First Division I "death penalty" in 25 years?

[ASUMountaineer]

Sometimes collateral damage is necessary to punish.

It's not the childrens' fault when a father of 4 commits a crime and goes to prison for 20 years. But, they also have to suffer their father's punishment.

Or maybe their lives improve because they are no longer associated with a criminal father.

Anyway, your point is idiotic. Those who deserve punishment are being punished. Sandusky will spend the rest of his life in prison. Spanier was fired and will be indicted. Curley is finished and will likely go to prison. Same for Schultz.

Punishment can serve two purposes. It can serve justice or vengeance. When you are talking about the acceptability of collateral damage, you've crossed the line from justice to vengeance.

Is it possible that punishment can serve a third purpose--deterrence?

[CitadelGrad]

That is not quite accurate. Now we know Jerry preyed on children, but that was not a fact in 2001. They knew Jerry was investigated but not charged with a crime in 1998. He was investigated by several detectives, a case worker, and a psychologist in 98' but the DA did not press charged due to lack of evidence. In 2001 the excuse may be that they weer not told what really happened. They should have reported, but saying that they knew for sure that Jerry was a child predator in 2001 is not accurate.

The first major miss was in 1998, says Keteyian, when the mother of an 11-year-old boy told police her son said he had showered in the football locker room with Sandusky. According to the grand jury report, with police listening in, Sandusky apologized to the mother, telling her, "I wish I were dead."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162- ... m-in-1998/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why apologize if you did nothing wrong? They knew in 2001. They were just spineless men.

What the hell makes you think Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno knew of the apology? They weren't there. What they knew is that Sandusky had been investigated and that the police didn't have enough evidence to persuade the DA to prosecute. Even the apology itself means little, since it isn't exactly clear what he was apologizing for.

[CitadelGrad]

Or maybe their lives improve because they are no longer associated with a criminal father.

Anyway, your point is idiotic. Those who deserve punishment are being punished. Sandusky will spend the rest of his life in prison. Spanier was fired and will be indicted. Curley is finished and will likely go to prison. Same for Schultz.

Punishment can serve two purposes. It can serve justice or vengeance. When you are talking about the acceptability of collateral damage, you've crossed the line from justice to vengeance.

Is it possible that punishment can serve a third purpose--deterrence?

How well does deterrence work? Even after all the sanctions and death penalties that the NCAA has handed down over the years, has it prevented cheating? No. I think long jail sentences for those responsible might serve as a deterrent for those who consider not reporting child abuse, but even that isn't certain.

[CitadelGrad]

I am not going to speculate why Jerry Sandusky did something- he is out of his mind.

1998 was a proper investigation by all accounts. I do not know specifically why the Centre County DA did not prosecute in 1998, but I assume he did not have enough evidence.

Does an apology to the mother of the victim, with police listening in, not constitute a confession, or at least give them enough probable cause to make an arrest? I think it's more likely the DA was just another head-in-the-sand PSU alum trying to protect his school's reputation at any cost.

He wasn't a PSU alum and while he served as the DA, he was not considered a friend of Penn State. Quite the opposite.

[CitadelGrad]

Oh. Now they're blaming the media.

The media, with the possible exception of Ganim, has generally covered this story in a very superficial and non-analytical manner, going so far as to present rumors and conjecture as fact. They covered the Freeh Report as though it was the word of God, despite the fact that anyone who read it with a critical eye could see that it was very flawed.

[UNI88]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162- ... m-in-1998/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why apologize if you did nothing wrong? They knew in 2001. They were just spineless men.

What the hell makes you think Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno knew of the apology? They weren't there. What they knew is that Sandusky had been investigated and that the police didn't have enough evidence to persuade the DA to prosecute. Even the apology itself means little, since it isn't exactly clear what he was apologizing for.

As a coach, if I know that someone on my staff has been investigated for this than I'm:
1) Looking into to it to find out how much there is to the allegations and if there is enough truth that guy is gone. If not than I'm ...
2) Keeping a very close eye on him to keep anything like it from happening in the future.
3) Doing everything I can to make sure that he isn't alone with children.

[CitadelGrad]

What the hell makes you think Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno knew of the apology? They weren't there. What they knew is that Sandusky had been investigated and that the police didn't have enough evidence to persuade the DA to prosecute. Even the apology itself means little, since it isn't exactly clear what he was apologizing for.

As a coach, if I know that someone on my staff has been investigated for this than I'm:
1) Looking into to it to find out how much there is to the allegations and if there is enough truth that guy is gone. If not than I'm ...
2) Keeping a very close eye on him to keep anything like it from happening in the future.
3) Doing everything I can to make sure that he isn't alone with children.

1) How far do you think he could have looked into it? Police typically don't comment on ongoing investigations. There are also privacy laws that prevent them from doing so.
2)Paterno showed him the door shortly after this. Sandusky's continued association with Penn State was out of Paterno's hands. Sandusky's agent negotiated emeritus status with the university, not Paterno.
3)There was no reason to prohibit Sandusky from associating with children as he has been cleared in the investigation of 1998.

[89Hen]

Saw this on another board, but if this was Penn State's golf team versus the football team, would you feel differently about giving them the death penalty? Why should it matter?

Because the two are apples and oranges. Killing the golf team means cutting one coach and 12 student athletes, end of story. Killing the football team devastates the entire athletic department (you may feel that's OK, but it's very different), changes student life for a full semester and dessimates all the people who's livelyhood was homegames at Beaver Stadium.

[89Hen]

It's not the players fault. Ruin Paterno's legacy, not the opportunity for kids to play football and get a good education.

Sometimes collateral damage is necessary to punish.

It's not the childrens' fault when a father of 4 commits a crime and goes to prison for 20 years. But, they also have to suffer their father's punishment.

Interesting take for a pacifist.

[Skjellyfetti]

Uh oh. Everyone's piling on Ped State.

Federal officials probe Penn State for possible Clery Act violations

As Jerry Sandusky awaits sentencing on 45 child sex abuse convictions, several investigations continue to delve into the role of Penn State University leaders in the scandal, including a probe of whether the university violated a federal campus safety law.

Five days after the former assistant football coach was arrested in November, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into Penn State’s compliance with the Clery Act, which requires prompt public alerts of safety threats, annual disclosure of crime statistics and other steps to protect the campus community.

Joe Paterno was among those university leaders cited for failing to report Jerry Sandusky’s suspected sexual abuse in the recently-published Freeh report.

Federal officials declined to discuss the scope of the investigation. But a Nov. 9 letter from the department to Penn State requested a lengthy list of documents, including logs of all incidents of crime reported to any campus security authority from 1998 to 2011.

“They’ve asked for absolutely everything,” said S. Daniel Carter, who has been a campus security advocate for more than two decades and works for a foundation started by families of victims from the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Carter said the Penn State investigation may be the department’s largest to date.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/edu ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Skjellyfetti]

Interesting take for a pacifist.

First. When have I ever claimed to be a pacifist?

Second. What does that have to do with pacifism?

[UNI88]

As a coach, if I know that someone on my staff has been investigated for this than I'm:
1) Looking into to it to find out how much there is to the allegations and if there is enough truth that guy is gone. If not than I'm ...
2) Keeping a very close eye on him to keep anything like it from happening in the future.
3) Doing everything I can to make sure that he isn't alone with children.

1) How far do you think he could have looked into it? Police typically don't comment on ongoing investigations. There are also privacy laws that prevent them from doing so.
2)Paterno showed him the door shortly after this. Sandusky's continued association with Penn State was out of Paterno's hands. Sandusky's agent negotiated emeritus status with the university, not Paterno.
3)There was no reason to prohibit Sandusky from associating with children as he has been cleared in the investigation of 1998.

2) I call BS. We're talking about JoePa, if he said to cut off Sandusky's access to university facilities, they would have cut off his access. You can't pretend that he wasn't the most influential person on that campus.

3) I didn't say prohibit his associating with children, I said don't allow him to be alone with children. And just because charges were dropped doesn't mean you pretend that nothing happened. It would be completely reasonable based on the fact that there were charges to make sure he wasn't alone with children to both protect the children and protect him from potential allegations. And charges dropped does not necessarily equal cleared.

I'm not saying these things to bash JoePa. I coach youth sports and I admired him for a long time as an example of how to do things the right way. Unfortunately, I was wrong. I've been disappointed and disgusted by what occurred at Penn St and his legacy has taken a hit that it deserves to take. If he was alive and the man he pretended to be, he would own up to his mistakes and accept responsibility for them. If this had happened to me and I had left the earth, I would hope that my family would step up and apologize for me regardless of the damage it did to my reputation. Be a man and accept responsibility for the mistakes you've made, even those of omission.

[AZGrizFan]

As a coach, if I know that someone on my staff has been investigated for this than I'm:
1) Looking into to it to find out how much there is to the allegations and if there is enough truth that guy is gone. If not than I'm ...
2) Keeping a very close eye on him to keep anything like it from happening in the future.
3) Doing everything I can to make sure that he isn't alone with children.

1) How far do you think he could have looked into it? Police typically don't comment on ongoing investigations. There are also privacy laws that prevent them from doing so.
2)Paterno showed him the door shortly after this. Sandusky's continued association with Penn State was out of Paterno's hands. Sandusky's agent negotiated emeritus status with the university, not Paterno.
3)There was no reason to prohibit Sandusky from associating with children as he has been cleared in the investigation of 1998.

a) He was a god. He could have gotten answers if he'd have looked.
b) Seriously? Given his stature in the community and with the university, you HONESTLY believe that if JoPa had said "I don't want that pedophile on my campus, using my facilities" that the university would have told him to go fuck himself?

[rkwittem]

1) How far do you think he could have looked into it? Police typically don't comment on ongoing investigations. There are also privacy laws that prevent them from doing so.
2)Paterno showed him the door shortly after this. Sandusky's continued association with Penn State was out of Paterno's hands. Sandusky's agent negotiated emeritus status with the university, not Paterno.
3)There was no reason to prohibit Sandusky from associating with children as he has been cleared in the investigation of 1998.

a) He was a god. He could have gotten answers if he'd have looked.
b) Seriously? Given his stature in the community and with the university, you HONESTLY believe that if JoPa had said "I don't want that pedophile on my campus, using my facilities" that the university would have told him to go **** himself?

I have given up asking these questions to hacks like Frank and ShitGrad. They don't get it. They criticize us for not being objective or analytical when their heads are so far up their and Penn State's asses that they can't tell the difference between sense and senselessness.


Say it with me,


WE ARE...............STATE PENN!

[Ibanez]

It's boils down to the fact that Joe Pa and the admin were told of indecent activity and they failed to take action. They had at least one report, which to me will be enough for me to conduct an investigation. You can spin it and talk til your blue, but Joe Pa, Curley,etc... they all knew and failed to do due diligence.

[grizzaholic]

What it boils down to, is that, anyone who thinks joe paterno is NOT GUILTY should be strung up with the rest of the apologists.

[Ibanez]

What it boils down to, is that, anyone who thinks joe paterno is NOT GUILTY should be strung up with the rest of the apologists.

Paterno is as guilty as Casey Anthony.

[grizzaholic]

Franks....Thanks for proving my point. You have not repliled to a single one of my posts. Congrats. You are cut from fabric as Mike McQueary.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[SuperHornet]

Just so you guys know...there has only been ONE football-related death penalty: SMU. All of the others involved other sports.

1. 1952-1953 KY boys hoops: point shaving
2. 1973-1974, 1974-1975 SW LA boys hoops: academic fraud, improper benefits, recruiting violations
3. 1987 SMU football: improper benefits
4. 2004-2005 Morehouse (D-II) boys soccer: use of ineligible, non-student players
5. 2005-2006, 2006-2007 MacMurray (D-III) boys tennis: illegal scholarships for international players

Interesting how both Morehouse's and MacMurray's infractions were their first major violations, yet were deemed serious enough to invoke the death penalty. Morehouse subsequently banned the team forever, claiming that they were planning to do so anyway. MacMurray had only played one game under the illegal conditions and unilaterally forfeited the remainder of the season, yet got stomped on by the NCAA anyway. In the MacMurray case, I personally think the NCAA went overboard given the TWO-year death penalty followed by a two-year post-season ban. Usually, spotting the penalty oneself and doing something about it is enough to avoid such huge crap. Somehow, I get the feeling that if this were a SEC/Big Ten program, the NCAA would have swept it under the rug with a couple of forfeits and one year of probation at the worst....

[Ibanez]

Just so you guys know...there has only been ONE football-related death penalty: SMU. All of the others involved other sports.

1. 1952-1953 KY boys hoops: point shaving
2. 1973-1974, 1974-1975 SW LA boys hoops: academic fraud, improper benefits, recruiting violations
3. 1987 SMU football: improper benefits
4. 2004-2005 Morehouse (D-II) boys soccer: use of ineligible, non-student players
5. 2005-2006, 2006-2007 MacMurray (D-III) boys tennis: illegal scholarships for international players

Interesting how both Morehouse's and MacMurray's infractions were their first major violations, yet were deemed serious enough to invoke the death penalty. Morehouse subsequently banned the team forever, claiming that they were planning to do so anyway. MacMurray had only played one game under the illegal conditions and unilaterally forfeited the remainder of the season, yet got stomped on by the NCAA anyway. In the MacMurray case, I personally think the NCAA went overboard given the TWO-year death penalty followed by a two-year post-season ban. Usually, spotting the penalty oneself and doing something about it is enough to avoid such huge crap. Somehow, I get the feeling that if this were a SEC/Big Ten program, the NCAA would have swept it under the rug with a couple of forfeits and one year of probation at the worst....

Yeah, what's the difference if it's been football, baseball, bowling...? Who cares.

[SuperHornet]

Who cares, Mark? Others in this thread made it sound like there have been five football-related death penalties handed down by the NCAA. Not true....

[Ibanez]

Who cares, Mark? Others in this thread made it sound like there have been five football-related death penalties handed down by the NCAA. Not true....

Have they? I've seen in other threads people have said that the death penalty has been handed down. I guess I didn't get that impression. I try not to read into what someone posts.

[Trapped in CA]

Uh oh. Everyone's piling on Ped State.

Federal officials probe Penn State for possible Clery Act violations

As Jerry Sandusky awaits sentencing on 45 child sex abuse convictions, several investigations continue to delve into the role of Penn State University leaders in the scandal, including a probe of whether the university violated a federal campus safety law.

Five days after the former assistant football coach was arrested in November, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into Penn State’s compliance with the Clery Act, which requires prompt public alerts of safety threats, annual disclosure of crime statistics and other steps to protect the campus community.

Joe Paterno was among those university leaders cited for failing to report Jerry Sandusky’s suspected sexual abuse in the recently-published Freeh report.

Federal officials declined to discuss the scope of the investigation. But a Nov. 9 letter from the department to Penn State requested a lengthy list of documents, including logs of all incidents of crime reported to any campus security authority from 1998 to 2011.

“They’ve asked for absolutely everything,” said S. Daniel Carter, who has been a campus security advocate for more than two decades and works for a foundation started by families of victims from the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Carter said the Penn State investigation may be the department’s largest to date.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/edu ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's the next pile on, hate crimes against children?


How about for the next 3-5 years psu

-gives all football revenue to established victims, and/or
-play all their games on the road

sent from my Samsung Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk for one percenters

[Skjellyfetti]

In November, 2004 — the same year former coach Joe Paterno was asked to retire — “seven members of Penn State’s board of trustees proposed sweeping reforms that would strengthen the board’s oversight power of Spanier and other campus leaders, including Paterno” according to documents obtained by OTL.

However, the good-governance proposal was never voted on and former president Graham Spanier, along with former board chairwoman Cynthia Baldwin, passed on the reforms.

You can read the entire story with supporting documents HERE.

Suffice to say, it doesn’t bode well for Penn State. Longtime trustee Joel Myers told OTL that Freeh investigators informed him that if the proposal had been passed, “this [crisis] could have been avoided.” Another trustee added that the decision could be seen as negligence by the university.

“This could increase our liability, possibly by millions.” the trustee said.

Given how the Freeh report reprimanded the board’s actions, especially related to university policy, it’s odd that the failed proposal was not a part of the report. A Freeh spokesperson would not comment to OTL, either.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... t/related/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Franks Tanks]

What it boils down to, is that, anyone who thinks joe paterno is NOT GUILTY should be strung up with the rest of the apologists.

So we should string up people who have an opinion different than yours? You are clearly an educated level headed person.

Anyway I have not argued that Joe Paterno is innocent here, just that certain commonly held beliefs are not quite acurate in my opinion. If you don't get that from my posts you either failed to read them or are really fucking dumb. I lean toward the latter.