Photo

Penn State: Death Penalty? Ouster from B1G?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
494 replies to this topic

#41 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:41 PM

The Deadspin Five-Point Plan To Rescue Penn State Football

Maybe I was wrong about the name change and logo after all...

Warning: Drew Magary

#42 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,203 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:43 PM

Someone is really going to have to explain to me what is gained or rectified by punishing the current PSU players for something that happened when they were in high school and before. If anything, PSU is going to need their football revenues now more than ever to help settle the civil lawsuits.

#43 SammyBirdland

SammyBirdland

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,019 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 04:10 PM

Someone is really going to have to explain to me what is gained or rectified by punishing the current PSU players for something that happened when they were in high school and before. If anything, PSU is going to need their football revenues now more than ever to help settle the civil lawsuits.


Someone said early that pretty much all NCAA sanctions punish current players for something that happened when they were in high school or before.
¡Hasta la vista, pelota!

#44 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,203 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 13 July 2012 - 04:15 PM

Someone said early that pretty much all NCAA sanctions punish current players for something that happened when they were in high school or before.


Then it looks like the NCAA needs to seriously change how it governs college sports.

/blatantly obvious statement

#45 SammyBirdland

SammyBirdland

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,019 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 04:46 PM

Then it looks like the NCAA needs to seriously change how it governs college sports.

/blatantly obvious statement


"Pete Carroll, you've been a bad boy. Now go to the NFL and make more money! Nope, don't even try, it's too late for explanations. Go make more money."
¡Hasta la vista, pelota!

#46 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,203 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 13 July 2012 - 05:04 PM

"Pete Carroll, you've been a bad boy. Now go to the NFL and make more money! Nope, don't even try, it's too late for explanations. Go make more money."


"Penn State football players, you've been bad boys. Yeah, we know....you were just little-tykes when Jerry Sandusky last coached here, and had absolutely no clue that JoePa, the AD, president and VP tried to cover up his crimes. But goshdarnit, people on message boards everywhere are demanding blood. And since you're the only ones left around here, whacking all of you is the only satisfaction we're gonna get. After all, the horror, outrage, shame and tarnished image of this program and university just isn't enough to prevent such a tragedy from happening at some other school. But boy oh boy, once we slap a bowl-ban on you kids, the rest of college football is really going to take notice."

#47 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,304 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 13 July 2012 - 08:28 PM

Not that anyone in this thread is doing this, but I hate it when people keep saying that "one mistake" doesn't tarnish Paterno's legacy. This wasn't "one mistake". It was one mistake when he first found, and did nothing about it and continued to allow Sandusky on campus. Then he continued to make a mistake every day thereafter, it was a mistake again, and again, and again, and again. Every day he didn't act on what he knew was a mistake.
@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#48 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,796 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:11 PM

Not that anyone in this thread is doing this, but I hate it when people keep saying that "one mistake" doesn't tarnish Paterno's legacy. This wasn't "one mistake". It was one mistake when he first found, and did nothing about it and continued to allow Sandusky on campus. Then he continued to make a mistake every day thereafter, it was a mistake again, and again, and again, and again. Every day he didn't act on what he knew was a mistake.

Well, I'm not sure the best way to count it... but I do think it was *one* personal failing.

I don't think it was about the money. I think it was about a guy of his generation not even knowing how to think about this kind of stuff. So he didn't. He just pushed it aside and pretended it didn't exist.

I'm not defending that. But I am saying I do not think for one second that Joe Paterno was a bad man. I think he was a good man. I think he didn't know how to cope with this kind of thing. I think he probably never even got as far in his own mind as imagining the kind of things that were described in testimony. I expect that he didn't even realize that the sordid, sick side of life included this kind of thing.

I think it's easy to pass judgment on somebody else. I'm not gonna pass judgment on Joe Paterno. However, I am pretty sure that when all this came to light, and it eventually dawned on him what had happened... which in turn made him realize the part he had played in letting it continue... that realization actually killed him. I think he died of a broken heart when he realized what he had done. I think he died of personal shame. I'm not gonna bad mouth the guy.

Be careful, people. It's way too easy to get all self-righteous about things... especially after the fact, when you know what happened. If Joe really knew what happened, he would not have done what he did... which is exactly why he died from it when it became clear to him. This is a tragedy all the way around. It is true that the main tragedy concerns the victims. But the story of Joe Paterno is a tragedy too.

I wonder how long before it kills his wife too.

 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#49 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,304 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:16 PM

I think it's easy to pass judgment on somebody else. I'm not gonna pass judgment on Joe Paterno. However, I am pretty sure that when all this came to light, and it eventually dawned on him what had happened... which in turn made him realize the part he had played in letting it continue... that realization actually killed him. I think he died of a broken heart when he realized what he had done. I think he died of personal shame. I'm not gonna bad mouth the guy.

Be careful, people. It's way too easy to get all self-righteous about things... especially after the fact, when you know what happened. If Joe really knew what happened, he would not have done what he did... which is exactly why he died from it when it became clear to him. This is a tragedy all the way around. It is true that the main tragedy concerns the victims. But the story of Joe Paterno is a tragedy too.

I wonder how long before it kills his wife too.


Not being able to cope/ignoring it all and pushing it out of his mind while letting the perp continue to roam his campus, and his buildings is a horrible mistake in it's own right. I'm honestly not trying to be righteous and judgmental, but this is as black and white as it gets to me, it really is.

That said, I see what you're saying and you make some valid points.
@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#50 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 88,593 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:59 AM

I think those who covered it up should go to jail.
@BSLRobShields

#51 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 88,593 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:00 AM

I heard people today comparing Ray Lewis and JoePa.
@BSLRobShields

#52 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,796 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:39 AM

I think those who covered it up should go to jail.

I agree completely.

Same thing with those who covered up for abuser priests. Just recently had the first one of those convicted in Philly... a monsignor. A bishop is now facing the same thing in KC... too soon to know how it will turn out...

 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#53 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 14 July 2012 - 09:48 PM

I heard people today comparing Ray Lewis and JoePa.


Make sure you take note. We need more ways of identifying the hopelessly brain-damaged within out society.

#54 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 15 July 2012 - 04:32 AM

Well, I'm not sure the best way to count it... but I do think it was *one* personal failing.


Why not make the same case about Sandusky himself? His "one" personal failing was that he couldn't overcome his urge to rape boys. He happened to do it multiple times, but it's all "one" failing.

Give me a break. JoePa knew it had happened in 1998, and he covered it up then. Then he heard from another coach that it had happened again in 2001, and he continued to participate in the cover-up. Even when he faced the grand jury on this, he still refused to admit that he had known and had covered anything up.

The man needs to have all trace of his legacy removed from the program. His estate should be sued along with the university. And the other participants should be prosecuted to the extent of the law for child endangerment.

As for penalties on the program itself, I am not an advocate of the death penalty. I would hope that recruits are smart enough to refuse to go there of their own volition, and the program becomes something of a laughingstock. The NCAA does have a responsibility to penalize the program for the poor decisions of the coaches and athletic director. I don't know to what extent, but it's not a death penalty.
  • mweb08 likes this

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#55 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,796 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:53 AM

Why not make the same case about Sandusky himself? His "one" personal failing was that he couldn't overcome his urge to rape boys. He happened to do it multiple times, but it's all "one" failing.

Give me a break. JoePa knew it had happened in 1998, and he covered it up then. Then he heard from another coach that it had happened again in 2001, and he continued to participate in the cover-up. Even when he faced the grand jury on this, he still refused to admit that he had known and had covered anything up.

Well, maybe the main diff between your opinion and mine is that I don't think Joe really knew what happened. I think he did know that Sandusky had inappropriate contact with boys. I think there's a big diff between vague phrases like that vs. knowing exactly what kind of behavior was happening.

Let me tell you one reason I think that...

When I was a child, my own family (2 boys and 2 girls) and my cousins (4 girls and 1 boy) used to visit a great-aunt and great-uncle in NC. The great-aunt was the blood relative and was very unusual for a woman of her generation: she was an attorney and a great accomplisher in several ways. The great-uncle was her fairly useless husband. Of the 9 kids who visited, I am the oldest and therefore have more memories of the visits. For as long as I can remember, the girls were warned about the great-uncle. They were told to never be alone with him. They were told he would try to touch them in ways he shouldn't. They were told to make sure he didn't touch them in what was then called their "private parts".

The girls (my 2 sisters and 4 cousins) included 2 who are too young to be aware of, or involved in, any of this. Of the other 4, they used to giggle about it. They'd sit on his lap with the others in the next room. And within a few minutes, they'd jump down, run into the room with their fellow game-players and have a collective giggle. Then the next one would come sit on his lap, and so on.

Now, in today's world, my now long-dead great-uncle would be called a pedophile... with justification. What he did was clearly inappropriate. And both my parents and those of my cousins knew about it. The children were warned. The children coped with it and made a game out of it. And all anybody really knew was that the uncle had "issues" and was not to be trusted. And in today's world, my sisters and cousins are all adults and have attitudes that are modern and in many ways feminist. But none of them think they were harmed by what happened. They all remember it as a game they played. They all realized that it *might* have been different, *might* have been harmful.. but it wasn't. There was no penetration. There was no forced anything. The old guy would try to cop a feel, at which point the girls would jump down and run away giggling.

In this very true and very real life example, nobody was harmed. And nobody knew very much about exactly how far the great-uncle would have gone if given the chance. Nobody stopped him, nobody locked him up. Why? Because it was a different day and age, and how people dealt with things like this were different. Nobody really wanted to think about it much. Nobody wanted to talk about it... except for the girl children who played their game and giggled about it.

Now, should my parents have gone to jail? Should my mom's sister and her husband gone to jail with them? They all knew of the uncle's "issue". They allowed him to have other opportunities. They took mild (but sufficient) steps which acknowledged that they did know. But they didn't stop him. Are they criminals?

Now, of course there are crucial differences between my own family example and what happened to the victims at Penn St. But is there any substantial diff between what my parents knew and what Paterno knew about the perp's "issues" and the perp's "behavior". I'm not so sure there are. Are you?

Please remember that I am not in any way condoning the behavior of either my uncle or Sandusky. As for the behavior of my parents and the behavior of Paterno, I'm not so sure exactly what the diff is. There is clearly a diff between what Sandusky did to children and what my great-uncle did to my sisters and my girl cousins. But I'm not so sure that there is any big diff between what my parents did and what Joe did. All I am doing is trying to be real about the way that people of a very different generation coped with this kind of thing. Different generations had different standards. I am not saying it's right, just saying it's the truth, that's all. And, given that truth, I'm not so sure that Paterno knew anything more about Sandusky than my parents knew about my strange great-uncle.

As best I can tell, the big diff in behavior is not between Paterno and my parents. Not saying their behavior was exactly the same, but it was pretty similar. The big diff is the degree of inappropriate behavior done my Sandusky vs. my weird great-uncle. So, should my parents have gone to jail? Should their memory be reduced to this one aspect of their whole lives?

 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#56 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,972 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:08 PM

The statue will apparently remain.

http://espn.go.com/e... ... ources-say

#57 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,972 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:14 PM

As far as what he knew, well these links shows that he was aware of the '98 incident:

http://deadspin.com/... ... ew-in-1998

Then of course he was well aware of what happened in 2001.

He was also an active participant in discussing the situation with the other higher ups at Penn St.

#58 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 15 July 2012 - 02:54 PM

Well, maybe the main diff between your opinion and mine is that I don't think Joe really knew what happened. I think he did know that Sandusky had inappropriate contact with boys. I think there's a big diff between vague phrases like that vs. knowing exactly what kind of behavior was happening.

Let me tell you one reason I think that...

When I was a child, my own family (2 boys and 2 girls) and my cousins (4 girls and 1 boy) used to visit a great-aunt and great-uncle in NC. The great-aunt was the blood relative and was very unusual for a woman of her generation: she was an attorney and a great accomplisher in several ways. The great-uncle was her fairly useless husband. Of the 9 kids who visited, I am the oldest and therefore have more memories of the visits. For as long as I can remember, the girls were warned about the great-uncle. They were told to never be alone with him. They were told he would try to touch them in ways he shouldn't. They were told to make sure he didn't touch them in what was then called their "private parts".

The girls (my 2 sisters and 4 cousins) included 2 who are too young to be aware of, or involved in, any of this. Of the other 4, they used to giggle about it. They'd sit on his lap with the others in the next room. And within a few minutes, they'd jump down, run into the room with their fellow game-players and have a collective giggle. Then the next one would come sit on his lap, and so on.

Now, in today's world, my now long-dead great-uncle would be called a pedophile... with justification. What he did was clearly inappropriate. And both my parents and those of my cousins knew about it. The children were warned. The children coped with it and made a game out of it. And all anybody really knew was that the uncle had "issues" and was not to be trusted. And in today's world, my sisters and cousins are all adults and have attitudes that are modern and in many ways feminist. But none of them think they were harmed by what happened. They all remember it as a game they played. They all realized that it *might* have been different, *might* have been harmful.. but it wasn't. There was no penetration. There was no forced anything. The old guy would try to cop a feel, at which point the girls would jump down and run away giggling.

In this very true and very real life example, nobody was harmed. And nobody knew very much about exactly how far the great-uncle would have gone if given the chance. Nobody stopped him, nobody locked him up. Why? Because it was a different day and age, and how people dealt with things like this were different. Nobody really wanted to think about it much. Nobody wanted to talk about it... except for the girl children who played their game and giggled about it.

Now, should my parents have gone to jail? Should my mom's sister and her husband gone to jail with them? They all knew of the uncle's "issue". They allowed him to have other opportunities. They took mild (but sufficient) steps which acknowledged that they did know. But they didn't stop him. Are they criminals?

Now, of course there are crucial differences between my own family example and what happened to the victims at Penn St. But is there any substantial diff between what my parents knew and what Paterno knew about the perp's "issues" and the perp's "behavior". I'm not so sure there are. Are you?

Please remember that I am not in any way condoning the behavior of either my uncle or Sandusky. As for the behavior of my parents and the behavior of Paterno, I'm not so sure exactly what the diff is. There is clearly a diff between what Sandusky did to children and what my great-uncle did to my sisters and my girl cousins. But I'm not so sure that there is any big diff between what my parents did and what Joe did. All I am doing is trying to be real about the way that people of a very different generation coped with this kind of thing. Different generations had different standards. I am not saying it's right, just saying it's the truth, that's all. And, given that truth, I'm not so sure that Paterno knew anything more about Sandusky than my parents knew about my strange great-uncle.

As best I can tell, the big diff in behavior is not between Paterno and my parents. Not saying their behavior was exactly the same, but it was pretty similar. The big diff is the degree of inappropriate behavior done my Sandusky vs. my weird great-uncle. So, should my parents have gone to jail? Should their memory be reduced to this one aspect of their whole lives?


First of all, there is plenty of evidence that shows that Paterno knew very clearly what was being alleged. In both 1998 and in 2001, he had been told very clearly of the incidents, and he participated in the cover-up. You can try to claim that because he was from a different generation, he downplayed the allegations, but that is different than not knowing. And the fact that he actively participated in the cover-up, as the emails clearly show, means that he understood the severity of the charges. He had a responsibility (as did the others) to put a stop to it immediately and to protect any other boys from this predator.

Second of all, you can't separate the crime from the actions of those who knew. They aren't mutually independent.

What I mean by that is that "knowing" the way your parents knew is all well and good as long as things never progressed to Sandusky-level crimes. If it had, though, then yes, your parents might well have been guilty of child endangerment. Imagine how your sister might have felt if she had been sexually assaulted by this man. I think she might hold your parents highly accountable for not having protected her better. Warning her was no where near enough. The only reason your parents aren't culpable to the same degree as Paterno is because the uncle never got what he wanted.

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#59 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,972 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 July 2012 - 05:59 PM

Jeff Pearlman on what Joe Posnanski should do with his book: http://www.jeffpearl...ki-and-paterno/

As I mentioned in my thread about favorite media personalities, I'm a big fan of Posnanski; however, I think he had previously handled this situation very poorly and I worry that he will continue to do so at the expense of his reputation. The fact that his two buddies, Bill James and Rob Neyer have defended Paterno makes me think it's even more likely that Posnanski will continue to make himself look poor.

Oh, and the book is apparently coming out next month, meaning it likely hasn't been revised adequately, or scrapped altogether and rewritten as Pearlman suggests.

Here's a link to the book: http://www.amazon.co... ... 1451657498

#60 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 16 July 2012 - 07:54 PM

Jeff Pearlman on what Joe Posnanski should do with his book: http://www.jeffpearl...ki-and-paterno/

As I mentioned in my thread about favorite media personalities, I'm a big fan of Posnanski; however, I think he had previously handled this situation very poorly and I worry that he will continue to do so at the expense of his reputation. The fact that his two buddies, Bill James and Rob Neyer have defended Paterno makes me think it's even more likely that Posnanski will continue to make himself look poor.

Oh, and the book is apparently coming out next month, meaning it likely hasn't been revised adequately, or scrapped altogether and rewritten as Pearlman suggests.

Here's a link to the book: http://www.amazon.co... ... 1451657498

First of all, where did Neyer defend Paterno?

Second, when the book comes out is up to the publishers. Since this one was already in progress when the scandal came out, of course they were going to push it forward as soon as it could. So any issues with editing or rewriting is on them, not Posnanski.

EDIT: Also, I have a LOT of problems with what Pearlman wrote in that post, so I don't think I'm going to be going off of what he said.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners