dbackjon wrote:And by lashing out at me, it is clear you are still in denial. Your anger should 100% be at Paterno, Spanier et al. With out the coverup, this would have been settled LONG before CS even came into existence
I'm not lashing out at you. I'm just telling you to give it a rest. You've spiked the football on Paterno's rotting carcass so many times it's nauseating at this point. You've said he's in hell, he's worse than Sandusky, etc, etc.
Give it a fucking rest bro. You got what you, and everyone else with your agenda, wanted. Congrats.
dbackjon wrote:Does it break new ground? Yep. Never had this issue before.
So you are saying the football program and Paterno should suffer NO penalty? Even though all the abuse was BECAUSE of the football program?
The coverup was perpetrated by a few people. Paterno is dead. The rest are going to have their days in court, where this should be handled. The University will undoubtedly shell out millions to the victims in the coming years. Why should hundreds of players from 1998-2011 who had NOTHING to do with this be penalized?
dbackjon wrote:And by lashing out at me, it is clear you are still in denial. Your anger should 100% be at Paterno, Spanier et al. With out the coverup, this would have been settled LONG before CS even came into existence
I'm not lashing out at you. I'm just telling you to give it a rest. You've spiked the football on Paterno's rotting carcass so many times it's nauseating at this point. You've said he's in hell, he's worse than Sandusky, etc, etc.
Give it a fucking rest bro. You got what you, and everyone else with your agenda, wanted. Congrats.
My agenda? Justice for the aggrieved? Make sure that no institution dreams of coverup pedophilia in the future?
93henfan wrote: Why should hundreds of players from 1998-2011 who had NOTHING to do with this be penalized?
In the interest of "keeping it real" what real penalty are those hundreds of players incurring? Yes, on paper they lost all the games, but they played in them - they know who won. Really? On a day like today that's the least consequential of anything....
93henfan wrote: Why should hundreds of players from 1998-2011 who had NOTHING to do with this be penalized?
In the interest of "keeping it real" what real penalty are those hundreds of players incurring? Yes, on paper they lost all the games, but they played in them - they know who won. Really? On a day like today that's the least consequential of anything....
dbackjon wrote:Does it break new ground? Yep. Never had this issue before.
So you are saying the football program and Paterno should suffer NO penalty? Even though all the abuse was BECAUSE of the football program?
The coverup was perpetrated by a few people. Paterno is dead. The rest are going to have their days in court, where this should be handled. The University will undoubtedly shell out millions to the victims in the coming years. Why should hundreds of players from 1998-2011 who had NOTHING to do with this be penalized?
So you are opposed to any time of sanctions?
The 1998-2011 players benefited from the Cult of Joe - the cars, the extra benefits, the prestige. Yeah, it sucks for them, but it had to be done.
How is this any different than stripping wins from other teams, like has happened, because of a benefit for one?
dbackjon wrote:Does it break new ground? Yep. Never had this issue before.
So you are saying the football program and Paterno should suffer NO penalty? Even though all the abuse was BECAUSE of the football program?
The coverup was perpetrated by a few people. Paterno is dead. The rest are going to have their days in court, where this should be handled. The University will undoubtedly shell out millions to the victims in the coming years. Why should hundreds of players from 1998-2011 who had NOTHING to do with this be penalized?
Because oddly, in a very ironic way, everyone, at Penn State and pretty much elsewhere, cares probably too much about football. How else does a child predator stay free for so long, other than to protect the football program? And then how do millions of people feel like justice was served, besides the criminal proceedings that will result in jail time for those directly involved, without the football record book being changed and a football program being impacted? We like football, probably too much, so we need a football response to something even as heinous as child abuse. It's an odd culture indeed.
93henfan wrote:
The coverup was perpetrated by a few people. Paterno is dead. The rest are going to have their days in court, where this should be handled. The University will undoubtedly shell out millions to the victims in the coming years. Why should hundreds of players from 1998-2011 who had NOTHING to do with this be penalized?
Because oddly, in a very ironic way, everyone, at Penn State and pretty much elsewhere, cares probably too much about football. How else does a child predator stay free for so long, other than to protect the football program? And then how do millions of people feel like justice was served, besides the criminal proceedings that will result in jail time for those directly involved, without the football record book being changed and a football program being impacted? We like football, probably too much, so we need a football response to something even as heinous as child abuse. It's an odd culture indeed.
GannonFan wrote:
Because oddly, in a very ironic way, everyone, at Penn State and pretty much elsewhere, cares probably too much about football. How else does a child predator stay free for so long, other than to protect the football program? And then how do millions of people feel like justice was served, besides the criminal proceedings that will result in jail time for those directly involved, without the football record book being changed and a football program being impacted? We like football, probably too much, so we need a football response to something even as heinous as child abuse. It's an odd culture indeed.
Yeah, that's pretty sick. And it's pretty much replicated wherever big time (and even small time) college football is played, and it extends into other sports as well. We take our sports very seriously, hence why we get so many posts on message boards like these. There are Penn States out there everywhere and hopefully Penn State is the only one to hide a child sex abuser. Hopefully.
GannonFan wrote:
Because oddly, in a very ironic way, everyone, at Penn State and pretty much elsewhere, cares probably too much about football. How else does a child predator stay free for so long, other than to protect the football program? And then how do millions of people feel like justice was served, besides the criminal proceedings that will result in jail time for those directly involved, without the football record book being changed and a football program being impacted? We like football, probably too much, so we need a football response to something even as heinous as child abuse. It's an odd culture indeed.
dbackjon wrote:Does it break new ground? Yep. Never had this issue before.
So you are saying the football program and Paterno should suffer NO penalty? Even though all the abuse was BECAUSE of the football program?
The abuse was not because of PSU football. PSU football did not turn Sandusky into a what he is. In 2001 they should've reported the incident to the prioper authorities, but to state that PSU football is the reason Sandusky is a pedofile is way off.
You might disagree with him but Franks Tanks has been very reasonable in discussing this topic. He admits that what happened was wrong and could have been prevented, he just disagrees with some on what punishment is appropriate.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
You might disagree with him but Franks Tanks has been very reasonable in discussing this topic. He admits that what happened was wrong and could have been prevented, he just disagrees with some on what punishment is appropriate.
You might disagree with him but Franks Tanks has been very reasonable in discussing this topic. He admits that what happened was wrong and could have been prevented, he just disagrees with some on what punishment is appropriate.
Thanks- Basically I also feel that some not quite truth's have been universally accepted by the media and general public. However whenever one tries to have a rational discussion about certain points a nerdy, unemployed young man who talks about sports all day but has never played one must chime in and destroy a more nuanced discussion.
I have 2 big issues with the sanctions. 1st is the 4 year bowl ban-- should've been more like 2. If the NCAA expects PSU to raise the money needed to pay the fine, and pay for all their non-revenue sports, the team has to be somewhat competitive to sell tickets. People are already saying PSU should'nt cut funding to other sports, but since PSU football pays for the entire athletic department operations it may be dificult to pay the fine, and prop up non-revenue sports with a FB team that generates much less revenue. The 2nd part is vacating wins from 98'- 2001. At the end of the day it is not that big of a deal, but I fail to see what else PSU was to do in 98'. Sandusky was investigated by police detectives, youth services, and I believe the dept of public welfare. The DA declined to press charges on Sandusky in 98. What else was PSU to do from 98-01, when Sandusky was investigated and determined to have not committed a crime. 2001 on is a different story, but I have no idea why the win removal goes back to 98.
Franks Tanks wrote:
I have 2 big issues with the sanctions. 1st is the 4 year bowl ban-- should've been more like 2.
I disagree - these penalties were meant to cripple the PSU football program, thus the length of the bowl ban & the scholarships - otherwise it's an unwarranted slap on the wrist. The length of the bowl ban should effectively steer recruits away from State College.
Franks Tanks wrote:
I have 2 big issues with the sanctions. 1st is the 4 year bowl ban-- should've been more like 2.
I disagree - these penalties were meant to cripple the PSU football program, thus the length of the bowl ban & the scholarships - otherwise it's an unwarranted slap on the wrist. The length of the bowl ban should effectively steer recruits away from State College.
Did you not read the rest? It is next to impossible for PSU to pay a 60 million dollar fine, and maintain all of their other sports at the same level of funding, with a 4 year bowl ban. They will not recieve any bowl revenue and the program will suffer a great deal. They will have much less money coming in, yet will be expected to maintain status quo AND pay the fine. When PSU drops funding to another sport many will cry foul, but when the cash cow is shot what can be done?
bluehenbillk wrote:
I disagree - these penalties were meant to cripple the PSU football program, thus the length of the bowl ban & the scholarships - otherwise it's an unwarranted slap on the wrist. The length of the bowl ban should effectively steer recruits away from State College.
Did you not read the rest? It is next to impossible for PSU to pay a 60 million dollar fine, and maintain all of their other sports at the same level of funding, with a 4 year bowl ban. They will not recieve any bowl revenue and the program will suffer a great deal. They will have much less money coming in, yet will be expected to maintain status quo AND pay the fine. When PSU drops funding to another sport many will cry foul, but when the cash cow is shot what can be done?
PSU will cry and moan but they will not have any problem coming up with the 60 million bucks. Just let it go.
"What I'm saying is: You might have taken care of your wolf problem, but everyone around town is going to think of you as the crazy son of a bitch who bought land mines to get rid of wolves."
Franks Tanks wrote:
Did you not read the rest? It is next to impossible for PSU to pay a 60 million dollar fine, and maintain all of their other sports at the same level of funding, with a 4 year bowl ban. They will not recieve any bowl revenue and the program will suffer a great deal. They will have much less money coming in, yet will be expected to maintain status quo AND pay the fine. When PSU drops funding to another sport many will cry foul, but when the cash cow is shot what can be done?
PSU will cry and moan but they will not have any problem coming up with the 60 million bucks. Just let it go.
Let what go? I am having a discussion and point out something that he may not have considered. Naturally PSU will find the money, but my point is that it MAY come at the expense of funding or facility improvements for other sports.
grizzaholic wrote:
PSU will cry and moan but they will not have any problem coming up with the 60 million bucks. Just let it go.
Let what go? I am having a discussion and point out something that he may not have considered. Naturally PSU will find the money, but my point is that it MAY come at the expense of funding or facility improvements for other sports.
Maybe they should have thought about that before they decided to protect a pedophile that had already been investigated by the DA and had been discovered by another member of the staff.
UNI88 wrote:
You might disagree with him but Franks Tanks has been very reasonable in discussing this topic. He admits that what happened was wrong and could have been prevented, he just disagrees with some on what punishment is appropriate.
Thanks- Basically I also feel that some not quite truth's have been universally accepted by the media and general public. However whenever one tries to have a rational discussion about certain points a nerdy, unemployed young man who talks about sports all day but has never played one must chime in and destroy a more nuanced discussion.
I have 2 big issues with the sanctions. 1st is the 4 year bowl ban-- should've been more like 2. If the NCAA expects PSU to raise the money needed to pay the fine, and pay for all their non-revenue sports, the team has to be somewhat competitive to sell tickets. People are already saying PSU should'nt cut funding to other sports, but since PSU football pays for the entire athletic department operations it may be dificult to pay the fine, and prop up non-revenue sports with a FB team that generates much less revenue. The 2nd part is vacating wins from 98'- 2001. At the end of the day it is not that big of a deal, but I fail to see what else PSU was to do in 98'. Sandusky was investigated by police detectives, youth services, and I believe the dept of public welfare. The DA declined to press charges on Sandusky in 98. What else was PSU to do from 98-01, when Sandusky was investigated and determined to have not committed a crime. 2001 on is a different story, but I have no idea why the win removal goes back to 98.
1) I understand your point on the bowl ban/money. Football was the primary revenue source for the PSU athletic department and it's difficult if not impossible for the school to pay the fine and continue to fund all of its other athletic programs. I haven't read the full report yet and I don't think I'll go into that level of detail but I'm curious about what will happen to PSU's share of BTN revenues? It will be a tough time but the penalties are meant to both punish poor decision-making (or lack of good decision making) and to send a message to other programs. Penn State leadership got them into this mess and they'll have to figure out a way to survive it.
2) You can make an argument for starting with 1998. While charges might not have been pressed, the administration was still aware of the allegations and could have done a better job of both keeping an eye on Sandusky going forward as well as establishing procedures to limit the possibility that he would ever be alone with a child.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
Franks Tanks wrote:
Let what go? I am having a discussion and point out something that he may not have considered. Naturally PSU will find the money, but my point is that it MAY come at the expense of funding or facility improvements for other sports.
Maybe they should have thought about that before they decided to protect a pedophile that had already been investigated by the DA and had been discovered by another member of the staff.
I was referring specifically to the fact that Emerett said he does not want Penn State to reduce funding to other sports. My point is that would be rather difficult because 10 minutes earlier in his announcement he destroyed PSU football and it's ability to make money. His expectations are unrealistic from that standpoint-- reduce PSU annual football revenue by perhaps 25-40%, yet expect PSU to continue to fund all sports and pay a fine. To achieve his edict PSU would have to divert general fund money to athletics, which would take away from academics and that is not a feasible plan. The only option is for PSU to spend less on non-revenue sports, because the money they used to fund them simply will not be there.
bluehenbillk wrote:
I disagree - these penalties were meant to cripple the PSU football program, thus the length of the bowl ban & the scholarships - otherwise it's an unwarranted slap on the wrist. The length of the bowl ban should effectively steer recruits away from State College.
Did you not read the rest? It is next to impossible for PSU to pay a 60 million dollar fine, and maintain all of their other sports at the same level of funding, with a 4 year bowl ban. They will not recieve any bowl revenue and the program will suffer a great deal. They will have much less money coming in, yet will be expected to maintain status quo AND pay the fine. When PSU drops funding to another sport many will cry foul, but when the cash cow is shot what can be done?
Yes, I read it but I could really care less about it to be frank with you. If you think $73 mil is bad from the NCAA & the BigTen wait till the number goes public about the civil cases. Basically, PSU got the death penalty - they can just keep playing if that makes sense....
Franks Tanks wrote:
Thanks- Basically I also feel that some not quite truth's have been universally accepted by the media and general public. However whenever one tries to have a rational discussion about certain points a nerdy, unemployed young man who talks about sports all day but has never played one must chime in and destroy a more nuanced discussion.
I have 2 big issues with the sanctions. 1st is the 4 year bowl ban-- should've been more like 2. If the NCAA expects PSU to raise the money needed to pay the fine, and pay for all their non-revenue sports, the team has to be somewhat competitive to sell tickets. People are already saying PSU should'nt cut funding to other sports, but since PSU football pays for the entire athletic department operations it may be dificult to pay the fine, and prop up non-revenue sports with a FB team that generates much less revenue. The 2nd part is vacating wins from 98'- 2001. At the end of the day it is not that big of a deal, but I fail to see what else PSU was to do in 98'. Sandusky was investigated by police detectives, youth services, and I believe the dept of public welfare. The DA declined to press charges on Sandusky in 98. What else was PSU to do from 98-01, when Sandusky was investigated and determined to have not committed a crime. 2001 on is a different story, but I have no idea why the win removal goes back to 98.
1) I understand your point on the bowl ban/money. Football was the primary revenue source for the PSU athletic department and it's difficult if not impossible for the school to pay the fine and continue to fund all of its other athletic programs. I haven't read the full report yet and I don't think I'll go into that level of detail but I'm curious about what will happen to PSU's share of BTN revenues? It will be a tough time but the penalties are meant to both punish poor decision-making (or lack of good decision making) and to send a message to other programs. Penn State leadership got them into this mess and they'll have to figure out a way to survive it.
2) You can make an argument for starting with 1998. While charges might not have been pressed, the administration was still aware of the allegations and could have done a better job of both keeping an eye on Sandusky going forward as well as establishing procedures to limit the possibility that he would ever be alone with a child.
1- They will forfeit all shared Big 10 Bowl revenue for 4 years.
2- Perhaps but PSU broke no criminal or NCAA rules prior to 2001. It is a stretch IMO.
