Penn State football penalties

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The good ol' boy network called the NCAA is a joke.
Punishing the current players for crimes they had nothing to do with is like beating your youngest kid for all of the bad crap the older kid did.
The NCAA is supposed to be there to monitor the programs and the student athlete to ensure a proper environment and see that recruiting and operational rules are followed.
Reggie Bush got a house and a car, so kids that were in 5th grade when that happened get punished at USC.

Fine the school, fire the AD, but let the current kids play in Bowl games. IMHO

The current kids at USC were allowed to transfer without penalty. Same is true for the Penn State ones.

Look, USC stalled the process as long as possible. They brought it down on themselves and the current players you referred to were fully aware of it. They choose to buy the line from the school that it was business as usual. (Carroll's abrupt quitting to a third tier NFL team should have been a clear hint that this was bullshit)

If you can't punish a school because the new players weren't part of it, how the hell do you punish a school? This would set up a reality where you let the seniors do anything and then graduate/exhaust eligibility and with no one left to punish, nothing happens. WTF?

It's wrong, btw, that the current players have nothing to do with it when a program benefits from cheating. They're going to a program that is more popular due to the illicit gains, resulting in better recruiting and better funding (which means getting facilities and even better recruiting).

Punishing the coaches only still punishes the current players who came to play for those coaches.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Reggie Bush got a house and a car, so kids that were in 5th grade when that happened get punished at USC.

My brother was one of them. And Pete Carroll got a new job in the NFL from it, too.

So how does it change? How can a punishment occur and not affect the current kids? What's coming down the pike with U. of Miami?

The punishment is given to the institution. Whomever happens to be there will take the lumps.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

On balance, appropriate.
The fish stinks from the head down.
As for "harming the current students"? Sorry, but the university itself is responsible for any residual harm to students, not those imposing the deserved punishment. I don't believe in allowing (or enabling) miscreants, including institutions, to hide behind human shields.

[Andy9o8 0]

One more thing: the Paterno family is doing nobody, including themselves, their supporters or Joe Pa's legacy, any favors with these "statements" they keep issuing. They really need to STFU.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Appropriate? Too severe? Too lenient?

IMO when a college sports team becomes the tail that wags the dog, there's something seriously amiss.

The fine, the bowl ban, and the criminal prosecution of Sandusky all seem reasonable under the circumstances.

Where the sanctions go too far, IMHO, is when they vacated all of Penn State's wins from 1998-2011. The accusations against Sandusky and Paterno--serious though they are--have nothing whatsoever to do with performance on the football field. This sanction formally takes away all on field accomplishments achieved by Penn State players for a period of 14 years--putting a retroactive mark of shame on the careers of players who had nothing whatsoever to do with this scandal.

That's much worse than punishing current players, because the current players at least have a chance to consider other options (transferring to another school perhaps?) that they might pursue to make things right.

Vacating Penn State's wins would be roughly equivalent to annulling all marriages performed by the Catholic Church from 1998 - 2011 because of that church's own child abuse scandal. It's punishing one group of innocent victims to make up for the real suffering of another group of innocent victims. Way out of line IMHO.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Vacating Penn State's wins would be roughly equivalent to annulling all marriages performed by the Catholic Church from 1998 - 2011 because of that church's own child abuse scandal. It's punishing one group of innocent victims to make up for the real suffering of another group of innocent victims. Way out of line IMHO.

I'd say it's more akin to retroactively defrocking a priest back to 1998, and nullifying all official acts he performed subsequent to the day his defrocking was made retroactively effective.

Believe me, if someone impersonated a clergyman or judge and performed 100 marriages before he was caught, neither the church nor civil law would deem those marriages valid out of "fairness"; they'd be deemed a nullity from the beginning.

The NCAA is essentially saying that the university and the football program lost all valid eligibility to compete fairly so long as it participated in the enabling cover-up; this was deemed retroactive to the beginning of the pattern of improper malfeasance and nonfeasance; in other words, since Sandusky's abuse was first discovered in 1998 and nobody did anything to report it to LEOs and allowed it to continue, even on campus.

I say again: the university shouldn't be allowed to hide behind human shields. If innocent people are harmed, they were/are harmed by the anticipatable consequences of the university's appalling misconduct. The punishment must be imposed; those innocents who suffer residual harm should be entitled to compensation from the university.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Where the sanctions go too far, IMHO, is when they vacated all of Penn State's wins from 1998-2011.

Vacating wins is SOP for penalties assessed on a program. But of all the penalties, it's the least meaningful. The score never really changes, the outcome gets asterick'd, and perhaps some other team is now the 2004 league champion, but how much joy does that team actually get out of it now? None. Same with bowl victories - the losing team didn't become winners with this declaration.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One more thing: the Paterno family is doing nobody, including themselves, their supporters or Joe Pa's legacy, any favors with these "statements" they keep issuing. They really need to STFU.

I eagerly await their followup report to the FBI driven one. I'm sure it will be breathtaking yet humble at the same time.

(I hope the school sent them the statue - clearly they still want it, if no one else on earth does)

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Believe me, if someone impersonated a clergyman or judge and performed 100 marriages before he was caught, neither the church nor civil law would deem those marriages valid out of "fairness"; they'd be deemed a nullity from the beginning.

That is why 99.44% of the time you need a statute of limitations. The child abuse charges themselves--by this I am referring to the criminal charges against Sandusky and, had he lived, Paterno--should carry no statute of limitations. The absolute most serious criminal charges should not carry a statute of limitations. But everything else should.

Let's say years down the road you nullify a marriage because of some sort of misconduct--be it child abuse or impersonation of a priest or whatever. Assume the couple had absolutely no knowledge that the contract of marriage wasn't valid.

What then? Let's assume the couple gained various benefits--perhaps tax and/or immigration and/or insurance--from the marriage. Do you retroactively charge the couple criminally for the fact that they obtained those benefits illegally?

In my opinion, no. If it has only been a few months since the wedding, you might ask the couple to have another ceremony (civil or religious) just to make things legal. But if years have gone by, you accept the fact that the statute of limitations has expired and the marriage is perfectly valid.

Again--for 97 year old Nazi Holocaust perpetrators--for child molesters--there is no statute of limitations. But ONLY for the heinous crimes themselves--not for anything else. You DON'T make a criminal out of every innocent person their lives may have touched.

Quote

The NCAA is essentially saying that the university and the football program lost all valid eligibility to compete fairly so long as it participated in the enabling cover-up; this was deemed retroactive to the beginning of the pattern of improper malfeasance and nonfeasance; in other words, since Sandusky's abuse was first discovered in 1998 and nobody did anything to report it to LEOs and allowed it to continue, even on campus.

The philosophy you are espousing makes some sense but the penalty imposed isn't really consistent with that philosophy. Your position is that Penn State was ineligible to compete from 1998-2011. If that is true, all of their games--including their losses, not just their wins--should have been vacated. If Penn State was fundamentally ineligible to compete, then their opponents should NOT gain the benefit of being credited with a win against Penn State.

By vacating only the wins, not the losses--an outcome determined on the football field--it seems to me that somehow results on the field are being linked to a child abuse scandal. And that makes no sense at all to me.

Another consideration, perhaps a minor one but one that gives me pause for thought--is why was the last win in 2011 after Paterno was fired also vacated? Clearly the justification you cite--that Penn State was participating in a cover up--no longer applied at that point. By firing Paterno they made clear that they were acknowledging that there was a serious problem. True, that was only one win out of the 112 wins that were vacated. But it still calls into question whether the principle you cited was truly the justification for the decision.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

but how much joy does that team actually get out of it now? None...

I doubt there is any joy for Penn State's opponents, but I'm sure there is sorrow for the former Penn State players who have essentially had their college football careers taken away from them by this retroactive decision to vacate their wins. That seems very wrong to me.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Besides Sandusky's obvious primary responsibility for this situation, there is the problem that several senior people, within the Athletic Association and the University Administration, made the calculation that it would be more profitable to sweep the matter under the rug.

You seem to be saying here that of the following two crimes:

A: Sexual abuse of a child
B: Covering up the sexual abuse of a child for financial gain

--you seem to be saying that A is the more serious crime. I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. Certainly A is one of the most despicable crimes imaginable. But I think a strong case could be made that B is even worse.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Besides Sandusky's obvious primary responsibility for this situation, there is the problem that several senior people, within the Athletic Association and the University Administration, made the calculation that it would be more profitable to sweep the matter under the rug.

You seem to be saying here that of the following two crimes:

A: Sexual abuse of a child
B: Covering up the sexual abuse of a child for financial gain

--you seem to be saying that A is the more serious crime. I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. Certainly A is one of the most despicable crimes imaginable. But I think a strong case could be made that B is even worse.

I didn't read it that way at all. I read "primary responsibility" as referring to the fact that A was root cause of the situation, not whether or not it was a more serious crime. Clearly, the punishment meted out was due to B and not A.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

Quote

Appropriate? Too severe? Too lenient?

IMO when a college sports team becomes the tail that wags the dog, there's something seriously amiss.

The fine, the bowl ban, and the criminal prosecution of Sandusky all seem reasonable under the circumstances.

Where the sanctions go too far, IMHO, is when they vacated all of Penn State's wins from 1998-2011. The accusations against Sandusky and Paterno--serious though they are--have nothing whatsoever to do with performance on the football field. This sanction formally takes away all on field accomplishments achieved by Penn State players for a period of 14 years--putting a retroactive mark of shame on the careers of players who had nothing whatsoever to do with this scandal.

reply]

Do you really think that the negation of wins has any practical effect on the players from that time? What is going to happen, that former 1999 PSU graduate/football player is going to lose his assistant coaching job at the local HS because of it? Hardly. The only thing that it does from a practical stance is take JoePa out of the record books, as it should be.

Football teams are a close knit group.. is it really conceivable that there wasn't at least suspicion on the part of the players at the time of Sandusky's actions, given that so much of it happened in the locker room and on PSU football trips? I find that unlikely as well.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

• Quote

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

"On balance, appropriate.
The fish stinks from the head down."

Everyone implecated in the Freeh report is; in jail, dead, or indicted. Only one coach (defensive line) remains. Everyone else from strength coach to head coach have been replaced. "Moral responsibility would require all of us to stop and consider the impact of all our actions, even punitive ones. On the surface, does it seem crass to worry about the economic impact that a football shutdown would have on the Central Pennsylvania region? Yes. But it is not so crass to appeal to moral sensibilities in proclaiming that scorch-Earth responses will only render more victims. Can we justify collateral damage here? It is not crass to speak up for one’s livelihoods, nor is it crass to speak up for others’ dreams of a better education – a better life. I think, personally, it is fair to consider the lifetime of hurt that an economically crushing blow to the region would mean. I think it’s fair for me to consider my friends who would never have received a college education if it were not for the fact that their parents worked as faculty or staff members at the university – thus granting their families breaks in tuition.

Discussing money is not always a matter of greed. In this case, it is a matter of livelihoods cultivated by innocent families. And yes, we are considering families like mine, or my in-laws, who are teachers devoted to a lifetimes of service to children. We are also considering families of those who were sexually abused. And I can’t stop reminding everyone that many of Sandusky’s own victims are central Pennsylvanians too, members of our very own community – the very community that is threatened by economically crushing sanctions. What productive message does a scorch-Earth policy send, when more innocent dreams are dashed?

• Quote

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Believe me, if someone impersonated a clergyman or judge and performed 100 marriages before he was caught, neither the church nor civil law would deem those marriages valid out of "fairness"; they'd be deemed a nullity from the beginning.

No necessarily true. As long as the couple believed in good faith the officiant was a legal officiant, states are generally very, very reluctant to nullify marriages.

The law is very murky here and generally comes down to a case by case ruling.

(this is subject to a lot of disclaimers, as state law is different, also, I am not an attorney and Andy is. This is one area I do have a tiny bit of expertise in, though)

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

"On balance, appropriate.
The fish stinks from the head down."

Everyone implecated in the Freeh report is; in jail, dead, or indicted. Only one coach (defensive line) remains. Everyone else from strength coach to head coach have been replaced. "Moral responsibility would require all of us to stop and consider the impact of all our actions, even punitive ones. On the surface, does it seem crass to worry about the economic impact that a football shutdown would have on the Central Pennsylvania region? Yes. But it is not so crass to appeal to moral sensibilities in proclaiming that scorch-Earth responses will only render more victims. Can we justify collateral damage here? It is not crass to speak up for one’s livelihoods, nor is it crass to speak up for others’ dreams of a better education – a better life. I think, personally, it is fair to consider the lifetime of hurt that an economically crushing blow to the region would mean. I think it’s fair for me to consider my friends who would never have received a college education if it were not for the fact that their parents worked as faculty or staff members at the university – thus granting their families breaks in tuition.

Discussing money is not always a matter of greed. In this case, it is a matter of livelihoods cultivated by innocent families. And yes, we are considering families like mine, or my in-laws, who are teachers devoted to a lifetimes of service to children. We are also considering families of those who were sexually abused. And I can’t stop reminding everyone that many of Sandusky’s own victims are central Pennsylvanians too, members of our very own community – the very community that is threatened by economically crushing sanctions. What productive message does a scorch-Earth policy send, when more innocent dreams are dashed?

The sanctions aren't intended to punish individuals. Rather, they're intended to punish the institution for fostering the environment and allowing the crimes to happen and doing nothing at all about it. It's also a powerful message to other institutions - along with the communities and individuals who rely on those institutions - to not let this happen to them.

• Quote

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Anyway, I don't think it's silly to hold individuals accountable for their individual actions. Do you actually mean to imply that mob mentality, or the "everybody else was doing it" type of defense is valid? Or just in the context of the false interpretation (replace all the students) that you threw out there?

I don't think it is just individuals that create a situation like this. These things tend to happen because the atmosphere is rype for it. This atmosphere is created as a sum of all its parts, which includes individuals like the couch, or the president. But, it also involves masses, like players and the fans.

[peregrinerose 0]

As a fellow Central PA resident, I see no problem with the sanctions. They are more than appropriate. I am sickened that my taxes go to support a business known to have an atmosphere that can allow child abuse to happen for over a decade. Last I heard, Sandusky is still receiving a $60K pension from PSU, which means that those of us that support PSU are also funding a child abuser.

I have been to PSU for many things, and sent my son to football camp there. I am as guilty as the rest of us that contributed to the PSU as supreme institution that can do no wrong mentality. I was a part of the problem, indirectly, tangentally, but part of it nonetheless. As a result, whatever financial repercussions that trickle down to me, which is unlikely to be substantial, I accept that.

If McDonald's was in this situation and was hit with a $60M fine, I could choose to pay more for a big mac, or I could choose to support a different business that does not have a history of covering for child abusers. PSU is no different.

Any financial effects on central PA be what they will, but like anything else, we will adapt and move on. That is what life is all about.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[DougH 270]

Quote

Inappropriate in my opinion. The student body is being punished for criminal actions they had nothing to do with.

Considering the protests that the students had when the University suspended Paterno from playing in a football game it is apparent to me at least that many of the current Penn State students are more concerned about football than they are about child molestation.

I would have felt more sympathetic for them if they didn't act like a bunch of asses.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"On balance, appropriate.
The fish stinks from the head down."

Everyone implecated in the Freeh report is; in jail, dead, or indicted. Only one coach (defensive line) remains. Everyone else from strength coach to head coach have been replaced. "Moral responsibility would require all of us to stop and consider the impact of all our actions, even punitive ones. On the surface, does it seem crass to worry about the economic impact that a football shutdown would have on the Central Pennsylvania region? Yes. But it is not so crass to appeal to moral sensibilities in proclaiming that scorch-Earth responses will only render more victims. Can we justify collateral damage here? It is not crass to speak up for one’s livelihoods, nor is it crass to speak up for others’ dreams of a better education – a better life. I think, personally, it is fair to consider the lifetime of hurt that an economically crushing blow to the region would mean. I think it’s fair for me to consider my friends who would never have received a college education if it were not for the fact that their parents worked as faculty or staff members at the university – thus granting their families breaks in tuition.

Discussing money is not always a matter of greed. In this case, it is a matter of livelihoods cultivated by innocent families. And yes, we are considering families like mine, or my in-laws, who are teachers devoted to a lifetimes of service to children. We are also considering families of those who were sexually abused. And I can’t stop reminding everyone that many of Sandusky’s own victims are central Pennsylvanians too, members of our very own community – the very community that is threatened by economically crushing sanctions. What productive message does a scorch-Earth policy send, when more innocent dreams are dashed?

The sanctions aren't intended to punish individuals. Rather, they're intended to punish the institution for fostering the environment and allowing the crimes to happen and doing nothing at all about it. It's also a powerful message to other institutions - along with the communities and individuals who rely on those institutions - to not let this happen to them.

Ok that is fine; punish the institution, as long as no innocent people get hurt. I think we have started making strides in this direction. I have heard that Beaver stadium is super upset about the JOPA statue being taken down

• Quote

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't think it is just individuals that create a situation like this. These things tend to happen because the atmosphere is rype for it. This atmosphere is created as a sum of all its parts, which includes individuals like the couch, or the president. But, it also involves masses, like players and the fans.

in the end - if you can't find the specific individuals responsible, you're just whistling in the wind. you can't put the "atmosphere" on trial.

I don't care if the college had a written policy that required employees to cover up abuse. If someone still covered up abuse like this, I'd still find them to be criminally responsible for their individual actions. They can point at the 'policy' all they want. It's not an excuse. Especially when the subject matter is protecting the kids.

The implication that bothers me is that the individuals responsible are not"REALLY" totally responsible for their own actions. I don't like that this implicitly gives them an "excuse". Just as well pass a law requiring rape victims to 'dress less provocatively'.



a better atmosphere - that's fine - go for it, try to improve it. But it's not responsible for what people did. The people are. To me, it's a distraction where people continue to try to social engineer a situation rather than insist on personal responsibility and personal morality.


(I appreciate the other viewpoint, I understand it, hopefully I've laid mine out clear enough too)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think it is just individuals that create a situation like this. These things tend to happen because the atmosphere is rype for it. This atmosphere is created as a sum of all its parts, which includes individuals like the couch, or the president. But, it also involves masses, like players and the fans.

in the end - if you can't find the specific individuals responsible, you're just whistling in the wind. you can't put the "atmosphere" on trial.

I don't care if the college had a written policy that required employees to cover up abuse. If someone still covered up abuse like this, I'd still find them to be criminally responsible for their individual actions. They can point at the 'policy' all they want. It's not an excuse. Especially when the subject matter is protecting the kids.

The implication that bothers me is that the individuals responsible are not"REALLY" totally responsible for their own actions. I don't like that this implicitly gives them an "excuse". Just as well pass a law requiring rape victims to 'dress less provocatively'.



a better atmosphere - that's fine - go for it, try to improve it. But it's not responsible for what people did. The people are. To me, it's a distraction where people continue to try to social engineer a situation rather than insist on personal responsibility and personal morality.


(I appreciate the other viewpoint, I understand it, hopefully I've laid mine out clear enough too)

Well, at least Penn State, as an institution does accept responsibility.

“The Penn State board of trustees failed in our obligation to provide proper oversight,” board member Kenneth Frazier said in a televised news conference. “Our hearts remain heavy and we are deeply ashamed.”

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

The implication that bothers me is that the individuals responsible are not"REALLY" totally responsible for their own actions. I don't like that this implicitly gives them an "excuse". Just as well pass a law requiring rape victims to 'dress less provocatively'.

It doesn't and those criminally responsible have been or will be dealt with. That doesn't mean that any other "punishment" is no longer needed.

Or sanctions that will help reduce the likelihood of something smiliar happening.

Or sanctions that allow a coach who facilitated this not to be in the record books.

Quote

(I appreciate the other viewpoint, I understand it, hopefully I've laid mine out clear enough too)

You have, I just think there is room for both. One doesn't and shouldn't preclude the other.

[chuteless 1]

Did anyone notice which finger Joe Paterno was pointing upwards?????

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"On balance, appropriate.
The fish stinks from the head down."

Everyone implecated in the Freeh report is; in jail, dead, or indicted. Only one coach (defensive line) remains. Everyone else from strength coach to head coach have been replaced. "Moral responsibility would require all of us to stop and consider the impact of all our actions, even punitive ones. On the surface, does it seem crass to worry about the economic impact that a football shutdown would have on the Central Pennsylvania region? Yes. But it is not so crass to appeal to moral sensibilities in proclaiming that scorch-Earth responses will only render more victims. Can we justify collateral damage here? It is not crass to speak up for one’s livelihoods, nor is it crass to speak up for others’ dreams of a better education – a better life. I think, personally, it is fair to consider the lifetime of hurt that an economically crushing blow to the region would mean. I think it’s fair for me to consider my friends who would never have received a college education if it were not for the fact that their parents worked as faculty or staff members at the university – thus granting their families breaks in tuition.

Discussing money is not always a matter of greed. In this case, it is a matter of livelihoods cultivated by innocent families. And yes, we are considering families like mine, or my in-laws, who are teachers devoted to a lifetimes of service to children. We are also considering families of those who were sexually abused. And I can’t stop reminding everyone that many of Sandusky’s own victims are central Pennsylvanians too, members of our very own community – the very community that is threatened by economically crushing sanctions. What productive message does a scorch-Earth policy send, when more innocent dreams are dashed?

The sanctions aren't intended to punish individuals. Rather, they're intended to punish the institution for fostering the environment and allowing the crimes to happen and doing nothing at all about it. It's also a powerful message to other institutions - along with the communities and individuals who rely on those institutions - to not let this happen to them.

Exactly. It's a matter of institutional responsibility, as well as deterrence of others.

I am not unsympathetic, at all, to the residual detriment that may be felt by innocent parties as the ripple effect of the sanctions. But it's much like, say, a judge who finds himself duty-bound to impose a prison sentence upon a woman defendant, who happens to be the primary caregiver of her young children, due to the severity of the crimes for which she stands convicted. Yes, the children will probably suffer from their mother's incarceration. And yes, you can bet that that judge weighed that as a mitigating factor before imposing sentence. But if the crime is severe enough, the defendant cannot be allowed to hide behind her children as the reason for avoiding a prison sentence she has brought upon herself. It is not the court that has inflicted the harm upon those children, it is the defendant herself.

With all due respect to the people who are angry at the NCAA, their anger is mis-directed.

I'm not unsympathetic, either, to the surviving Paterno family. I love my father unequivocally, too. But the public statements they keep issuing at every juncture reveal their judgment to be so clouded by raw emotion that they come across as clueless and callous, and are doing everyone more harm than good, on multiple levels. They need to stop speaking out publicly.

• Quote