Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Fan123, Jun 21, 2012.
Which only makes sense. Being stripped of a win is not the same thing as forfeiting a game.
^^^ that's why I don't get all the boo-hooing over the players. Their stats remain intact, so professionally they aren't hurt. The bowl wins boost the school--not individual players.
Speaking generally, so much more concern has been expressed over how football players will be impacted than how the myriad rape survivors are doing. It's just a continuance of the very phenomena the Freeh report documented--placing the needs of the football program and everything associated with that at center stage to the point of placing the victims under complete erasure--yet again.
For goodness sake--it's football people. The players weren't molested over a period of years to the point where they now have memory holes, addiction issues, and daily suicidal thoughts. There's no unfairness in not being able to play a bowl game. There's no injustice in transferring schools (with scholarships intact). Perspective, people. Sheesh!
I suppose they might have personal or academic reasons for wanting to stay at PSU. Maybe the players' existing college credits won't transfer over completely to the new schools?
That is usually said by players who never won one. It is a very big deal to the payers.
No one has forgot what happened nor are the victims being trivialized. We are capable of discussing other facets of this case.
agalisgv -- generally speaking, I am not putting the needs of the football program ahead of the victims. As julieann said, we *are* capable of considering the impact on other innocents as well as the victims. No one here has said the impact on the players was more devastating than what happened to the young victims. It really doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One *can* have empathy for all those impacted who weren't involved in the crimes or the coverups.
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say if they were there to play Penn State football, they want to play on a winning team who will win championships to possibly further their professional football career. I could be wrong. Maybe they want to be close to family or really want to finish their degree at Penn State. But if their reason for going to Penn State was for their championship (now defunct?) football program, they will leave to seek new opportunities. I think that's why NCAA lifted the ban on the one year suspension for those such players.
They wanted to play at Penn State under that legacy, with Joe Paterno to win games and championships. Now look at it? I wonder if they would have choose that school knowing what they know. Probably not, so if the NCAA give them the oppotunity to go, I think many will take advantage.
Even if these athletes are at PSU primarily for the football program, what might keep some of them from leaving is the late date that they've gotten this opportunity. The season starts in just over a month, so the athletes don't have a lot of time to decide to leave PSU, contact coaches, await their replies, visit the programs, receive offers, weigh the choices, relocate, practice with the new team and enroll in classes.
To clarify, the speaking generally qualification was meant to refer to larger discussions taking place beyond fsu. I wasn't pointing to peeps here.
The language of unfairness and injustice is being bandied about frequently in discussions of the NCAA sanctions, and I think that verbiage is completely inappropriate irt the players. Personally I think the sanctions should have gone farther, but to me the NCAA bent over backwards to accommodate current players. While some inconveniences may be involved for some players, it's only an inconvenience at most in my view, and nothing approaching an injustice as some have been given to calling it. It's that type of language I take exception to, and to reiterate, I'm talking about broader discussions beyond fsu.
True if their a senior but it may be worth it for a junior, sophomore or freshman. One or two years are better than nothing.
True. A sophomore football player probably doesn't want to spend the next three years with a demoralized, flattened program that has no potential for bowl games. I wonder if the transferred athletes will face stigma or resentment on their new teams, especially if they upstage the preexisting athletes.
My BIL played football in college only because that was the only way he could get a college education. He had no interest in going pro - he did have offers. In this situation he would not have transferred. Football is not life-and-death to every player. Neither are bowl games - after all, it's an extra game they have to play & they don't even get paid for it.
We'll have to disagree then.
For someone who loves to beat an argument to death, you seem rather bent out of shape because I'm trying to both defend and clarify my POV.
And speaking of straw man arguments, I don't think your example of the doorman is remotely applicable to this situation.
SHOCKING, eh! Talk about blowing things out of proportion.
I didn't say it was life or death for every player for but it's an important stepping stone for many.
Here's an article about the pros and cons about leaving verses staying.
The doorman analogy was spot-on. These Penn State employees were planning the camps, creating the brochures, promoting the camps to local schools and coaches, enrolling the kids, checking them in--all while aware that a predator awaited them. Sandusky could not have done this without assistance from an army of enablers.
I'm sympathetic to sustained argumentation , but it doesn't make sense to critique an argument by a poster they never made. That was really my point. If you look at taf's first post to which you responded, there was no mention of internet fans. The bone of contention was whether the people at Penn State and Mrs. Sandusky were as bad as Sandusky because they covered-up and enabled him to offend over decades.
Your initial reaction to that was incredulousness. Then you called it bizarre. When I pointed out that follows legal reasoning, you responded you don't agree with the law.
So to better focus the discussion, do you think the officials at Penn State who knew Sandusky was molesting/raping children on their campus but did nothing to stop it (thereby allowing it to continue unabated for years) are equally guilty of child sexual abuse?
I say they are.
Oh, and btw, the recent case where the Catholic Monsignor who oversaw pedophile priests and didn't intervene to keep them out of parishes was just sentenced yesterday. He was given longer jail-time than the pedophile priest.
Food for thought.
Yeah, I was going to say that analogy was taken from the Freeh report. It was the conclusion of Freeh that the admins at Penn State were the effective gatekeepers, and had they at any time shut their doors to Sandusky, his method for luring in victims would have effectively ended, and many innocent lives could have been spared. But never once did those admins close the door on Sandusky's access, and this is what allowed the abuse to continue for so long.
So yeah, I think it's a pretty apt parallel.
Well, yes, as I said, just because that's how the law works, doesn't make it right. The law has many irregularities and when you compare sentences, you can find a lot of inconsistencies and things that most wouldn't agree is fair. Like women getting harder sentences for killing their spouses than guys who kill theirs.
And, as a victim of sexual abuse myself, I am still incredulous at the idea that anyone is more guilty than Sandusky. He is the one who did it. No one made him do anything; it was all on HIM. I don't understand how Paterno has become this lightening rod for scorn and derision when Sandusky actually raped young adults in his care. No punishment is good enough for Sandusky IMO.
I already said they weren't. (I don't think the discussion actually needs "focusing" either. )
You already said that.
My thought is that our criminal justice system is a mess.
No wonder people have been criticizing it then...
This is what I think:
The guilt of the officials at Penn State is variable. Some of them are like the bar owner who let's the mob run something illegal in his back room because they pay him to turn a blind eye. Some are like a landlord who suspects he's rented to the mob but doesn't investigate so he can claim he didn't know anything; but he kind of does know. And some are like an absentee landlord whose really does have absolutely no idea something hinky is happening on his property. These people are not all equally guilty as each other let alone equally guilty with the ones committing crimes.
The bouncer in the above example is actually a member of the gang. He's like the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery. Maybe he didn't come in to the bank and say "give me all your money" but he committed the same crime because the job wouldn't have been successfully pulled off without his contribution. I don't see any of the officials in that role unless there was one who actively funneled boys to Sandusky to keep him happy.
Maybe Mrs. Sandusky is playing that role, but I don't know enough details as to what she did and didn't know to say that for sure. I also suspect that Sandusky abused her emotionally because pedophiles often do that their spouses. Which makes her a victim too.
As for the penalties, I think the fine should have been twice what it was at a *minimum*. But I think the stripping of the titles was petty and dumb. I also think most of the sanctions hurt the people least involved including some who are completely innocent.
If they want to punish wrong-doers, they should take away everyone's coaching credentials (well the NCAA equivalent of that) and bar them from coaching anywhere for at least 5 years but preferably more. THAT would punish people who actually did something wrong instead of players some of whom are not only victims of Sandusky but now are victims of the NCAA.
The buck has to stop somewhere. Joe was in charge, Joe knew about it, Joe didn't fire Sandusky, Joe didn't contact authorities. Heck, Joe could have at least cancelled the camps, citing liability or streamlining the program or similar. Sandusky is in jail as he should be; Joe had the lucky break of dying at a convenient time.
One problem with that, Heckles, Sanducksy WAS NOT an employee of Penn StTe football in 2002 when the shower scene happened. Sanducksy was granted access BY the Athelic director and the President of the university NOT by Joe Paterno. When the shower scene happened it was reported to Paterno by McCleary, if Joe Paterno or anyone else reported it to the authorities, the cops would have asked if they witnessed the crime, otherwise it might be considered hearsay evidence.
Joe Paterno had major influence on the Penn State campus and the surrounding town. A co-worker's daughter was at Penn State a few years ago and this co-worker said you could not go one block without seeing the Paterno name or image on a store or building. She said when people spoke of Joe, it was like they were talking about a holy man. Maybe, if Paterno had gone to the police, his reputation alone would had given the police cause to formally investigate. AND, if Paterno couldn't go to the police, what about a call to child protective services? Those calls can be made anonymously.
I think in some cases it may also have been like a landlord who rented an apt to his friend and didn't want to think the friend could be up to no good.
Sandusky fooled a hell of a lot of people- it's easy for us now to see him for what he is when we are distanced from the situation and when a ton of kids have come forward. But at the time? To someone closer to the situation? Not to excuse them or say that they behaved appropriately- just saying that I think they are imperfect human beings who made some huge mistakes (which deserve to be punished) and not the root of all evil.
Oh come on. So Paterno was just supposed to stay mum and hope that McCleary reported the CHILD MOLESTOR to the police, and when he didn't, it was okay that Paterno didn't do ANYTHING? How much CSI do you watch? Do you seriously think that it's okay for an authority figure, who did have power over McCleary, to not immediately take what McCleary told him to the police? 'Hearsay evidence'? Are you kidding me? Do you really think that you cannot report something to the police unless you have witnessed it yourself or have solid, incontrovertible evidence? That's what a courtroom is for.
Anyone with a brain knows that because these things were happening on Penn State grounds, Penn State was liable. It was Paterno's duty, if not in writing as part of his job than as a human being, to report such things and stop them from happening - because, don't you know, child molestation is llegal.
I dont think anyone said that the people who covered up are more guilty than Sandusky. Of course not. But I think McQuery for one should go to jail & he probably would have if he had not made a deal for his testimony. I can't even imagine in my wildest not stopping whatever was going on in the shower. Why didn't he run in there & break it up? Why didn't he go to the police instead of to Paterno? It looks like he won't get any punishment at all for his involvement. He should be blackballed from any sports-related jobs. I for one would not want a child of mine in his care. He had very poor judgement to say the least.
I agree with most of this but once they knew about the abuse & said nothing when they saw Sandusky having access to other young boys, then I see them as the bouncer or the getaway driver....an active participant in the crime.
I agree with the 2nd paragraph but I also agreed with the stripping of titles. That hurt the school, not the players. Any individual stats or titles were not affected. The atmosphere at the school was that football was king & everything else could go to hell. The coaching staff did not create this atmosphere in a vacuum. Football was big money & the college administrators went along with whatever promoted football.
According to McQueary, he did.
Unless the victim comes forward or Sandusky makes some mind-boggling confession, I think we need to take him at his word.
That article is too short and vague. I can't tell whether "made sure it stopped" means going in to break it up right then and there, since all the details are about what he did elsewhere and afterward.
Apparently he is in the process of doing so: http://news.yahoo.com/jerry-sandusk...-says-sue-164900942--abc-news-topstories.html
What else could it mean?
By the way, McQueary has claimed that he did go to the police.
I don't know whether Louis Freeh's investigation (or anything else) corroborated this, but I'm inclined to believe McQueary about this too.
I can't open the article but are you sure he didn't mean campus police? I have never heard he called 911. I'm sure after he walked in on the abuse he ended it even if it wasn't physical. I can understand being stunned by what he just saw. He called his father than night saw Paterno the next day. and continued to work with Sandusky for years after and never said a word.
In what way did McQueary continue to work with Sandusky? I haven't read any of the testimony (or the report), but I thought that they had very little to do with one another after Sandusky "retired" several years before that shower incident. I guess I am wrong in thinking that.
The second linked article quotes him as saying he slammed his locker door (apparently to let Sandusky know someone else was in the locker room.) Enough? Not in my opinion but more than others did. Nothing less than him going into the shower and escorting the boy out was enough for the immediate situation, IMO.
Excuse me, julieann, but I have to ask. Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem or learning disability?
I never said that he called 911. The fact that you somehow gleaned that from my post is ... umm, worrisome, to say the least.
And yes, it was the campus police.
But of course, you are right. He should have taken that boy home or to the police. I wonder what did happen to that boy immediately after the incident. I guess we may now find out soon enough.
Worked with him was the wrong word but McQueary certainly knew Sandusky wasn't arrested for what happened and didn't inquire about it either or he would have been questioned. I'm sure the incident in 2002 wasn't the last time either one saw each other.
He said he slammed his locker door hard, letting them know they weren't alone.
He saw it at 9:00pm. I have no friggin clue what's so about a 20something intern calling his dad for advice about what to do when you find an uber popular and very powerful higher up in your company doing something illegal after hours. He reported it to his boss during the next possible business hours. After that it was up to his employers on how to handle illegal activity on their premises. I'm sure that he too wishes he had handled it differently or done more, but I don't really find his actions that outragous. Paterno had a dictatorship going there and it's his and the university's actions to the event that I find not really the actions of the smallest cog in the wheel, who blew the whistle but just didn't blow it loud enough for some. And of course, as MacMadam keeps reminding us, it's the serial rapist who'd been abusing this kid for years that most to blame, even if they're all going to various rings in Dante's inferno.
There is a HUGE difference between 'police' and 'campus police'; anyone whose been to university knows that. If you mean to say campus police, that is the word you should use.
This from the woman who thinks that the term to "go to the police" means to call 911.
You can call 911 at any time, they are always open. Especially if you feel other children may be at risk at a rapist who's name you know. Especially if you are still seeing him walking around and feel your 'boss' may not have handled the situation. McQueary wasn't a teenager he was pushing 30.
so what? they get to keep their penn state scholarships if no one else wants them
On every college campus I've been on, calls to 911 from campus phones automatically got forwarded to the campus security office. Even if you dialed 9 for an outside line, then 911, it still went to campus police. Campus police are notoriously gutless, and just want to cover up anything that will make the college look bad. If you tried to bypass that by calling the police non-emergency number, they'd just tell you that because the issue was on campus, you had to call campus police. Fraternity and sorority houses were in some lawless Wild West: campus police wouldn't get involved there because the Greek houses weren't "on campus", yet the municipal police said it was "University property".
Maybe the situation varies from college to college--perhaps a haughty academic type will contrarily chime in--but the above could have been a factor at Penn State.
What is it with you people? Can't you read and understand basic English?
When a university official says he witnessed another university employee having anal sex on university grounds, then "immediately" thereafter spoke by telephone about the incident with his father, and, after that "had discussions" with the police about what he had witnessed, it implies that he did something other than call 911.
Indeed, why would he call 911 at that point? 911 is for emergencies, and, at that point, there was no emergency.
Most likely, he went into the campus police station to report what he saw.
The point is the same. Municipal police have a tendency to not want to address campus crime, and campus police ironically have the same reluctance. All you have to do is Google the words "under-reported campus crime" to see how crime is handled--or more accurately, not handled--at Universities.
So who are you suppose to call?
Good question! Too often, these crimes just go unaddressed. In the Penn State case, it would appear that what really got things moving was the local newspaper, which was initially maligned for its reporting.
Separate names with a comma.