First Division I "death penalty" in 25 years?

[Franks Tanks]

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!

You seriously don't get it. You just recite everything the media reports, when most of them fail to analyze as well. I have said 1,000 times that Joe and the whole bunch did something terrible, but I feel some of what had been said is out of line and inconsistent with the facts as we know them. How is that difficult to understand?

[Franks Tanks]

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.

I haven't seen many people disagree with this. I do not disagree with this.

The problem is certain idiots around here completely lack reading comphrehension skills.

[Franks Tanks]

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.

Can you explain which of your posts I have not responded to?

I responded to the one where you said you think the DA didn't press charges in 98 because he wanted to protect Penn State. Your incredible logic was that he was a Penn State grad so clearly your assumption is correct. When it was pointed out that Gricar was not a Penn State grad, and was known for doing Penn State no favors, you didn't respond.

I have proved no point for you other than how dumb you are. You cannot make an argument using logic and facts so you just make shit up. I am ashamed that the educational system in the US produced someone with your limited mental capacities. If you have a degree from Montana they should take it back.

[Franks Tanks]

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;

It is not piling on. It certainly appears that Penn State violated the Cleary Act. They will get fined, but this is the least of PSU's issues. Why do you post random articles that dont really pertain to the discussion at hand?

[89Hen]

Interesting take for a pacifist.

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

Second. What does that have to do with pacifism?

You've never claimed to be a tree-hugging Liberal, yet you are one.

[ASUMountaineer]

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.

1) The NCAA has only handed down one death penalty for football.
2) Deterrence doesn't always work, but in a situation as big as this, it might. And, if it prevents just one similar situation from happening again, it's worth it.
3) However, truthfully I see a possible death penalty for Penn State football as justice.

You seem really passionate in defending Penn State, that's a tough position right now. I give you props for sticking to your guns, even though I disagree with you.

[89Hen]

Has there ever been a death penalty for something that wasn't cheating at the actual sport?

[Franks Tanks]

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.

1) The NCAA has only handed down one death penalty for football.
2) Deterrence doesn't always work, but in a situation as big as this, it might. And, if it prevents just one similar situation from happening again, it's worth it.
3) However, truthfully I see a possible death penalty for Penn State football as justice.

You seem really passionate in defending Penn State, that's a tough position right now. I give you props for sticking to your guns, even though I disagree with you.

Everyone is outraged by the situation. Penn State fans, students, and alums perhaps more than anyone else as we are close to the situation and it has impacted us more than virtually anyone else. I understand why people are so upset. You have a coach who claimed to be the morality police for decades, and looked down on other programs and coaches. Many people hated Joe and wanted to see him go down well before all this. It involves sexual crimes against children, which are perhaps the most vile of all. I think it is easy and a bit lazy to connect the dots and assume it was all about football, and there is some weird culture in State College that only cares about football. I, and I think others associated with Penn State, are just asking everyone to understand that we aren't a bunch of football obsessed weirdos and just maybe there is more to this whole thing. Something that wont by any means absolve the offenders of what they did wrong, or make it better, but help us understand the truth and why this happened.

I believe there are some fundamental questions that aren't being discussed because it is probably too difficult for the average ESPN watching Amercian male to discuss.

Why would Joe think covering this up would protect his legacy? His legacy was very established in 2001, and the only thing that could hurt it was something like this. It is lazy to simply assume he did it to "protect the program" when anyone with a brain would realize he was doing the exact opposite. You protect yourself and the program by being completely transparent. Did Joe not realize how serious it actually was? Did Joe not ask the proper questions because he didn't want to know more? Perhaps. As Joe said himself he could have done more, and he knew that. Why he didn't act, beyond the lazy protect the program answer, it what I would like to know.

[Franks Tanks]

Has there ever been a death penalty for something that wasn't cheating at the actual sport?

No. The NCAA has never punished a program for criminal activities as far as I can tell, and this is why they are entering uncharted waters. The lack of instutional control can be spun to mean prety much anything, but has not included criminal matters. Technically any institution that has a player or coach that breaks the law can be said to lack control.

[andy7171]

Let it go Franks. This isn't AGS. This place is about adjitation. Things will continue to be said just to keep you going, endlessly.

[89Hen]

This place is about adjitation.

Is that like adjudication?

[Franks Tanks]

Let it go Franks. This isn't AGS. This place is about adjitation. Things will continue to be said just to keep you going, endlessly.

I hear ya man. I am bored and want to discuss this. I will get tired of it shortly.

[Ibanez]

This place is about adjitation.

Is that like adjudication?

It's the Middle French spelling. Ass.

[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.

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.

Yeah. sure.

[Franks Tanks]

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 **** dumb. I lean toward the latter.

Yeah. sure.

Very compelling response. Yet I am the one accused of not responding properly?

[ASUMountaineer]

1) The NCAA has only handed down one death penalty for football.
2) Deterrence doesn't always work, but in a situation as big as this, it might. And, if it prevents just one similar situation from happening again, it's worth it.
3) However, truthfully I see a possible death penalty for Penn State football as justice.

You seem really passionate in defending Penn State, that's a tough position right now. I give you props for sticking to your guns, even though I disagree with you.

Everyone is outraged by the situation. Penn State fans, students, and alums perhaps more than anyone else as we are close to the situation and it has impacted us more than virtually anyone else. I understand why people are so upset. You have a coach who claimed to be the morality police for decades, and looked down on other programs and coaches. Many people hated Joe and wanted to see him go down well before all this. It involves sexual crimes against children, which are perhaps the most vile of all. I think it is easy and a bit lazy to connect the dots and assume it was all about football, and there is some weird culture in State College that only cares about football. I, and I think others associated with Penn State, are just asking everyone to understand that we aren't a bunch of football obsessed weirdos and just maybe there is more to this whole thing. Something that wont by any means absolve the offenders of what they did wrong, or make it better, but help us understand the truth and why this happened.

I believe there are some fundamental questions that aren't being discussed because it is probably too difficult for the average ESPN watching Amercian male to discuss.

Why would Joe think covering this up would protect his legacy? His legacy was very established in 2001, and the only thing that could hurt it was something like this. It is lazy to simply assume he did it to "protect the program" when anyone with a brain would realize he was doing the exact opposite. I'm fairly confident I have a brain, but what do you believe he was doing, the reason for his inaction? And, by "exact opposite," do you mean that he did what he did to harm the program?

You protect yourself and the program by being completely transparent. Did Joe not realize how serious it actually was? I would think that if Joe was really told by McQueary what he testified to telling Joe, he had to realize it was that serious. Do you believe that he was duped by Spanier and co.?

Did Joe not ask the proper questions because he didn't want to know more? Perhaps. If he was told by McQueary that Sandusky raped a boy in the showers, what more did he need to know? Especially given that he knew Sandusky had been accused of this before. As Joe said himself he could have done more, and he knew that. Why he didn't act, beyond the lazy protect the program answer, it what I would like to know.

You ask good questions, but I don't see how it's lazy. Why do most people cover wrongdoing up? Is Joe (and the Penn State admin) different from most people? Logically, yes it would seem in hindsight that he and PSU should have been transparent. But, as you've pointed out several times, we don't know what they were thinking. You say it is lazy to draw a conclusion that he acted (or didn't act) selfishly. Isn't it just as lazy to draw a conclusion that he acted (or didn't act) selflessly, to assume he didn't have all of the facts and simply made an error in judgment?

What "more to this whole thing" are you alluding to (this is an honest question, I'm curious as to your thoughts)? I've only been to Pittsburgh, so I'm not familiar at all with State College. I also did not hate Joe, and always had the utmost respect for him (obviously that has been affected by this).

Would you be convinced that Joe acted to protect himself, his legacy, and PSU football if it is shown to be the truth? You seem convinced that there is "more" to the story and that Joe was acting selflessly. I don't know why Joe and the admin did what they did, but I disagree that it is lazy, and I think it is logical, to allege that they attempted to cover this up to prevent damage to the program and the university. I'm not saying they did, but I certainly can see how one gets to that conclusion.

[Franks Tanks]

Everyone is outraged by the situation. Penn State fans, students, and alums perhaps more than anyone else as we are close to the situation and it has impacted us more than virtually anyone else. I understand why people are so upset. You have a coach who claimed to be the morality police for decades, and looked down on other programs and coaches. Many people hated Joe and wanted to see him go down well before all this. It involves sexual crimes against children, which are perhaps the most vile of all. I think it is easy and a bit lazy to connect the dots and assume it was all about football, and there is some weird culture in State College that only cares about football. I, and I think others associated with Penn State, are just asking everyone to understand that we aren't a bunch of football obsessed weirdos and just maybe there is more to this whole thing. Something that wont by any means absolve the offenders of what they did wrong, or make it better, but help us understand the truth and why this happened.

I believe there are some fundamental questions that aren't being discussed because it is probably too difficult for the average ESPN watching Amercian male to discuss.

Why would Joe think covering this up would protect his legacy? His legacy was very established in 2001, and the only thing that could hurt it was something like this. It is lazy to simply assume he did it to "protect the program" when anyone with a brain would realize he was doing the exact opposite. I'm fairly confident I have a brain, but what do you believe he was doing, the reason for his inaction? And, by "exact opposite," do you mean that he did what he did to harm the program?

You protect yourself and the program by being completely transparent. Did Joe not realize how serious it actually was? I would think that if Joe was really told by McQueary what he testified to telling Joe, he had to realize it was that serious. Do you believe that he was duped by Spanier and co.?

Did Joe not ask the proper questions because he didn't want to know more? Perhaps. If he was told by McQueary that Sandusky raped a boy in the showers, what more did he need to know? Especially given that he knew Sandusky had been accused of this before. As Joe said himself he could have done more, and he knew that. Why he didn't act, beyond the lazy protect the program answer, it what I would like to know.

You ask good questions, but I don't see how it's lazy. Why do most people cover wrongdoing up? Is Joe (and the Penn State admin) different from most people? Logically, yes it would seem in hindsight that he and PSU should have been transparent. But, as you've pointed out several times, we don't know what they were thinking. You say it is lazy to draw a conclusion that he acted (or didn't act) selfishly. Isn't it just as lazy to draw a conclusion that he acted (or didn't act) selflessly, to assume he didn't have all of the facts and simply made an error in judgment?

What "more to this whole thing" are you alluding to (this is an honest question, I'm curious as to your thoughts)? I've only been to Pittsburgh, so I'm not familiar at all with State College. I also did not hate Joe, and always had the utmost respect for him (obviously that has been affected by this).

Would you be convinced that Joe acted to protect himself, his legacy, and PSU football if it is shown to be the truth? You seem convinced that there is "more" to the story and that Joe was acting selflessly. I don't know why Joe and the admin did what they did, but I disagree that it is lazy, and I think it is logical, to allege that they attempted to cover this up to prevent damage to the program and the university. I'm not saying they did, but I certainly can see how one gets to that conclusion.

By doing the exact he opposite I meant that he harmed his program exponentially more by doing nothing. I think it is lazy to assume that they just wanted to protect the program, when reporting Jerry would've have been by far the best way to protect the program. Maybe it was because Joe knew Jerry since Jerry was 18 years old and couldn't quite get his head around it. Maybe the facts reported to Joe were not complete. No reason justifies his actions, but I think protecting the program is an easy way to explain away the actions, when I think it is more complicated than that.

"More to this thing" just meaning that Joe and the leaders of Penn State could have made the decision with more than just the football program in mind, sort of what I alluded to above. For the 100th time it does not excuse the lack of reporting, but I do not believe it was all connected to saving the football team at all costs, when nobody outside of Sandusky did anything wrong until 2001.

I understand that Joe acting in a selfish manner to protect his legacy is a potental reason, and would believe if proven. Nothing uncovered to date defines a clear motive. My belief, and a logical one in my mind, is that Joe is a smart guy and had to know that a cover-up is worse than the crime as far as his legacy and PSU football is concerned. It only makes sense for an individual to cover something like this up if he himself committed the crime. It just dones't make sense to me that all this was done to save PSU football, when reporting the crime would not significantly hurt PSU football. Jerry Sandusky is hurt most be reporting the crime, and perhaps some of them felt sorry for Jerry or felt they could change his behavior. No motive to not report is worthy, but protecting an old friend is much different than protecting a program.

[ASUMountaineer]

You ask good questions, but I don't see how it's lazy. Why do most people cover wrongdoing up? Is Joe (and the Penn State admin) different from most people? Logically, yes it would seem in hindsight that he and PSU should have been transparent. But, as you've pointed out several times, we don't know what they were thinking. You say it is lazy to draw a conclusion that he acted (or didn't act) selfishly. Isn't it just as lazy to draw a conclusion that he acted (or didn't act) selflessly, to assume he didn't have all of the facts and simply made an error in judgment?

What "more to this whole thing" are you alluding to (this is an honest question, I'm curious as to your thoughts)? I've only been to Pittsburgh, so I'm not familiar at all with State College. I also did not hate Joe, and always had the utmost respect for him (obviously that has been affected by this).

Would you be convinced that Joe acted to protect himself, his legacy, and PSU football if it is shown to be the truth? You seem convinced that there is "more" to the story and that Joe was acting selflessly. I don't know why Joe and the admin did what they did, but I disagree that it is lazy, and I think it is logical, to allege that they attempted to cover this up to prevent damage to the program and the university. I'm not saying they did, but I certainly can see how one gets to that conclusion.

By doing the exact he opposite I meant that he harmed his program exponentially more by doing nothing. I think it is lazy to assume that they just wanted to protect the program, when reporting Jerry would've have been by far the best way to protect the program. Maybe it was because Joe knew Jerry since Jerry was 18 years old and couldn't quite get his head around it. Maybe the facts reported to Joe were not complete. No reason justifies his actions, but I think protecting the program is an easy way to explain away the actions, when I think it is more complicated than that.

"More to this thing" just meaning that Joe and the leaders of Penn State could have made the decision with more than just the football program in mind, sort of what I alluded to above. For the 100th time it does not excuse the lack of reporting, but I do not believe it was all connected to saving the football team at all costs, when nobody outside of Sandusky did anything wrong until 2001.

I understand that Joe acting in a selfish manner to protect his legacy is a potental reason, and would believe if proven. Nothing uncovered to date defines a clear motive. My belief, and a logical one in my mind, is that Joe is a smart guy and had to know that a cover-up is worse than the crime as far as his legacy and PSU football is concerned. It only makes sense for an individual to cover something like this up if he himself committed the crime. It just dones't make sense to me that all this was done to save PSU football, when reporting the crime would not significantly hurt PSU football. Jerry Sandusky is hurt most be reporting the crime, and perhaps some of them felt sorry for Jerry or felt they could change his behavior. No motive to not report is worthy, but protecting an old friend is much different than protecting a program.

Thanks.

I don't know why Spanier and co. would risk jail time for a cover up to protect Jerry, that doesn't make sense to me. I also think protecting Jerry is so much worse than protecting the program. I do agree that by doing nothing Joe caused more harm to PSU and PSU football than he would have reporting the crime in 2001. However, hindsight is 20/20 and in that situation at that time he may have thought reporting it would cause more harm--certainly more immediate harm.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the "laziness" of concluding it was done to protect the school and the program. I also think the point of a cover up is to prevent the knowledge of wrongdoing to be uncovered. It seems very logical to me that all of the PSU brass (admin and Joe) were concerned that the knowledge of the crime could do harm to the PSU brand and bring unwanted scrutiny to the school and program. I don't see how that's a stretch (or lazy) at all. It may not be the reason (perhaps it was all done to protect Jerry), though I'm not sure what other reasons Spanier and co. would have had, but that doesn't mean that that potential reason is "lazy."

[GannonFan]

Just jumping in here. Even with the added stuff from the Freeh report I still don't see how this results in a death penalty for PSU football. Just like Frank said, there are very clear culprits in this case and each and every one of them is going to do serious jail time. I think you can see the potential for sanctions against PSU football, and frankly, I like Ed Rendell's idea of having the profits from football (after paying the salaries for people who make their livliehood off of football who had nothing to do with this - the ushers, the people in the ticket office, the groundscrew, etc) be sent to some charity or other foundation (clearly not the Second Mile) for a period of time. The punishment for the wrongdoers is there (i.e. long jail terms in federal or state prisons) and that's generally what the NCAA sanctions are for (although oddly, that's always the knock against the NCAA and it's sanctions - Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll and the like break a lot of rules, and then the NCAA punishes the player who was 12 years old when it happened - that'll show em!).

[bluehenbillk]

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/5 ... Sports%7Cp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This - true dat.

[Franks Tanks]

Just jumping in here. Even with the added stuff from the Freeh report I still don't see how this results in a death penalty for PSU football. Just like Frank said, there are very clear culprits in this case and each and every one of them is going to do serious jail time. I think you can see the potential for sanctions against PSU football, and frankly, I like Ed Rendell's idea of having the profits from football (after paying the salaries for people who make their livliehood off of football who had nothing to do with this - the ushers, the people in the ticket office, the groundscrew, etc) be sent to some charity or other foundation (clearly not the Second Mile) for a period of time. The punishment for the wrongdoers is there (i.e. long jail terms in federal or state prisons) and that's generally what the NCAA sanctions are for (although oddly, that's always the knock against the NCAA and it's sanctions - Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll and the like break a lot of rules, and then the NCAA punishes the player who was 12 years old when it happened - that'll show em!).

I am still struggling with what the proper response or punishment should be. As a fan I don't want the death penalty, but I understand the point of those who have made agruements as to why they feel it would make sense.
I do get the feeling that people will be outraged and still want more no matter how severe the punishment. If
scholarships are taken away people on ESPN will scream that it should be the death penalty for 2 years. If PSU gets a 2 year death penalty some guy on CNN will say they should shut down football for good. If they shut down football for good someone in the NYT will write that PSU should abandon sports completely or play in D-III.

I do agree the the USC sanctions were quite harsh for the actions of just Reggie Bush. NCAA punishments seldom seem to make sense.

[bluehenbillk]

The more I think about it now the more I think they shouldn't get the death penalty. I can come up with a worse punishment for PSU, I've taken this and mashed it together from the thousands of opinions that are out there now.

1- Scholarship reduction - basically make PSU a 1-AA school, they lose 30 scholarships over 3 or 4 years.

2- Bowl Ban - For 2-3 years they are not allowed to go bowling.

3- TV Ban - This I think would be most significant IMO. PSU games would not be televised on any medium - ABC/ESPN/BigTen/Local/ESPN3, anything. Additionally, any TV contract $$ PSU would be entitled to gets diverted to my 4th point. Do this for 2 seasons. Out of sight - out of mind hopefully.

4- Significant $$ gets funneled to combination of youth groups & abused-kids groups. All PSU's TV $$ associated with football, a percentage of the total Saturday take too - ticket sales, parking, concessions, whatever the school's actual take is - say 10% of it for 2 seasons goes to those groups/charities.

I'd be OK with this & not everyone, but a majority of people probably would as well.

[grizzaholic]

The more I think about it now the more I think they shouldn't get the death penalty. I can come up with a worse punishment for PSU, I've taken this and mashed it together from the thousands of opinions that are out there now.

1- Scholarship reduction - basically make PSU a 1-AA school, they lose 30 scholarships over 3 or 4 years.

2- Bowl Ban - For 2-3 years they are not allowed to go bowling.

3- TV Ban - This I think would be most significant IMO. PSU games would not be televised on any medium - ABC/ESPN/BigTen/Local/ESPN3, anything. Additionally, any TV contract $$ PSU would be entitled to gets diverted to my 4th point. Do this for 2 seasons. Out of sight - out of mind hopefully.

4- Significant $$ gets funneled to combination of youth groups & abused-kids groups. All PSU's TV $$ associated with football, a percentage of the total Saturday take too - ticket sales, parking, concessions, whatever the school's actual take is - say 10% of it for 2 seasons goes to those groups/charities.

I'd be OK with this & not everyone, but a majority of people probably would as well.

I hate this. So they lose 8 scholarships each year. They should lose 30 each year.

[clenz]

The more I think about it now the more I think they shouldn't get the death penalty. I can come up with a worse punishment for PSU, I've taken this and mashed it together from the thousands of opinions that are out there now.

1- Scholarship reduction - basically make PSU a 1-AA school, they lose 30 scholarships over 3 or 4 years.

2- Bowl Ban - For 2-3 years they are not allowed to go bowling.

3- TV Ban - This I think would be most significant IMO. PSU games would not be televised on any medium - ABC/ESPN/BigTen/Local/ESPN3, anything. Additionally, any TV contract $$ PSU would be entitled to gets diverted to my 4th point. Do this for 2 seasons. Out of sight - out of mind hopefully.

4- Significant $$ gets funneled to combination of youth groups & abused-kids groups. All PSU's TV $$ associated with football, a percentage of the total Saturday take too - ticket sales, parking, concessions, whatever the school's actual take is - say 10% of it for 2 seasons goes to those groups/charities.

I'd be OK with this & not everyone, but a majority of people probably would as well.

I hate this. So they lose 8 scholarships each year. They should lose 30 each year.

This....not 30 over x years....30 for x years

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Gil Dobie]

My proposed penalty would be to have Penn St pay for the college education (school, room and board), of all the Sandusky victims, all their children, at a school of the victims choice. The money would come from money designated for the Penn State football program. It won't take away the terrible memories, but at least it's doing something constructive towards making amends.