
1. go after everybody along the chain of command who did not go to the police
2. Only go after the guy at the very top who should have investigated this enough to know to go to the policy
3. GO AFTER JERRY SANDUSKY for perpetrating the acts.
The whole of the media attention should be on Jerry Sandusky and getting this creep off the streets. Nothing more.
|
|
| | | 4 | weykool
ID: 28102713
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 14:29
|
I think he had more of a responsibility than to just tell his superiors given the seriousness of the allegations.
Washing your hands of the information and allowing Sandusky back on YOUR practice field was not the appropriate course of action.
ANY reasonable person would have followed up to find out what happened at the meeting with the AD and Sandusky.
Stay tuned....there will me more information uncovered in the weeks to come.
|
|
| | | 5 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 15:14
|
Ok, let go of hindsight for a moment. Really let it go. Head back to the late 90's and early 2000's.
"Hey Jerry, why don't you take a break for a while and not come by the field."
"why's that joe?"
"One of our trainers told me he caught you diddling a little boy in the locker room."
"Joe, you're firing me because of what a trainer says without any further proof? Thanks for the unlawful termination suit."
Or put yourself in the reality of that situation. Random trainer comes forward with allegations about somebody who is probably one of Paterno's best friends. Do you honestly think that Paterno just said, "well, let me tell the big brass and forget about it" ?
I'm sorry, but I can't think of any realistic scenario where Paterno 'washed his hands' of the situation. There's a lot of facts that are still unknown.
Let the DA and police complete an investigation. Let them do their jobs and let the true facts come out. If Paterno truly did wash his hands of it and ignore a serious issue in his locker room, then talk about it. But don't put the guy thru a witch hunt. Especially now.
For one, its unfounded at this point. Its all based on assumption. And I think Paterno's record for being a good role model and moral person should be given much more weight than a bunch of assumptions made by the media trying to write a sensational headline.
For two, its detracting from the real criminal - Jerry Sandusky.
I think its a shame to ruin Paterno and go after him over what somebody else did because you assume you know all the facts about what went on.
|
|
| | | 6 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 15:29
|
Wow.
"Or put yourself in the reality of that situation. Random trainer comes forward with allegations about somebody who is probably one of Paterno's best friends. Do you honestly think that Paterno just said, "well, let me tell the big brass and forget about it" ?
I think you meant to say here:
"Graduate assistant who used to be a quarterback for the team and who you've known for a number of years and trusted enough to hire onto your program physically witnesses your defensive coordinator RAPING a 10 year old child in your locker room, and tells you about it. Do you honestly think that Paterno just said 'well, let me tell the big brass and forget about it'?" (And don't for a single second think that "well, maybe Paterno didn't know exactly what the graduate assistant saw" is a valid excuse. If that doesn't DEMAND a number of specific follow up questions, I don't know what does. Not asking those questions is grounds for firing squad by itself."
Given that Sandusky continued to be around the program and Penn State facilities for many years thereafter, including rooming with other little boys on Penn State road tripe and bowl games... yeah, I'm going to go out on a giant limb and say he forgot about it.
Look, I get it. Joe thinks he knows the guy better than he actually does, thinks "no, there's no way my friend is a child rapist". However, never asking up the line "hey, what ever happened with that thing about my defensive coordinator raping a kid"? Bullshit. Not acceptable.
The quote from the movie Casino comes to mind here: "Listen, if you didn't know you're bein' scammed, you're too ****in' dumb to keep this job. If you did know, you were in on it. Either way, you're out. Get out! Go on. Let's go. "
|
|
| | | 7 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 15:36
|
Well, here's the other question I asked again -
Where is the outrage at the relatively no-name trainer who came forward with this information to begin with?
There is absolutely none in the media. And that tells me that the media has turned this into a witch hunt against Joe Paterno. Which is a shame.
Because again, it is detracting from the true crime committed by Jerry Sandusky.
The outrage is directed at JoePa only because he is a public figure. No other reason.
|
|
| | | 8 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 15:45
|
First, there's plenty of outrage to go around. Believe me, I've got even more outrage for that piece of garbage than I do Paterno. I'm not going to go Internet Tough Guy here and say he should have gone in there and beaten Sandusky to a pulp with his bare hands, but for cryin' out loud, my six year old son knows the telephone number to call when someone's in really serious danger, and it isn't to call home to your dad and then maybe talk to someone the next day.
However, like it or not, Mike McQueary being a piece of garbage isn't news. Joe Paterno being a piece of garbage is. Let's not excuse the fact that Joe Paterno is a piece of garbage just because the media isn't directing their focus in the way that you'd like them to.
|
|
| | | 9 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 16:12
|
And, lest I not be clear, there's an incredible amount of blame to go around, from the university employees being charged, to Paterno, to McQueary, and most obviously to Jerry Sandusky himself, to the former district attorney who had a chance to shut this guy down 14 years ago and didn't do it.
And I'm not talking about the technical legalities of "oh, he reported it to his superiors". Yeah, great, whatever. We're talking about clear, simple, moral responsibility.
Remember, this isn't about "I saw someone take a pop from the fridge and not put a dollar in the jar", or "I know so-and-so is selling his tickets in violation of the rules". That kind of stuff? Sure, tell your boss and forget about it. This is about an innocent child being RAPED. With an eyewitness. And everyone involved who knew about it and did effectively nothing deserves all the hate they get. You want to call it a witch hunt, fine -- but when they're flying around on brooms and cackling, well... sometimes there are witches that need hunting, even if they were really good football coaches for a really long time.
If you haven't read the 23 page grand jury PDF, go find it, read it, and then ask yourself "would I be willing to cover this up for someone I considered a friend"? Then ask someone close to you that has a kid if they'd be okay with their kid being Victim Number 6 for the sake of letting you preserve that friendship.
|
|
| | |
| | | 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 01:04
|
#4: My thoughts exactly.
|
|
| | | 12 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 08:33
|
Ok, first I'm not defending Paterno's actions (or lack of inaction more specifically). But he did do the right thing reporting it. Could he have done more? Absolutely. Should he have done more? personally I think so.
But should he be dragged thru the mud and made the center of this controversy because he didn't do more? No.
The person the media should be focusing on is Jerry Sandusky, the criminal molester. He's getting off in the court of public opinion because he's being swept under the rug. Why is he being swept under the rug? Because everybody is focusing on Paterno. They're focusing on Paterno for what he didn't do yet without looking it up, how many people could tell me the name of the trainer or the name of the superior that Paterno talked to? I'm willing to bet its a very low percentage. They're focusing on Paterno because he's a name. No other reason.
So again I say either focus on them all or focus on Sandusky. But don't single out Paterno. I think his example over the years in every other aspect of his life has earned at least that much not to be singled out. Focus on all of them or just Sandusky.
Here's some of the headlines I've seen:
"Penn State Scandal Engulfing Paterno"
"Penn State scandal: Joe Paterno's news conference canceled"
"Paterno, Penn State President Should Resign Due to Scandal"
Then on CNN the focus yesterday was all on Paterno's news conference. The Patriot News (harrisburg's paper) has articles about Paterno. They have op-ed's about Paterno. Preston & Steve (local radio show) were discussing Paterno's role this morning. ESPN every day discusses whether Paterno was right or wrong. Should he step down?
Notice who is missing in all that? Jerry Sandusky. If he's mentioned, he's mentioned in passing.
Right now the focus should be on Sandusky and bringing him to justice. I'm not saying don't ever question Paterno. I'm not saying he's a saint and untouchable. Just saying he's the wrong guy to be going after and those that are going after him are doing so in an unfair manner considering he is just 1 person in the overall chain.
Quick quiz - what are the names of the people who stepped down at Penn State?
|
|
| | | 13 | Razor
ID: 569263121
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 10:21
|
Khahan, I don't know what you're reading, but I think the consensus is that Sandusky is a complete and total scumbag who deserves a lifetime in prison at best. That seems to be so clear to everyone now that the question is how did the Penn State administration look the other way and let this monster stay free when they had knowledge of his wrongdoing. The GA, the head coach, the AD and the President all knew and all did nothing. They are all accountable.
|
|
| | | 14 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 10:23
|
If you can't see how Paterno is the biggest story in all this, you're just not in reality.
If this same thing happened at the White House and Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Leon Panetta willfully covered up Tom Vilsack raping kids in a cornfield ten years ago, what do you think the story would be (apart from Boldwin having orgasms in the Politics forum?). I'll give you a hint: it would be about 98% about the attention would be on one of those people, and it wouldn't be Tom Vilsack.
The thing of it is, we thought we knew Joe Paterno. We never knew Jerry Sandusky, and what he did is pretty clear at this point. We know. We're rightly appalled and disgusted and angry and sad about it, but we know.
Quiz answers without looking: Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. Spanier's the idiot school president. Mike McQueary is the ginger ex QB/graduate assistant/guy who could have stopped it all.
|
|
| | | 15 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 12:28
|
"Khahan, I don't know what you're reading, but I think the consensus is that Sandusky is a complete and total scumbag who deserves a lifetime in prison at best."
I agree. And I also think the focus should be on Sandusky. If Paterno is mentioned at all, it should be his name that is mentioned in passing. And thats the problem. Its the other way around.
I read the GJR. If anybody is be blamed for inaction, its Schultz, not Paterno.
Paterno took him concerns to Schultz, who according to the GJR *is* in charge of the University Police.
Paterno did report it to the police. He reported it to the highest ranking person in the local police force he could.
After reading and re-reading the the GJR I actually take back my statement in 12 about his lack of action. He took action. He reported to his bosses and the police in one fell swoop. Schultz is the one who failed to take any further action. Not Paterno.
|
|
| | | 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 549411117
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 12:44
|
Paterno's problem isn't Sandusky. It is how he acted with the knowledge of what was happening. It is a completely separate matter, and Paterno deserves to be judged on his own actions.
|
|
| | | 17 | weykool
ID: 28102713
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 12:52
|
Not good enough Khahan.
The campus police are not THE police.
Joepa as all of the apologist are calling him is the face of the university.
He is getting most of the attention rightfully so.
If you want to take credit for the good that you do you deserve every bit of the blame when you have a complete moral failing.
On the Mike and Mike show this morning they spent quite a bit of time discussing the actions of McQueary and his father.
When McQueary walked in on Sandusky instead of stopping the assault he ran to his office and called his daddy.
A 28 year old man doesnt do that.
And what was the advice of the father that should have known better?
"Get out of there and come home"
Can someone help me with the timeline here?
I read as much of the GJR as I could stomach and really have no desire to read any more.
Were there any more victims/assaults that we know about after the shower incident?
Specifically was Joepa's/McQueary's moral failings responsible for any more victims?
|
|
| | | 18 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 13:36
|
Re: the last question: unquestionably yes. In a nutshell, Sandusky continued to be around the Penn State program and campus while raping little boys for about seven years after this was covered up. From the wiki, which seems accurate based on everything else I've read:
On November 4, 2011, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly indicted Sandusky on 40 counts of sex crimes against young boys, following a three-year investigation into allegations that he had inappropriate contact with a 15-year-old boy over the course of four years, beginning when the boy was ten years old. The boy's parents reported the incident to police in 2009.[6] A Pennsylvania statewide investigating grand jury[7] identified eight boys singled out for sexual advances or sexual assaults by Sandusky from 1994 through 2009.[8] At least 20 of the incidents allegedly took place while Sandusky was still employed by Penn State.[9] The mother of one of the alleged victims said that Sandusky personally admitted to inappropriately touching her son while showering with him on campus in 1998. However, Ray Gricar, then Attorney General of Centre County later declined to press charges.[10]
Sandusky was arrested on November 5 and charged with seven counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse; eight counts of corruption of minors, eight counts of endangering the welfare of a child, seven counts of indecent assault and other offenses.[11] Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz (who oversaw the Penn State police department) were charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse by Sandusky.[12][13]
According to the indictment, in 2002 a Penn State graduate assistant - now-assistant coach Mike McQueary[14] - walked in on a ten-year-old boy being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky. The next day, he reported the incident to Paterno, who informed Curley. Ultimately, the only action Curley and Schultz took was to order Sandusky not to bring any children from Second Mile to the football building—an action that was approved by school president Graham Spanier. The indictment accused Curley and Schultz of not only failing to tell the police, but falsely telling the grand jury that the graduate assistant never informed them of sexual activity.[15]
Although Penn State prohibited Sandusky from bringing boys onto the main campus in 2002, Sandusky was allowed to operate a summer camp under his name from 2002 to 2008 at a satellite campus near Erie where he had daily contact with boys from fourth grade to high school.[16]
Sandusky is currently free on $100,000 bail pending trial. He could face life in prison if convicted of the charges.[17] Curley and Schultz appeared in a Harrisburg courtroom on November 7, where a judge set bail at $75,000 and required them to surrender their passports.[18]
Even if you give Paterno a total pass for his actions at the time of the incident -- which I think is wrong, but whatever -- you cannot possibly give him a pass for seeing Jerry Sandusky around his campus, around his program, around his football facilities (as late as last week), on road trips to Penn State bowl games while rooming with other children, and not once asking "Hey, boss, that whole thing with Jerry raping a kid in the shower -- what ever came of that?"
|
|
| | | 19 | Frick
ID: 387512315
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 13:38
|
The Penn State police could be "The Police" if they are certified. The problem I have with Paterno is that he knew about Sandusky's deviant nature and then allowed him to continue to use Penn State facilities to host his charity.
Timeline Philadelphia Inquirer
|
|
| | | 20 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 13:39
|
To sum up the argument well:
Pennsylvania state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said that though some may have fulfilled their legal obligation to report suspected abuse, "somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child," and that, "I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you're a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us."
I guess if you disagree with that, you disagree with that.
Every Penn State student, football recruit, employee should be asking: "Hey, you covered up some children being raped on your campus to protect your own interests -- why should I think I'm safe here?"
|
|
| | |
| | | 22 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 16:44
|
then allowed him to continue to use Penn State facilities to host his charity.
Paterno does not actually get to make that decision. That goes above Paterno. In fact the use of the facilities after Sandusky retired were a contractual requirement as part of his retirement package. That goes above and beyond even Paterno's level.
I'll also say this - Its easy, from the outside looking in, to judge actors in an event. Its easy to sit upon a high horse and tell people what they've done wrong. But its very different for those actors.
Put yourself in McQueary's shoes. He walks around a corner, probably expecting to see a player and a cheerleader and finds somebody who may be a mentor to him with a little kid. And he freaks out. Absolutely any of you would. I would. I might physically interject myself to stop it. A lot of people would just be shocked and I assume McQuaeary was.
I spent 8 yrs in a career where I simply judged people for their actions or inactions and then decided who got what. And if there's one thing I found out, "What I would do," is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. Because I'm not one of the actors involved.
And then McQueary did go and report this.
And even here, the focus is on JoePa and not on bringing Sandusky to justice like I keep saying it should be.
Once Dwetzel mentions Sandusky in post 14 in a way that shines a spotlight on his crimes. Once in post 13 Razor mentions how everybody views Sandusky. And the OP obviously mentions Sandusky. But outside of that, Sandusky's name really comes up in passing or as a matter of fact about how it ties into JoePa.
Its absolutely ridiculous that people are giving this much attention to Joe Paterno who did not commit a crime when a child molestor *is* getting off in the court of public opinion.
Do an alt-F for Sandusky and count how many times his name appears compared to how many times it appears as an allegation against him. Aside from the multiple times I state it, tell me then that the focus on Joe Paterno is not misplaced. Try and tell me that the focus should still be on Joe Paterno who reported the crime and the focus should not be on bringing Jerry Sandusky to justice.
Then try to live with yourself.
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 16:52
|
You are missing the point, Khahan. Paterno isn't getting slammed because he is a child molester, or because he protected a child molester. Or anything to do with the molester's actions.
He's getting slammed because his reaction to the news wasn't appropriate. And for a guy who makes lots and lots of money giving motivational and political speeches to organizations all the time, he's being held to a standard of failing to do what he should have done.
Counting posts about Sandusky versus Paterno completely misses the point that they are not the same problem.
The reason no one is spending the time about Sandusky is because it is all a wash: He was guilty and should be punished and no one debates that (which is why no one is debating it on these boards).
|
|
| | | 24 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 19:12
|
For the umpteenth damn time, we're not talking about Jerry Sandusky because:
1) We know exactly what he did;
2) Nobody gave a crap about Jerry Sandusky beforehand, and thus have no emotional investment in the situation. I mean, someone probably got murdered in Pennsylvania yesterday -- shouldn't we drop this whole football talk and delve into their lives?
Saying "Sandusky is getting off in the court of public opinion" is, like, the dumbest thing I've ever read. For chrissakes, we KNOW he's a scumbag, he deserves to burn in hell, if stoning and burning at the stake was still an option I'd be in favor of it.
Does that mean we're never allowed to talk about anything else either?
I actually believe Paterno didn't do anything in the technically illegal sense. If you can't differentiate between that and the fact that for seven years after that he stood silently by while this guy molested other children down the street, there's just no point in listening to anything else on the matter, because you're missing the point by so far that it's utterly incomprehensible. Go figure that part out and then come back.
|
|
| | | 25 | Electroman
Donor
ID: 010833614
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 19:22
|
Khahan, if Paterno had put an ounce of the effort you are putting in to defend him, this story would have come out 10 years ago, and JoePa would look great. It sucks when you find out that someone you look up to isn't as great as they are built up to be, I feel for you. Paterno did what he had to according to the law. But as a human being, he did the minimum.
|
|
| | | 26 | Razor
ID: 09441723
Wed, Nov 09, 2011, 19:45
|
Khahan, it's apparent to me that you are not grasping the scope or gravity of this situation.
This is not just about Sandusky the child molester. This is about top officials at Penn State University criminally ignoring and possibly actively covering up the actions of a child molester. Sandusky is guilty and will be put away. There is no debate about that. The concern is to what extent Penn State employees knew about the child molester and purposely took actions NOT to stop him. This is about a university whose senior administrators may very well have willingly and knowingly put the welfare of the university and the football program above the welfare of not only children, but particularly vulnerable children of broken homes. The sexual abuse went on for years after the first incident was reported. A high school coach, a virtual nobody reported it. A janitor, a virtual nobody reported it. But when the most powerful men in the university and town were confronted with the information, what they do? They barred Sandusky from bringing children to campus with him, a policy that they even stated was unenforceable. They did not alert the authorities. They continued to let Sandusky on campus whenever he pleased. Read between the lines and you can see that whatever Sandusky was doing, they did not care - they just wanted Penn State out of it. Meanwhile, the monster continued to prey on kids for years unabated until now.
As one of the most powerful men at Penn State, if not the most powerful man at Penn State, Joe Paterno was certainly in a position to do something about this. If Joe Paterno picks up a phone and tells the police that Sandusky was inappropriately touching a boy in the shower on his campus, the police come to investigate. The investigation would have certainly been deemed credible given that a) it came from Joe Paterno and b) four years earlier, Sandusky had been reported as having a similar incident in a shower. Paterno never placed that call. Sandusky remained free to prey on vulnerable youth.
For the record, one of my closest friends who I spoke to earlier tonight was in the exact same position as McQuery - graduate assistant under a legend. My friend said that there is no way on Earth that he would have gone up to call his father (or better yet, straight to Coach Bowden's office) without first stepping in to intervene. And the question everyone should be asking of McQuery, Paterno, Curley and Schultz was when alerted of a child molestation case on campus, why weren't they following up everyday to see when charges were going to be pressed? When they saw him or heard about him, why weren't they alarmed that no action had been taken? If any person NOT actively trying to cover something up had this happen to them, I'm sure their reaction would be fury over the inaction that happened not only day by day, but for nearly 9 years now.
|
|
| | | 27 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 08:38
|
Ok, everybody keeps saying "Joe Paterno was in a position to do something about this."
What was he to do?
The standard response was, "go to the police."
He DID that. He went to Schultz which oversaw campus police. Campus police have the same authority as municipal officers at Penn State ( University Police Page )
He went to the person in charge of the police department (Schultz). The failure at that point is on Schultz.
So tell me, in light of the fact that Paterno did go to the authorities what is this 'more he could have done.'
Specifically?
Its nothing more than a feeling people have and it is misplaced directing it at Paterno. Unless you feel absolutely everybody involved in the chain of events should be under the same public scrutiny as Paterno. But not a single person here has expressed that opinion despite my asking it multiple times.
No, people are on a witch-hunt for Paterno, either because they are part of the faction at PSU that has been trying to oust him for years or they've bought into the sensationalisation of the story by the media. No other reason. If there was another reason (because you truly honestly believed he 'failed at his moral obligations') then you'd be going after McQueary with the same zeal. And not a one of you are.
Admit it, you feel Paterno has a greater duty because of his status. No other reason. And thats a bullshit reason to go after somebody.
And Dwetzel to say that my comment about Sandusky getting off in the court of public opinion is one of the dumbest things...do this - find one single article that targets Sandusky. Find one op-ed that focuses on Sandusky.
Find one piece that mentions Paterno in passing while discussing Sandusky. And I'll find 10 that focus on Paterno. I'll find 10 op-ed's that discuss Paterno specifically. I'll find 10 that are about Paterno and only mention Sandusky in passing.
I had 3 customers in my office yesterday talking about Paterno and when I asked them about who he reported, 2 of them couldn't even recall Sandusky's name.
That is why I say he is getting off in the court of public opinion. Because the media has made this about Paterno.
There was a very interesting piece on ESPN this morning from an espn radio host stating basically the same thing. Sandusky is the monster and where is the coverage of him?
I think the student body rallies at Penn State last night were spot on (not condoning them overturning the news truck and the vandalism).
Paterno was made a scapegoat.
|
|
| | | 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 09:54
|
Joe Paterno should have known that the campus police aren't the place to go to for child rape, despite their full police powers on campus.
Luckily, the Board of Trustees agree, and fired him and the University President yesterday.
Believing that this can be handled in-house was a mistake in judgement. Hopefully, this will lead to quicker reportings to the real police.
|
|
| | | 29 | Razor
ID: 09441723
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 10:05
|
It's worse than that, PD. If you hear of a very serious crime, the first thing you do is call the police. Even if that was on campus police, that means calling THEM not the police commissioner. The police commissioner isn't equipped to do anything except do exactly what
A janitor alerted the authorities. A high school coach alerted the authorities. Possibly the most powerful man in State College kicked it upstairs and did not followup when nothing happened. When Sandusky walked around campus, he never asked himself "Why isn't that guy in jail? What happened to that investigation?" Paterno did not care as long as it did not damage the university, and the way he handled it made sure that it didn't.
As the details of this come out, I believe we'll find that Paterno knew more than has been reported to date and just swept it under the rug to protect Penn State.
|
|
| | | 30 | Great One
ID: 574139
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 10:15
|
I don't really understand why it would matter that he went to campus or the regular police, they both can charge and arrest people committing crimes. Unless you are saying that they couldn't be trusted to not be part of a coverup and you needed some outside folks.
|
|
| | | 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 39961218
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 10:30
|
He didn't actually go to the police (regular or campus), however--he went to the AD.
|
|
| | | 32 | Frick
ID: 387512315
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 10:33
|
Khahan,
The problem, IMO, that most people have with Paterno isn't that he just told his boss, but that he didn't follow-up in any way. He never once said to himself, I wonder what happened to that investigation where my D coordinator was accused of having sex with a 10-year old. While JoePa is old, that never once occurred to him when his Sandusky retired to spend more time with his charity, the charity that helps young boys. He never thought back while Sandusky was holding charity events on PSU property, that he might want to look into the issue.
Paterno did the minimum to CYA. I like the irony that the Trustees did the minimum to let him know that he had been fired.
|
|
| | | 33 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 10:56
|
Khahan,
Why didn't ESPN have an op-ed that says that water is wet? BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. Find me one article that says otherwise. (There's also the whole "have to be careful what you say as far as a LEGAL case, lest something go wrong and you get sued and have to forfeit 3/4 of your letters" problem -- which is NOT the case with Paterno). What's newsworthy about an op-ed piece that says "yup, it's my opinion that raping kids is bad". It also helps that nobody's disputing that fact, while a bunch of people are disputing that Paterno is anything other than a saint in all this.
Now, you do ME a favor and go find one article that says what Sandusky did isn't so bad and maybe we should ease off until we hear everything blah blah blah. Isn't one. Shouldn't be one.
It's hilarious that you say in one sentence "find me ONE article that focuses on Sandusky" and then four paragraphs later mention an article that is published on ESPN that says "hey, there's an article on ESPN that says maybe we're focusing too much on Paterno and let's not forget about the other stuff." It's like Boldwin whining about the MSM. EXACTLY like it. No, don't defend yourself.
But, to humor you for a moment, There. Does that count? Does Rick Reilly count as someone moderately important in ESPN's op-ed department? Does this count as reminding people that there's worse stuff at work when you start an article with:
This is not about Joe Paterno.
If these boys really were molested, groped and raped by a middle-aged ex-Penn State football coach, then whatever misjudgment Paterno made will be a single lit match compared to the bonfire these boys will walk in for years to come.
Happy now?
|
|
| | | 34 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 11:10
|
Agree with #32. Corporate employees are directed to report conduct infractions - including crimes - to their HR or legal departments and I'm sure there is pressure on Penn State to address such issues the same way.
So I have no problem with him going that route initially. But the minute he realized the school was going to bury it, he had a decision to make. He had the ability to go back to the people he spoke with or go over their heads and threaten to go public if they don't deal with Sandusky head on. He chose to put his career or the school's good name or maybe even Sandusky's name over seeing the right thing done.
|
|
| | | 35 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 11:11
|
Also:
There are no "scapegoats" when it comes to enabling a man to rape children over a seven year period*. Especially when what's happened to Paterno is what, exactly? He's losing his job? He's lost the respect of a bunch of people?
That's less than is happening to Curley and Schultz -- they're going to jail.
It's exactly what happened to Spanier -- he lost his job.
It's exactly what's going to happen to McQueary -- I'l bet my house against a cheeseburger that he loses his job by December 1. And it can be a crappy cheeseburger for all I care.
He's had a bunch of people talk about how terrible it is to enable someone to rape ten year old little boys in the ass on your watch over seven years while you stood by and did nothing? Well, if you
"We know Jerry Sandusky raped a kid on our campus, but I still let him room with a child on the University's dime on our trip to the Alamo Bowl. I also know that he was barred from our facilities at that time but I continued to allow him around the football program, including using the weight room last week."
If anyone but Joe Paterno said that, you'd be calling for his skull on a platter.
I get that you're sad for the legacy that is being torn down, that the idyllic view of Joe Paterno and Penn State as s super-honorable person leading a super-honorable university that you held deeply is being torn apart in front of you. But that legacy was a fraud. We know that now. Stop clinging to it.
*(I know Sandusky did it for longer than that, but I'm generously agreeing to only go from 2002, rather than the other incident in 1998 when Sandusky mysteriously resigned under pressure but was still allowed around campus/etc.)
|
|
| | | 36 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 11:16
|
The irony is, of course, that in practice they did very little to protect the university -- which is their stated reason. Imagine the following press conference in 2002:
"In cooperation with local authorities, we have discovered that former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky was raping a kid in our shower. Through the cooperation of various members of the Penn State Community, local police were able to apprehend Sandusky at about 10:00 PM on September 14th. We are deeply saddened by this incident involving what we believed to be a member of the Penn State family. We will do everything in our power to see that this never happens again."
How does that look bad for the university in the long run? It says "yup, someone we worked with did something really, unspeakably terrible. As soon as we knew, we did everything possible to stop it." Because that's what it would be. That's a pretty good image to have, once you get past the initial shock. And, pleasing Khahan to no end, it puts the focus squarely where it belongs -- on the pedophile.
How's that "protecting the university" thing working out now?
Of course, everyone's actions make perfect sense if you actually only want to protect their buddy Jerry Sandusky, not their university.
|
|
| | | 37 | weykool
ID: 28102713
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 11:42
|
From the link re campus police:
Mission Statement
University Police strives to establish a social and physical environment wherein people on the campus may be free from fear and, therby, contribute to the quality and excellence of The Pennsylvania State University.
Allow me to break it down:
1. strives to establish a social and physical environment wherein people on the campus may be free from fear.....Unless you are a 10 year old boy getting raped in the shower.
2. therby, contribute to the quality and excellence of The Pennsylvania State University.
The university is our main focus.
We will do everything we can to to cover up any crime that could do harm to our beloved university who pays our salaries.
Khahan it seems you are using the someone did something worse than me defense.
The bank robber's defense is they didnt kill anyone.
The person who killed someone claims there are people who have killed multiple individuals.
What Paterno did was WRONG. He failed morally. And the obvious motivation was to protect the university, his friend, and his own paycheck.
I find it sad that the PSU students have also lost their moral compass.
I have no axe to grind on Paterno.
His accomplishments as a football coach are worthy of admiration.
He is obviously beloved by his players and the student body.
There is no doubt that he has had positive impacts an many people and the good he has done far outweighs the bad.
I am sad to see his career tarnished by the scandal.
|
|
| | | 38 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 11:44
|
More ESPN coverage about people other than Paterno:
Mike and Mike on McQueary
Jay Bilas on EVERYONE: "A conspiracy of cowards"
(Paraphrased by the story with the video link: One of the worst things about this is the fact that Penn State officials knew of the accusations against Sandusky (since 1998, actually), and forbade him from bringing kids on campus. Which basically says, “We know there’s strong evidence you’re molesting kids, but if you’re going to do it, don’t do it here.” The sheer lunacy of this is also something Bilas discussed.)
|
|
| | | 39 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 11:55
|
One more thought on Paterno; he is old. He's from a time when this sort of thing was handled very differently, when dealing with it head-on and out in the open was an option requiring a level of heroism that frankly most people don't have. Its very easy for more progressive or enlightened generations to attack everyone who ever lived by the old culture as wicked but it was what they were taught was the appropriate way to be.
It doesnt change Paterno's moral/ethical culpability or the appropriateness of his dismissal in the least, of course. But I'll acknowledge that he wasn't as personally prepared to do the right thing as someone 45 years younger might be. If there's any relatively minuscule (compared with the victims) sympathy to have for him, that's the perspective I see it from.
|
|
| | | 40 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 12:08
|
Paterno railroaded
Paterno out, McQueary still in
That second link says it all. This was never about 'what is morally right.' If that was case, they'd all be gone. This was about getting Paterno out and using the Sandusky scandal as a convenient excuse.
You still want to tell me this is all about people not doing the 'morally right thing?'
|
|
| | | 41 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 12:09
|
I even get that the first, human emotion to have is "I can't believe my friend, the man I've worked with for 20+ years, is doing this. It can't be true."
However, how so many people can all come to the conclusion that their friendship is worth more than the futures of a bunch of children after due consideration, and then continue to allow him to be around? At some point you have to get over the shock and do the right thing.
|
|
| | |
| | | 43 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 12:13
|
RE: 40 -- Yup, I do. And, in some cases, the legally not right thing.
If you seriously, after reading that PDF and knowing that Paterno KNEW what was going on, still think he did nothing wrong and should continue to be allowed to be in the position of trust over young men, then there's nothing more to say than "Woo! 8-1! Think of the REAL VICTIMS here -- the PSU players!"
And yes, obviously, McQueary being allowed within a mile of the stadium from about last Tuesday forward is another disgrace.
|
|
| | | 44 | weykool
ID: 28102713
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 12:48
|
It doesnt change Paterno's moral/ethical culpability or the appropriateness of his dismissal in the least, of course. But I'll acknowledge that he wasn't as personally prepared to do the right thing as someone 45 years younger might be. If there's any relatively minuscule (compared with the victims) sympathy to have for him, that's the perspective I see it from.
In addition, the information that Paterno had was second hand knowledge.
He wasnt the one who walked in on his friend and had the image of Sandusky with child seared into his brain.
Im sure there was some level of denial that his friend couldnt be guilty as well as some level of doubt as to what exactly McQueary saw.
It still doesnt excuse him from his moral obligations to err on the side of protecting innocent children.
Turning it over to the campus police is was not nearly enough.
According to ESPN the campus police never even questioned McQueary about the incident.
Being from the Keystone state one could see where the term Keystone Cops would apply here.
|
|
| | | 45 | Mith
ID: 46121210
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 12:51
|
The first link in post 40 is really weak. The writer either doesn't understand or chooses to disregard several key factors, including that going to their superiors might cover Paterno and McQueary from criminal charges, but criminality isn't and shouldn't be the standard for determining who should be fired.
Part of the reason Paterno was fired are his positions of influece and aurthority. An accusation filed by him gets handled much more seriously than possibly anyone else on that campus. Whether he wants that responsibility or not, that's part of what comes with being Joe Paterno.
I suspect McQueary hasn't been fired because there's more about him than we know. Total speculation but perhaps he did try to take it further and was stopped or even threatened?
Even the board of trustees acknowledge that everything they do with this will be in what they decide is in the best interest of the school, which means taking the best measures they can to preserve the schools name with the alumni, students, law enforcement, the local community, the state and the NCAA - and of course limitiing civil damages as much as possible.
You see the reaction on campus from Paterno's dismissal. The anger was even present in the reaction of the media during the press conference last night. Paterno has meant so much to that school that there is no way that he was a target for scapegoating or railroading. Everyone on that board benefited greatly from the legacy of Joe Paterno and if the school's course was to try to throw someone under the bus, Paterno would be the first guy they'd try to protect. A 40something year legacy like that? He was going to have buildings named after him. No board wants throw that away.
|
|
| | | 46 | DWetzel
ID: 53326279
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 12:55
|
"criminality isn't and shouldn't be the standard for determining who should be fired."
Exactly. ESPECIALLY in a position where the person IS ultimately the image of the university.
|
|
| | | 47 | Frick
ID: 387512315
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 13:45
|
This issue wasn't suddenly blown-up over night. Yes, it made main stream media overnight, but this article was alluding the coming storm in April.
|
|
| | | 48 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 14:10
|
Welcome to post 21, Frick! :)
You'll note the author of that article also happens to be the same guy in post 42, which is why it's worth looking at even if it's currently in the rumor/speculation stage.
As if the rest of it wasn't completely nauseating enough, give that article and video a look and listen.
If the Sandusky "retirement" was part of a coverup in 1998, and then it happened AGAIN in 2002 and was covered up AGAIN? I mean, at that point I guess there's still the "But we have a game against Nebraska on Saturday, think of the children!" idiots out there, but at this point that's a lunatic fringe.
The final nail in the coffin, which hasn't been drawn yet and is obviously speculation right now -- but almost seems coldly logical at this point given what we do know -- would be if they discovered that Sandusky was pimping out young kids to Penn State football donors, and covered it up to keep the money flowing in. We're quite a ways down that road, and if that happens ... I've said to this point that the "shut down the football program" crowd was nuts because you could get rid of the bad people and let it go on. But if we get to that point, the right course of action is to nuke the entire university from space.
|
|
| | | 49 | Razor
ID: 569263121
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 14:24
|
I am surprised that Penn State is not forfeiting not only this game but the rest of the season. There is a black cloud over the program right now, and this isn't one of those situations where sports is the cure since it appears overzealousness about football may have played a role in how Sandusky remained free for 13 years after the first incident was reported.
|
|
| | | 50 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 14:39
|
Well, this, if true, definitely changes my opinion here.
More Sandusky revelations (note: this is not graphic, but its pretty shocking)
And I will say this - if that article is true then there is no way at all that Joe Paterno or anybody of any rank (including some on the board of trustees) didn't know about this. And with any of that kind of knowledge I would change my opinion.
|
|
| | | 51 | weykool
ID: 28102713
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 14:45
|
Shutting down the football program will hurt people who have done nothing wrong.
Punish those who have done wrong.
Punishing the innocent is something the NCAA seems to get wrong over and over.
Reggie Bush did wrong but is making millions playing football.
Pete Carroll was found to be lacking in institutional control, but is doing well coaching in Seattle.
So who got punished?
The USC players and fans who did nothing wrong and are completely innocent.
|
|
| | | 52 | Mith
ID: 23217270
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 14:49
|
I'm not inclined to just assume that the board is without some responsibility but I don't see why the scandal must necessarily go up to them. I don't doubt they've been well aware of any and all rumors out there but I also don't know that they were able to act on them, either.
|
|
| | | 53 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 14:52
|
Ok, 50 was a repost of 42. Little slow on the draw with that.
|
|
| | | 54 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 15:05
|
Better late than never, dude. (shoulder pat -- but not, a Sandusky shoulder pat, let's be clear)
While I'm sure there are a number of people that are taking glee in bringing down Paterno, I think anyone here is coming to it with a rather different perspective.
I know it's speculation, but I honestly think we're about two short steps and maybe a week from hearing "the entire Sandusky thing was covered up, twice, to protect major Penn State donors (not necessarily football-specific donors -- I'm talking people with their names on libraries and dorms) who were also diddling little boys, and oh by the way we've finally got the link that proves that the former district attorney was murdered". And at that point, I don't care about the football program -- what do you do with the entire university? Encase it in cement like Fukushima?
|
|
| | |
| | | 56 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Thu, Nov 10, 2011, 15:30
|
As usual, The Onion brings it's own brand of common sense to the proceedings. This is no joking matter at it's core of course, but in this case, I'll make an exception:
link
|
|
| | | 57 | Seattle Zen
ID: 47630913
Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 16:41
|
PHILADELPHIA -- Joe Paterno and other top Penn State officials hushed up child sex abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky more than a decade ago for fear of bad publicity, allowing Sandusky to prey on other youngsters, according to a scathing internal report issued Thursday on the scandal. "Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State," said Louis Freeh, the former director of the FBI who was hired by university trustees to look into what has become one of sports' biggest scandals. "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized." After an eight-month inquiry, Freeh's firm produced a 267-page report that concluded that Hall of Fame coach Paterno, President Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz "failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade."
Freeh called the officials' disregard for child victims "callous and shocking." "In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse," the report said. Paterno "was an integral part of this active decision to conceal," Freeh said at a news conference.
PSU officials callously allowed Sandusky to continue to rape children.
|
|
| | | 58 | Seattle Zen
ID: 47630913
Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 16:49
|
I haven't been following this case closely. I wonder, did Paterno write the forward to Sandusky's Touched?
My opinion of PSU and Paterno post 1998 could not be lower. When you decide against notifying authorities of allegations of child rape IN YOUR LOCKER ROOM, you are telling everyone you know it happens and you don't want the man arrested.
In my opinion, if PSU football plays one down this season, the NCAA is morally bankrupt. You hand out Death Penalties to programs whose crimes are that football players accepted money. Here you have a assistant coach who uses the football program as a vehicle to rape boys, the AD, head coach and Univ. President know this and don't stop it. Which is worse?
|
|
| | | 59 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 16:52
|
57- well now I'm disappointed in paterno. But the difference between now and when this first came up is 2-fold:
1) we have a complete investigation and evidence showing he covered up and shame on Joe.
2) Sandusky has been brought to justice. Even if it were shown early on JoePa covered up the extent he did, I would still say its witch-hunt at that point going after him. The story in the early going should have always been sandusky and nobody else. Once the big one is brought down, go after the cover up.
But shame on Joe Paterno. :( Very sad to hear this.
|
|
| | | 60 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 17:02
|
Even if it were shown early on JoePa covered up the extent he did, I would still say its witch-hunt at that point going after him
to clarify I mean going after him at that point in time.
Now's the time to lay into those who covered up. The monster has been dealt with.
|
|
| | | 61 | Frick
ID: 52182321
Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 18:21
|
It will take the NCAA some time to act, but if they don't they come across as the biggest hypocrits of all time IMO. The Freeh report defines "Lack of Institutional Control" The senior management of Penn St had a plan to report Sandusky, but it was changed after a meet with Paterno.
Janitors were afraid for their jobs if they reported a rape that the witnessed.
Players were explicitly told not to assist in ongoing investigations or they would be kicked off the team.
I don't know what the ultimate penalty for Penn St. will be, but the death penalty should definitely be discussed.
The cynic in me thinks that nothing significant will actually happen. Just some internal penalties that are slaps on the wrist. If that happens it basically tells every school out there that winning is everything and you can pay a small price in the event that you are caught.
|
|
| | | 62 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 463161814
Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 16:07
|
My bet is in the end the NCAA will shut down the football program for multiple seasons. There is not precedent for this level of dysfunction and the punishment should exceed all past punishments.
Read the below NCAA letter to PSU after the grand jury report was released. The Freeh report would seem to confirm and strengthen the violations.
http://www.ncaa.com/content/ncaa-letter-penn-state
|
|
| | | 63 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 09:57
|
Penn State done for how long? This is going to affect the program for years and years to come.
I have problems with this. The fine is no problem. Penn State can cover that.
The 4 year bowl ban is wholly symbolic. Penn State wouldn't get a bowl bid with proper punishments in place, but this one unduly punishes the current players. Any players that stay are going to work hard and bust their butts. If the kids that do remain earn victory after victory they deserve the bowl.
The loss of scholarships - this is good. The scholarships and team in place is there. But this is a punishment directly at the school for the cover up. The higher ups did plenty wrong and now the school will pay the price as is. But this goes back to my last point. Despite the odds being stacked against the now current team, if they manage to play and win those kids who had nothing to do with this scandal deserve to have something to play for.
Maybe something like a loss of revenue from bowl games. Keep hitting Penn State.
I also don't like the 'loss of wins since 1998. Again, this is directly punishing those players who were not involved.
I guess one side effect of the vacating all wins is that JoePa is no longer the winningest coach in NCAA football.
|
|
| | | 64 | Razor
ID: 551031157
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 10:16
|
Penn State got what they deserved. The institution put football on a pedestal at the expense of everything else, and now their football program will be decimated for probably 10 years. The university, the town, the alumni, and the students will all have to learn how to put football in the proper perspective. Further, this punishment rightfully serves as a deterrent for other universities - cover up a scandal to protect your university and you'll likely lose football as you know it for a decade. The penalties are so devastating that they will be the worst team in the Big 10 for the foreseeable future.
|
|
| | | 65 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 10:27
|
I agree with Khahan that the players seem to be the ones who are taking the brunt of the punishment here. I can see how it would be impossible that the program get punished but not the players, but I still think those current players are being victimized themselves a bit with this. Haven't read this very closely, but I would hope they would at the very least have the opportunity to transfer without penalty or waiting.
|
|
| | | 66 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 10:35
|
The NCAA recognizes that student-athletes are not responsible for these events and utilized penalties that will minimize the impact on entering and current football student-athletes. Any entering or current football student-athlete will be allowed to immediately transfer and compete.
|
|
| | | 67 | Seattle Zen
ID: 47630913
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 10:47
|
The current players are barely penalized, they can't go to a bowl game. They get to play in front of a huge crowd and get a full ride scholarship, it's just like they are going to Vanderbilt. They can transfer immediately if they so choose.
I don't see this as sufficient. There will be football this year. This year the football stadium should be quiet.
|
|
| | | 68 | Razor
ID: 551031157
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 10:57
|
I agree that, symbolically, the death penalty would have ultimately served as a more severe immediate penalty, I think long term this is much harsher. Penn State will have massive attrition from their football team this year. The players can transfer anywhere without penalty and any school in the nation can accept them without a scholarship count hit. That means PSU will lose several players. Couple that with the recruiting restrictions and they might be playing with half as many scholarship players as their opponents in a few years. Repeated 10-loss seasons will be more devastating than one or two seasons without any games. The NCAA told Penn State they can continue playing football, they will just be playing it with far fewer players than anyone else. This will serve the purpose of deemphasizing football. 110,000 people are not going to show up to watch Penn State get beat by 45 points by Ohio State and Michigan and 2 TD's to Northwestern.
|
|
| | | 69 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 10:58
|
Why SZ. Of Sandusky and those who covered this up, who is left? The program and the institution need to be penalized. Nobody is questioning that.
In fact for the stuff I think steps over the top a little bit I'm even willing to try some different penalties that achieve the same goal but minimize the impact on the players, like a revenue hit from bowl games.
Personally I think there should be some firings from the board of trustees, too. In that respect I don't think any punishment levied has gone far enough.
Makes me wonder about our illustrious governor, too. He was a trustee at the time. Of course maybe this scandal is exactly why some of trustees seemed hellbent on getting Paterno out of there since the late 90's.
|
|
| | | 70 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 10:59
|
I think the penalties are carefully constructed to ensure that the player are NOT taking the brunt.
No current player is losing a scholarship.
Any player recruited to play football still gets to play football each weekend during the regular season. And get an education. They only games they don't get to play are (potentially) 4 bowl games.
The vacated wins have no bearing on current players. Frankly, they have little bearing on past players. The vacated wins strike primarily at Joe Paterno, since he is no longer the winningest coach, according to the official record books.
The loss of scholarships is prospective, and while no current student will lose a scholarship, it will hurt the current players to the extent that the overall caliber of the team will be diminished.
A side effect of the four year bowl ban is that any current player can now transfer to another school without any mandated downtime. Admittedly, the time frame to do that prior to the 2012 season is pretty tight.
Also important is that by not nuking the current season, the local economy of State College, PA has not been torpedoed. A death penalty would have dealt a severe economic blow to businesses not directly (or at least legally) affiliated with PSU.
All in all, I think the penalties did a pretty good job of protecting the current players to the extent possible.
|
|
| | | 71 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 11:03
|
I agree completely with Guru.
|
|
| | | 72 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 11:07
|
I think that Penn State got off lightly. Current players can transfer out and immediately play somewhere else. If they want to stay and not play in bowl games they have that choice.
USC in the middle of a similar scholarship penalty. Call me cynical, but I question how effect the penalty is since USC is ranked #1 in most pre-season polls.
|
|
| | | 73 | Judy
ID: 54203110
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 11:14
|
I was surprised that there was no hint that maybe the board -- exception being the newly elected -- should resign. Although the head of the board kept some in the dark, those on that committee knew something and were derelict in their duty to inform the entire board.
Seems simple to me -- lack of board oversight -- dismiss the board and start over. I was surprised that there was no mention of that by the NCAA.
Also, Corbett's role in this needs to be more heavily explored. Did he not pursue the early leads as AG because he was afraid of losing votes from PSU'ers in the upcoming election as several recent columns have suggested? He sure made sure to attend the meeting to fire paterno...
Just saying...
|
|
| | | 74 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 24650229
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 14:06
|
I think the penalties will do what the NCAA wants them to do: send a strong message that the actions (or inaction) at Penn State will not be tolerated.
As Dan Wetzel at Yahoo Sports points out, the (one-year) death penalty might have been preferred given that the impact would have been much quicker and not so long-lasting. (Read about the difference with SMU in the article)
I do hope the NCAA pays attention to the impact of the $60M fine on other sports. It's not uncommon for other sports to get funding from football (and men's basketball). By losing $12M of revenue each of the next five years, Penn State could be forced into a situation not unlike Maryland, who recently cut seven sports teams. If Penn St. does end up having to cut other sports as a result of lost funding, those student-athletes should get the same scholarship/transfer opportunity as the football players.
Frick: USC in the middle of a similar scholarship penalty. Call me cynical, but I question how effect the penalty is since USC is ranked #1 in most pre-season polls.
USC is definitely not "in the middle" of their scholarship sanctions yet. As this article points out, "the year USC really feels the pinch will be in 2014 when graduation—combined with the 15 scholarships available—will mean that Kiffin is going to have to be incredibly creative to even stack two deep, much less three at each position."
That's the thing about scholarship reductions. They never really hit a program hard in Year 1 or Year 2. They hit a program hardest when those players they weren't able to offer a scholarship to are the ones that are supposed to be the Seniors and Juniors and Sophomores in the starting lineup.
According to the article, 2012 was the first year of full scholarship sanctions for USC and they only signed 12 players. They have 16 commits this year and while they've assembled a #1 ranking according to Rivals' scoring system, there are still a lot of holes from last year's and this year's recruiting classes to fill with non-scholarship talent.
And Penn State's sanctions are for an extra year. There could easily be 3-5 years, starting around 2015, where Penn State actually is the equivalent of Vanderbilt. It'll happen much sooner if they start losing current players.
|
|
| | | 75 | Damoose
ID: 76112313
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 14:11
|
They said they wanted to make it not about football. All that will be talked about for next ten years is the football team at PSU and how the sanctions are affecting them.
|
|
| | | 76 | holt
ID: 108501712
Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 19:54
|
"Also important is that by not nuking the current season, the local economy of State College, PA has not been torpedoed. A death penalty would have dealt a severe economic blow to businesses not directly (or at least legally) affiliated with PSU."
Excellent point Guru!
|
|
| | | 77 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 10:12
|
Its all that collateral damage that most people never even consider.
|
|
| | | 78 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:00
|
Would State College be as big as it currently is without the football program? The town has benefited from a program that put everything (including kids being sexually abused) after its image. How much additional benefit has come to an area that either looked the other way or encouraged that type of behavior. To claim that the town and its population would be collateral damage doesn't seem right to me, I can't see them as completely innocent victims.
|
|
| | | 79 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:05
|
Wow, that seems harsh. So you'd want to punish a local restaurant because several PSU officials failed to report abuse activity?
|
|
| | | 80 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:22
|
Sorry, not was I was trying to imply.
In my opinion the NCAA has basically said that if you are a big program you won't get more than a temporary set back. The football program was made to be greater than the University. Anything that could harm the football program was secondary. The punishment seems designed to keep the football program from being hit to hard. The NCAA should not consider the harm to community. If the harm of missing 7 weekends is that great, isn't that more reason to punish the football program? Or will the football program just be placed back on a pedestal because it is the main driver of the local economy?
|
|
| | | 81 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 11:28
|
I also don't see the punishment as a failure to report the abuse. The punishment is the result of the football program, specifically Joe Paterno, running the University. The NCAA is very explicit that no coach should have that power and they report to superiors. The Freeh report made it fairly clear that was not happening at Penn State.
I'm an IU basketball fan. Looking back at how much influence Bobby Knight had at Indiana in the 70s, 80s and 90s you could argue that there was a lack of institutional control because Knight had so much influence on the entire athletic department. The difference is that Knight was repeatedly punished and ultimately terminated by the University. While I will never like Myles Brand, I do respect him for knowing his responsibility and fulfilling it. He was Bobby Knights boss and when Knight misbehaved, he punished him. That didn't happen at Penn State, Paterno had complete control of what happened at the University. That is why Penn State was punished, not for the failure to report.
|
|
| | |
| | | 83 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 14:30
|
Actually, Frick, the punishment was exactly because of the failure to report the abuse. In fact, PSU has, for decades, set itself up as the more moral program (Paterno specifically recruited on the basis of a top football program in which the players would learn and instill moral values as well).
The program would have absolutely survived if the abuse had been reported and all those who knew followed the evidence regardless of the risk to the program itself.
|
|
| | | 84 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:12
|
They did take the W's away from Penn State, but I'm pretty sure they didn't give them to the other schools.
|
|
| | | 85 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:41
|
So, nobody won? If Penn State lost, the other team must have won.
What school has the longest losing streak in college football history?
|
|
| | | 86 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:47
|
Q: Does vacating a win mean the opponent won?
A: No. According to the NCAA, opposing teams are not granted wins, as in a forfeit. The penalized school simply can't claim credit for that victory. For instance, in 2009, Penn State opened the season with a 31-7 rout of Akron. Penn State will lose credit for that win, but Akron cannot claim it as a victory.
|
|
| | | 87 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:47
|
That's right--nobody won. And nobody lost, for that matter, so Penn State has no long losing record.
|
|
| | | 88 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:48
|
According to Wikipedia, Penn State does now!
The various other losing streaks (of a more normal variety) are listed there too.
|
|
| | | 89 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:49
|
I would like to point out something for consideration. Well a few points:
1) Paterno is dead and cannot defend himself or refute the accuastions
2) The board of trustees had some implications in this scandal until recently and had a lot to gain by putting the blame elsewhere
3) Freeh was paid $6.5mil by the board of trustees when they commissioned this report
Those 3 things are facts. You can draw your own conclusions. Personally I think there needs to be a *very* thorough investigation of the board members.
|
|
| | | 90 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:53
|
I can go into Wikipedia and change that back, DW. It is hardly confirmation!
Unfortunately Paterno isn't around to defend himself, and his actions have to speak on their own. My understanding is that he did the minimal legal amount necessary at the time.
|
|
| | | 91 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 15:57
|
Well, sure you could, but given that they have lost 64 games over the last 13 years, and haven't officially won any... :)
(The page also lists the "real" losing streak records for various divisions, of course.)
|
|
| | | 92 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 16:30
|
Re: 83
The failure to report was a symptom, not the root cause of what resulted in the NCAA violations. The root cause was a Lack of Institutional Control. Lack of Institutional Control is where Penn State failed in the eyes of the NCAA.
It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. he institution’s
president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures.
There were a number of instances where it becomes apparent that Spanier wasn't in charge and was taking "advice" from Paterno.
Re:89
Paterno's interviews, e-mails, and notes show that he was inconsistent at best with regards to what he knew.
I don't disagree that the Board failed in their responsibilities, aided by Spanier's misdirection, but the Freeh report supplies a lot of evidence, not just speculation.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 95 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Nov 01, 2012, 15:10
|
Jerry Sandusky getting exactly what he deserves.
|
|
|
|