Penn State sanctions handed down

[NoSaint]

1.3 Fundamental Policy [*]

1.3.1 BasicPurpose.[*] The competitive athletics programs of member institutions are designed to be a vital part of the educational system. A basic purpose of this Association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.

1.3.2 obligations of Member institutions. [*] Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

 

The entire fundamental policy statement above.... Word for word, no editing.... And why I think this is fringe at best for the NCAAs core purpose which is to protect and serve the student athlete.Problem is they are often so far outside that purpose that most don't really know what they are supposed to be.

Edited July 24, 2012 by NoSaint

[K-9]

Honestly I'm not particularly upset by the penalties but I do think that there ie a rule book in place for a reason. If Sandusky was selling drugs to professors/boosters out of an office in the football building we wouldn't be calling for immediate NCAA intervention - he'd be arrested, he'd be tried, coaches that knew would face consequence based on their actions both legally and from their employer etc....

 

Child rape is terrible but screaming "will someone think of the kids" doesn't make this the right way to handle it. I'm just as anti-child rape as anyone here and just as anti-PSU but I'm also very much for governing bodies strictly following their rules and fulfilling their purpose. I don't think this is the NCAAs purpose.

 

I'm far from an expert but I've seen many a good source argue the same.

 

Consider the rule book amended.

 

If Sandusky were selling drugs AND JoePa et al not only KNEW about it but actually covered it up AND let Sandusky continue to have access to athletic facilities after the fact, then yes, we'd all be up in arms just like we are now. Actually, the NCAA could probably make a stronger direct connection to the safety of the student-athlete.

 

Glad to know you're "anti-child rape." And while it's too late for any of us to scream "think of the kids" that's PRECISELY what those cowards at PSU needed to do in 1998. Sometimes that simple refrain is much more than a platitude. I'm pretty certain that 10 year old boy that McQueary saw getting raped by Sandusky in 2001 would have appreciated somebody thinking about him when he was 6.

 

As to the "governing bodies follwing their rules and fulfilling their purpose" that's EXACTLY what the NCAA did. You and the talking heads that disagree just can't accept the fact that they followed their procedures by having the governing parties GRANT the NCAA the authority to administer penalties in this case. That they had to "shoehorn" this special rule. It bothers you for some reason that rulebooks need to be amended in certain situations. While you disagree that this is one of those times, those in charge didn't.

 

1.3 Fundamental Policy [*]

1.3.1 BasicPurpose.[*] The competitive athletics programs of member institutions are designed to be a vital part of the educational system. A basic purpose of this Association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.

1.3.2 obligations of Member institutions. [*] Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

 

The entire fundamental policy statement above.... Word for word, no editing.... And why I think this is fringe at best for the NCAAs core purpose which is to protect and serve the student athlete.Problem is they are often so far outside that purpose that most don't really know what they are supposed to be.

 

Like I said above, consider it amended. Superseded by extraordinary events.

[K-9]

I may have misrepresented what I was saying. Internally the PSU football team will be the last to suffer.

 

You bring up a good point. They are a land grant school. They rely on income from the state - what kind of backlash will they face from the state? Could they get sympathy money, too?

 

I like how that's phrased, "sympathy money."

 

PSU alumni set a new record for donations on the heels of the scandal. Look for more of the same this year as well. Plenty of sympathy bucks to go around. Besides, with the school sitting on top of that fat $1.4b endowment, I don't think they'll be hurting for cash.

[NoSaint]

Consider the rule book amended.

 

If Sandusky were selling drugs AND JoePa et al not only KNEW about it but actually covered it up AND let Sandusky continue to have access to athletic facilities after the fact, then yes, we'd all be up in arms just like we are now. Actually, the NCAA could probably make a stronger direct connection to the safety of the student-athlete.

 

Glad to know you're "anti-child rape." And while it's too late for any of us to scream "think of the kids" that's PRECISELY what those cowards at PSU needed to do in 1998. Sometimes that simple refrain is much more than a platitude. I'm pretty certain that 10 year old boy that McQueary saw getting raped by Sandusky in 2001 would have appreciated somebody thinking about him when he was 6.

 

As to the "governing bodies follwing their rules and fulfilling their purpose" that's EXACTLY what the NCAA did. You and the talking heads that disagree just can't accept the fact that they followed their procedures by having the governing parties GRANT the NCAA the authority to administer penalties in this case. That they had to "shoehorn" this special rule. It bothers you for some reason that rulebooks need to be amended in certain situations. While you disagree that this is one of those times, those in charge didn't.

 

 

 

Like I said above, consider it amended. Superseded by extraordinary events.

 

Obviously in the moment any number of people thinking of the kids would be great. 12 years later when debating whether the NCAA should jump in.... Using "but if not child rape what does the ncaa step in for" is a platitude. If you want to discuss the NCAAs role it should be about their mission, and whether they should be stepping in for a coach comitting a crime and a university covering it up. yelling about the kids just brings intense emotion into a situation that shouldnt be handled with knee jerk emotions. Taking scholarships, or banning bowl appearances does nothing for kids. Locking Sandusky away for a damn long time does. If protecting kids is the priority the term NCAA shouldn't be in the discussion. Even remotely comparing the two situations of the NCAA stepping in vs mcquery stepping in is shameful manipulation.

Edited July 24, 2012 by NoSaint

[Haplo848]

I've been explaining this poorly, but the biggest problem I have with the sanctions is that this is a knee-jerk reaction that is premature and aimed at the wrong people. There is no doubt in my mind that all four of the men involved, Sandusky, Shultz, Curley, and Paterno are guilty to one degree or another. The jury is out on Sandusky, he is a horrid piece of s*** whose crimes will live in infamy, the effects of which will be felt for decades. I hope his victims can find some solace in everything that's happened since he was arrested. As for the cover-up in which Shultz, Curley, and Paterno were involved, I don't know the degree of involvement of each of the three in the cover up. But guess what, neither does just about anyone else. The trials of Shultz and Curley haven't started yet, and not everything will be known until afterwards. Paterno's trial will never happen, now that he's dead. It's likely that his involvement will never be clearly determined now. At this point, the only charges that could have been brought up against Paterno is perjury, since it appears that he did know about the investigation in 98, which he said he didn't. Other then that, I don't believe anything else could be brought up against him. From what I read, after Mike McQueary, the grad student who found Sandusky in the shower showed up at Paterno's and told him days after the incident about what happened, Paterno did what he should have and reported it to his superiors (Shultz and Curley) and campus police (who had jurisdiction). After being told the investigation had stopped, Paterno still tried to get Sandusky banned from campus but was told he didn't have the authority.

 

In this case, it appears that it's not completely black and white, as some have tried to make it out to be. Paterno has drawn the lion's share of the criticism simply because he's the most well-known. As far as the evidence so far has shown, he's probably the least culpable, though still guilty. Would people be as invested in this whole story if it was simply about one retired assistant coach and two random administrators? Who knows? My guess is probably not. But throw in the ex-most winningest coach in college football who had promoted integrity, and you have yourself a juicy story that's easy to write about, and that people want to read. That's why everyone's been yelling about Paterno, yet not a single person in this entire thread have mentioned Shultz or Curley by name. Even McQueary has some blame in this. He sees an old man having anal sex with a kid and doesn't stop it, or call the police to have them stop it. All he does is tell his coach. However, he has whistleblower status years later, so he's immune.

 

Simply put, all the facts haven't come out about the cover-up. The trials for two of the three men involved in it haven't even started, yet the NCAA has handed down penalties specifically for the cover-up. It is a knee-jerk reaction so that they can be seen to be doing something. To me, it is premature. The other problem I have is that of the four men involved in the child abuse and cover-up, one is in jail, two are on trial (and in all likelihood going to jail), and one is dead. Exactly who are they targeting with these sanctions?

 

In previous posts, I've tried to point out that Paterno isn't the complete monster that the media is portraying him as, and as most people have implied. Is he guilty? Most likely yes. However, he also did good things in his life. I've pointed out his donations to education and the Penn State Way, a culture of "victory with integrity." Many people, however, point to that culture as the one that allowed child abuse and then tried to cover it up. I, however, disagree. The culture that did those things is the culture of the boardroom, of politics and economics. It's the culture that appears any time there is money to be lost or won. It's the one that has car manufacturers try to figure out which will cost them the most profits, recalling faulty products that they know will kill people or dealing with the lawsuits once it does. It's the greed that comes with any financial institution. Does anyone really think that will end everywhere, simply because the NCAA handed down harsh penalties to the Penn State football team over an administrative problem? Not even one dealing directly with football?

 

If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[NoSaint]

aaaaanyway... like ive said a few times earlier, im not shocked and outraged over the penalty. the human in me wants to see anyone associated with this take a hit. the idealist in me still thinks its a legal matter though, and that even though i think they are despicable -- that even the dispicable should be handled fairly.

[K-9]

Obviously in the moment any number of people thinking of the kids would be great. 12 years later when debating whether the NCAA should jump in.... Using "but if not child rape what do they step in for" is a platitude. Taking scholarships, or banning bowl appearances does nothing for kids. Locking Sandusky away for a damn long time does. If protecting kids is the priority the term NCAA shouldn't be in the discussion. Even remotely comparing the two situations of the NCAA stepping in vs mcquery stepping in is shameful manipulation.

 

Not sure how I compared the NCAA stepping in to McQueary stepping in. Not even close. Shameful manipulation? Spare me.

 

I've never used the argument that if the NCAA doesn't step in for this then what do they step in for. That's not my call to make anyway.

 

I'm merely disagreeing that the NCAA circumvented their own rules. They didn't.

 

You disagree that rulebooks need to be amended from time to time. They do. And rightfully so.

 

But just for the record, protecting kids should be a priority for every adult. Especially for those specifically entrusted by the public to do so. Especially those that are inherently more at risk. If you think that's a platitude, what can I say?

[Fan in San Diego]

I've been explaining this poorly, but the biggest problem I have with the sanctions is that this is a knee-jerk reaction that is premature and aimed at the wrong people. There is no doubt in my mind that all four of the men involved, Sandusky, Shultz, Curley, and Paterno are guilty to one degree or another. The jury is out on Sandusky, he is a horrid piece of s*** whose crimes will live in infamy, the effects of which will be felt for decades. I hope his victims can find some solace in everything that's happened since he was arrested. As for the cover-up in which Shultz, Curley, and Paterno were involved, I don't know the degree of involvement of each of the three in the cover up. But guess what, neither does just about anyone else. The trials of Shultz and Curley haven't started yet, and not everything will be known until afterwards. Paterno's trial will never happen, now that he's dead. It's likely that his involvement will never be clearly determined now. At this point, the only charges that could have been brought up against Paterno is perjury, since it appears that he did know about the investigation in 98, which he said he didn't. Other then that, I don't believe anything else could be brought up against him. From what I read, after Mike McQueary, the grad student who found Sandusky in the shower showed up at Paterno's and told him days after the incident about what happened, Paterno did what he should have and reported it to his superiors (Shultz and Curley) and campus police (who had jurisdiction). After being told the investigation had stopped, Paterno still tried to get Sandusky banned from campus but was told he didn't have the authority.

 

In this case, it appears that it's not completely black and white, as some have tried to make it out to be. Paterno has drawn the lion's share of the criticism simply because he's the most well-known. As far as the evidence so far has shown, he's probably the least culpable, though still guilty. Would people be as invested in this whole story if it was simply about one retired assistant coach and two random administrators? Who knows? My guess is probably not. But throw in the ex-most winningest coach in college football who had promoted integrity, and you have yourself a juicy story that's easy to write about, and that people want to read. That's why everyone's been yelling about Paterno, yet not a single person in this entire thread have mentioned Shultz or Curley by name. Even McQueary has some blame in this. He sees an old man having anal sex with a kid and doesn't stop it, or call the police to have them stop it. All he does is tell his coach. However, he has whistleblower status years later, so he's immune.

 

Simply put, all the facts haven't come out about the cover-up. The trials for two of the three men involved in it haven't even started, yet the NCAA has handed down penalties specifically for the cover-up. It is a knee-jerk reaction so that they can be seen to be doing something. To me, it is premature. The other problem I have is that of the four men involved in the child abuse and cover-up, one is in jail, two are on trial (and in all likelihood going to jail), and one is dead. Exactly who are they targeting with these sanctions?

 

In previous posts, I've tried to point out that Paterno isn't the complete monster that the media is portraying him as, and as most people have implied. Is he guilty? Most likely yes. However, he also did good things in his life. I've pointed out his donations to education and the Penn State Way, a culture of "victory with integrity." Many people, however, point to that culture as the one that allowed child abuse and then tried to cover it up. I, however, disagree. The culture that did those things is the culture of the boardroom, of politics and economics. It's the culture that appears any time there is money to be lost or won. It's the one that has car manufacturers try to figure out which will cost them the most profits, recalling faulty products that they know will kill people or dealing with the lawsuits once it does. It's the greed that comes with any financial institution. Does anyone really think that will end everywhere, simply because the NCAA handed down harsh penalties to the Penn State football team over an administrative problem? Not even one dealing directly with football?

 

If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

 

Your wrong about cultures, your vision of corporate boardrooms and culture is horrible. 99.9% of corporate cultures and boardrooms would have done the right thing and turned in the perps. You have been watching too many movies my friend.

[Scraps]

Obviously in the moment any number of people thinking of the kids would be great. 12 years later when debating whether the NCAA should jump in.... Using "but if not child rape what does the ncaa step in for" is a platitude. If you want to discuss the NCAAs role it should be about their mission, and whether they should be stepping in for a coach comitting a crime and a university covering it up. yelling about the kids just brings intense emotion into a situation that shouldnt be handled with knee jerk emotions. Taking scholarships, or banning bowl appearances does nothing for kids. Locking Sandusky away for a damn long time does. If protecting kids is the priority the term NCAA shouldn't be in the discussion. Even remotely comparing the two situations of the NCAA stepping in vs mcquery stepping in is shameful manipulation.

 

It is about changing a culture where basic human norms and decency is ignored to protect or promote a big money sport so that it is no longer above the rest of society. You want to protect that culture.

[NoSaint]

Not sure how I compared the NCAA stepping in to McQueary stepping in. Not even close. Shameful manipulation? Spare me.

 

I've never used the argument that if the NCAA doesn't step in for this then what do they step in for. That's not my call to make anyway.

 

I'm merely disagreeing that the NCAA circumvented their own rules. They didn't.

 

You disagree that rulebooks need to be amended from time to time. They do. And rightfully so.

 

But just for the record, protecting kids should be a priority for every adult. Especially for those specifically entrusted by the public to do so. Especially those that are inherently more at risk. If you think that's a platitude, what can I say?

 

1)responding with "well if someone thought of the kids 10 years ago" to my post about people using "will someone think of the kids" with regards to the ncaa stepping in currently.... juxtaposing those two incidents is in fact HIGHLY manipulative. if you dont get it... i dont know what to say. typically i enjoy the conversations with you on these matters but that approach to the discussion i found very insulting.

 

2) you have not, but it has been used several times in this thread. the joys of conducting a blend of direct, and communal conversation on an internet message board. i believe the exact phrase was even used by another poster, and in discussing jurisdiction... well, i dont think that kids were the victim should be the discussion on whether the ncaa steps in. it clouds the discussion with a huge amount of emotion that leads people to justify choices they wouldnt otherwise. that leads to vengence instead of justice in something like this. i know its a voluntary organization and not a judicial system but i still hold it to some of those basic ideals.

 

3) just because a catch all type clause exists, doesnt mean i think its the ncaas place to act on whatever they want. in fact i think their haphazard enforcement of rules and lack of uniformity does little to serve anyone. its in fact a big part of whats wrong with the system and i think generally does not help the kids its charged with protecting ie. the 18 year old athletes sitting on the Penn state benches and in locker rooms across the country.

 

4) go ahead and amend the rule book, but i dont ever like to see retro-active punishments become a precedent. if you want to create a mandatory reporting type clause for any known crime... go for it... moving forward.

 

5) if you think ive implied thats a platitude, well, ill refer you back to point #1 and say i find that beyond insulting and a manipulation of the situation and an awful argument. kids should be protected. the ncaa is not protecting kids with what they did. the legal system is protecting kids. the ncaa is saving face and trying to cover itself from bad press. its protecting bowl and tv money, not 8 year olds attending football camps... again, the kids the emmert is charged with protecting are the ones that lace it up on the courts, fields, etc... every day on campuses. i think the ncaa needs to start focusing on that a lot more and revenue/tv deals a lot less.

Edited July 24, 2012 by NoSaint

[Adam]

Something to remember is that the schools are NCAA members- not just the athletic departments

[K-9]

1)responding with "well if someone thought of the kids 10 years ago" to my post about people using "will someone think of the kids" with regards to the ncaa stepping in currently.... juxtaposing those two incidents is in fact HIGHLY manipulative. if you dont get it... i dont know what to say. typically i enjoy the conversations with you on these matters but that approach to the discussion i found very insulting.

 

So you introduce the idea of "will someone think of the kids" with regards to the NCAA getting involved and I'm guilty of shameful manipulation in my response? A large part of the NCAA ruling is directly related to the fact that JoePa et al DIDN'T think of the well being of children in 1998 and 2001. In addition to loss of institutional control and putting the interests of the program ahead of everything else, they've cited this on several occasions, including the press conference yesterday morning. Shameful manipulation or not, platitude or not, if JoePa and Co. placed the well being of children ahead of the football program they cherished, NONE OF THIS COMES TO PASS. It's really that simple. And ironically, JoePa's legacy as a hero is further enhanced.

 

2) you have not, but it has been used several times in this thread. the joys of conducting a blend of direct, and communal conversation on an internet message board. i believe the exact phrase was even used by another poster, and in discussing jurisdiction... well, i dont think that kids were the victim should be the discussion on whether the ncaa steps in. it clouds the discussion with a huge amount of emotion that leads people to justify choices they wouldnt otherwise. that leads to vengence instead of justice in something like this. i know its a voluntary organization and not a judicial system but i still hold it to some of those basic ideals.

 

Kids being victimized was never the reason the NCAA stepped in, although I don't have a problem if it was. Rather, it was the institutional leadership being involved in a coverup, enabling, and granting a pedophile access to it's facilities, and then lying about their knowledge of it. The NCAA didn't act recklessly. Even in the face of public pressure to do so. They waited the eight months for the Freeh investigation to be concluded and then followed it's own procedures. You accused them of deliberately breaking their own rules. They didn't

 

3) just because a catch all type clause exists, doesnt mean i think its the ncaas place to act on whatever they want. in fact i think their haphazard enforcement of rules and lack of uniformity does little to serve anyone. its in fact a big part of whats wrong with the system and i think generally does not help the kids its charged with protecting ie. the 18 year old athletes sitting on the Penn state benches and in locker rooms across the country.

 

I'm confused here. Are you now suggesting the NCAA has a responsibility to protect kids? Of course they do and always have but you are pretty steadfast in your reasoning that protecting kids was no reason to get involved in this case.

 

4) go ahead and amend the rule book, but i dont ever like to see retro-active punishments become a precedent. if you want to create a mandatory reporting type clause for any known crime... go for it... moving forward.

 

Like I've said, there will be new frameworks put in place, I'm sure. But be prepared to be disappointed should unforeseen and extraordinary events conspire to compel the NCAA to get involved in another case without precedent. There is NEVER a precedent where precedent didn't exist.

 

5) if you think ive implied thats a platitude, well, ill refer you back to point #1 and say i find that beyond insulting and a manipulation of the situation and an awful argument. kids should be protected. the ncaa is not protecting kids with what they did. the legal system is protecting kids. the ncaa is saving face and trying to cover itself from bad press. its protecting bowl and tv money, not 8 year olds attending football camps... again, the kids the emmert is charged with protecting are the ones that lace it up on the courts, fields, etc... every day on campuses. i think the ncaa needs to start focusing on that a lot more and revenue/tv deals a lot less.

 

Now you're just being cynical. How do you know the NCAA's action here won't result in an institution reporting criminal activity in it's midst and preventing that criminal from harming someone in the future? But that's beside the point. It's not the NCAA's role to 'fix' things. That's up to the schools and their leadership. I'm glad the NCAA has at least put schools on notice that if coaches, ADs, etc coverup criminal activity, they can be subject to penalties for doing so. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with that. It doesn't preclude any criminal charges and prosecution which can ensue on a parallel track. It just insures additional penalties outside of that process. I have no problem with that at all.

[KD in CA]

1343105558[/url]' post='2511585']

No, YOU are very naive. The past few years, Paterno has barely run the football team, let alone the school. After the grad student came to him with a report about Sandusky in the shower with a boy, Paterno did follow up on it. When he was told that they didn't have enough evidence to keep up the investigation, he demanded that Sandusky was banned from the school. They overruled him, saying that as the football coach, he didn't have the authority. When he demanded they ban him from using the football facilities, they agreed, but left him no way to enforce that. He was NOT the most powerful man at Penn State, and to think that is naive

 

 

 

Really couldn't finish reading a few paragraphs, huh? I said he instituted that culture, the Penn State Way. I also said he didn't follow through on that all the time.

 

Here's a quote I think is very telling: "The Penn State Way commissions a multi-million dollar independent investigation which, in eight months, revealed more than did three years of state criminal investigations. Then, the Penn State Way publishes the painful results for the world to mock, while we admit our mistakes, and resolve to move forward and improve.

 

That's right... the reason you can tear down the Paterno temple; the reason you can claim Joe lied is because Penn State investigated itself more critically than the Commonwealth government. Then, it told all to everyone.

 

Yes, Joe Paterno failed the Penn State Way in the Sandusky scandal. He wasn't alone, nor was he the most culpable. But, over the preceeding 60 years, he also taught and lived the Penn State Way. He is, in large part, precisely why Penn Staters feel that there is a "Penn State Way" at all.

 

That is a great legacy. It's a far sight better than the sportswriters' Paterno temple. And no amount of scorn, contempt, or shouting can change it."

 

Thank you for providing an example of the mindless obsession some still have for a man whose most notable achievement in life was supporting child rape. A great legacy?? Mind boggling.

It's pathetic enough that your entire source of pride in your school is wrapped up in a disgraceful football coach, but your argument that this dirtbag created the 'Penn State Way' and then turn around and want to pretend he held no power when it came time to be held accountable is laughable.

[Adam]

Thank you for providing an example of the mindless obsession some still have for a man whose most notable achievement in life was supporting child rape. A great legacy?? Mind boggling.

It's pathetic enough that your entire source of pride in your school is wrapped up in a disgraceful football coach, but your argument that this dirtbag created the 'Penn State Way' and then turn around and want to pretend he held no power when it came time to be held accountable is laughable.

I'm sorry, KD it CT, but that just isn't true. While all the good he did, doesn't make his mistake defensible, the mistake shouldn't obscure the good he did. He screwed up trying to defend a friend, and somewhat admitted that it was wrong.

 

Demonizing him for a mistake is just as bad as making the guy out to be a saint, in the first place. He was no different than any of us.

[KD in CA]

1343160556[/url]' post='2512079']

I'm sorry, KD it CT, but that just isn't true. While all the good he did, doesn't make his mistake defensible, the mistake shouldn't obscure the good he did. He screwed up trying to defend a friend, and somewhat admitted that it was wrong.

 

Demonizing him for a mistake is just as bad as making the guy out to be a saint, in the first place. He was no different than any of us.

 

Sorry, but sheltering and protecting an ACTIVE child molester for more than a decade so the molester can continue to offend is not a 'mistake'. His disgusting and inexcusable behavior most certainly can and does and will overshadow whatever supposed 'good' he did (which apparently is primarily winning football games). And for what? To protect his precious 'legacy' and his records? Nice.

 

No different from any of us? Speak for yourself please.

[Adam]

Sorry, but sheltering and protecting an ACTIVE child molester for more than a decade so the molester can continue to offend is not a 'mistake'. His disgusting and inexcusable behavior most certainly can and does and will overshadow whatever supposed 'good' he did (which apparently is primarily winning football games). And for what? To protect his precious 'legacy' and his records? Nice.

 

No different from any of us? Speak for yourself please.

It clearly was a mistake- and he said that he should have done more. It was a mistake that he was trapped in, later on.

 

I haven't made a mistake of this magnitude, but I have gone out of my way, to do things for friends.

 

It may overshadow some things, but doesn't erase them- like the rest of us, he was a mixed bag. He never could live up to the image people had of him. And It may sound like I am defending him- I'm not. I think people are making it out like this is the only thing that happened in his life. Those people are very wrong.

[K-9]

I'm sorry, KD it CT, but that just isn't true. While all the good he did, doesn't make his mistake defensible, the mistake shouldn't obscure the good he did. He screwed up trying to defend a friend, and somewhat admitted that it was wrong.

 

Demonizing him for a mistake is just as bad as making the guy out to be a saint, in the first place. He was no different than any of us.

 

Somewhat? What does that mean? I guess he "somewhat" lied to a grand jury then, too?

 

I know, the Freeh report is nothing but lies constructed merely to impugn the reputation of a great man no longer alive to defend himself.

 

Sorry, Adam. While we all struggle with doing the right thing at times, I strongly reject your idea that Joe Paterno was no different than the rest of us.

[boyst]

I am tired of people saying the punishment is fair with something along the lines of "punish all of those responsible" forgetting those responsible are no longer a part of the institution. Those punished had nothing to do with the situation. Paterno is dead and buried, let him stay that way.

 

Thank you for providing an example of the mindless obsession some still have for a man whose most notable achievement in life was supporting child rape. A great legacy?? Mind boggling.

It's pathetic enough that your entire source of pride in your school is wrapped up in a disgraceful football coach, but your argument that this dirtbag created the 'Penn State Way' and then turn around and want to pretend he held no power when it came time to be held accountable is laughable.

Your response is laughable. I guess Abe Lincoln was a bad man, too; you know, once having slaves and all. Catholic church is all bad. America, yeah, we are not a good place.

[K-9]

I am tired of people saying the punishment is fair with something along the lines of "punish all of those responsible" forgetting those responsible are no longer a part of the institution. Those punished had nothing to do with the situation. Paterno is dead and buried, let him stay that way.

 

 

Your response is laughable. I guess Abe Lincoln was a bad man, too; you know, once having slaves and all. Catholic church is all bad. America, yeah, we are not a good place.

 

Every time and in every instance that the NCAA has imposed penalties on their member institutions for whatever rule violations they cited, there have been innocent players and students that have had to bear the brunt of the fallout. That is inevitable.

 

The only way to ensure that innocent kids DON'T get caught in the fallout is to NOT impose the penalties in the first place.

 

How would YOU go about imposing penalties without hurting those left behind?

 

I know that Lincoln's wife's family were slave owners at one time but was he actually someone that owned slaves? Actually had them as servants and field hands and such? Never mind. I just remembered a thread about why there was a civil war and I don't want to go there again.

Edited July 24, 2012 by K-9

[Wayne Cubed]

I am tired of people saying the punishment is fair with something along the lines of "punish all of those responsible" forgetting those responsible are no longer a part of the institution. Those punished had nothing to do with the situation. Paterno is dead and buried, let him stay that way.

 

But, but... the NCAA, who is in charge of over seeing student athletes/athletics, had to punish someone so why not those not involved, how else are they suppose to save face for all the $$ out there. Because obviously punishing football players/coaches and the like 10 years after the incident, when none of them were involved or could do anything at all to stop Sandusky, makes the most sense. Its about punishing "the idea" of Penn St football. They could have not signed with or attended PSU, not knowing at all what was really going on, but they should have known.

 

It's all about setting an example.... You don't report a crime, we will punish those not involved.