Judge throws out 3 of 51 counts against Sandusky

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Fan123, Jun 21, 2012.

  1. taf2002

    taf2002 flower lady

    14,620
    3,349
    113
    The law can still charge the actual conspirators. I think the penalties given to Penn State were appropriate.
     
  2. barbk

    barbk Well-Known Member

    6,023
    555
    113
    In particular, they are being punished for a lack of institutional control -- which is to say, football isn't supposed to be the tail that wags the dog, and when problems arise, the institution is supposed to exercise control and not allow the problems to continue.

    It wasn't about poor judgment by an individual -- it was cover-up (or choosing not to take action) when action would surely have been taken had behavior like that been seen in, say, the department of Economics. In a related way, the lack of institutional control is also seen in the fear lower level employees had of reporting criminal behavior, and Paterno's practice -- accepted by the University -- of deciding what punishment to mete out to football players.

    CU went through some similar issues in the sexual abuse/recruiting scandal about ten years ago. Colorado State University's president just said it pretty clearly:

    ""No institution can, of course, be immune from the poor judgment of an individual, but every institution should take every step possible to assure that good choices are encouraged and oversight is present to identify and correct any problems at early stages," Frank said."

    http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/...-leadership-keeps-sports-proper#ixzz21Y9MgAa0

    I hope that other football (and basketball) programs take a good look at their own institutional control, or lack thereof.
     
  3. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,012
    3,509
    113
    I am not "twisting your words." You posted a question asking which was worse. I responded to that. You then clarified but then a bunch of people, including you, jumped down my throat for making things up. Not to mention some of your posts after that don't really support the idea that you think the actual pedophile is worse.

    We can agree to disagree on this one, but I don't appreciate being told I'm crazy or twisting your words because I don't agree with you.

    The law also goes after people who smoke weed. Not everything the law does is morally right IMO and vice versa as sometimes things that are morally reprehensible aren't even illegal.

    IMO it's wrong to punish conspirators equally to the one who actually committed the crime. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished at all but it's a completely different sort of crime and I believe the reason the law goes after those people equally is not because their crime is equal but because sometimes they can't get the actual perp with as heavy a punishment as they like and it makes them feel better to be doing something.

    And people who post stuff on the internet, no matter how moronic, or are upset that their beloved football program is now in trouble because of something just a few people did, aren't even a blip on the radar in the greater scheme of things IMO.
     
  4. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,012
    3,509
    113
    I wish I could believe that they would have done something in that case but I wouldn't be surprised if that was covered up too. Though I think they would have quietly gotten rid of the guy in that case... and he would have moved on to another university or college where the cycle would have started all over again.
     
  5. barbk

    barbk Well-Known Member

    6,023
    555
    113
    CU actually fired a popular, renowned, tenured physics professor for sexual harassment, and managed to sustain it when it went to court.
     
  6. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    24,038
    4,394
    113
    I don't think it's completely different. I think the crimes are inextricable and thus, should receive equal treatment under the law. If, say, you were the doorkeeper of a room where once children entered inside, you knew they would be raped. They wouldn't be raped by you personally, but that would definitely be their fate. And say you could at any time not open that door and ensure no more children would be raped. For you to claim later that since you technically didn't penetrate a child, you aren't as cupable is complete bullocks in my book.
    I'm not taf, but I think you are completely twisting what she said. She wasn't talking about Internet fans--she was referring to those at Penn State who actively assisted in the cover-up (and perhaps Mrs. Sandusky too). I think you got off on a point she never made, abd have been vehemently defending it when it wasn't the argument made in the first place. But rather than admit you made a mistake, you keep on with you strawman argument.
     
  7. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    ^it actually started with a shockingly literal interpretation of a rather rhetorical question imho.
     
  8. Really

    Really No longer just a "well-known member" Yay!

    29,678
    6,102
    113
    I feel badly for the players on the teams who have had their wins stripped from them as a result of the sanctions against Paterno's record. At the same time, I'm not sure how you could strip those wins from Paterno without doing the same to the players. Don't for a minute think I'm trying to minimize the evil perpetrated by those who covered up Sandusky's crimes; but this is like punishing the whole class because of one kid. Just seems unfair to those players -- unless they were part of the coverup.
     
  9. Theatregirl1122

    Theatregirl1122 Well-Known Member

    18,762
    3,270
    113
    Honestly, stripping wins is one of the least influencial punishments the NCAA can give out. It is purely symbolic and really doesn't mean anything. The only reason it matters at all is because it drops JoPa from winningest all time coach to 12th.
     
  10. berthesghost

    berthesghost Well-Known Member

    4,891
    585
    113
    ^ as someone said before, life is unfair. Before the scandal broke and Paterno had a god like status, team members benefitted from being part of such a revered legacy. Now that it's all turned to dust, they are negatively impacted by his actions, just as they were positively impacted by them before. Luck always goes both ways.
     
  11. attyfan

    attyfan Well-Known Member

    7,480
    810
    113
    IMO, the whole "cover up" was to protect the status of the football program, so it is appropriate that the program be stripped of the wins ... anything else lets the school keep the "profit" from the wrongdoing.
     
  12. BelleBway

    BelleBway a monkey stole my title

    9,016
    2,993
    113
    Except they still keep the profits in many other ways, especially financially- all the tickets and merchandise that have been sold over the years.

    I personally think that stripping wins after the fact is silly except in cases where there was proved cheating on the field of play (I'm thinking of Olympic medals stripped due to doping or age falsification). In this particular case, it smacks of vindictiveness against a single person at the expense of the whole team- would they be stripping the wins if Paterno had ranked 108th all time in wins? Maybe, but I am skeptical.

    It should go without saying, but I'm not sure it always does so I'll say this explicitly: the fact that I don't have a high opinion of this particular sanction doesn't mean that I approve of Penn State's leadership or that I think that wins/football teams/whatever are more important than the true victims, the poor boys that were abused.

    I also think this scandal is bigger than Penn State in some ways. I find it hard to believe that they are the only school whose football team means big business, though I grant that they may be unique in the reverence of their former football coach. I think we as a society have to take a look at how out of whack our values are in terms of things like sports- and I say this as a sports fan. What does it mean that a mediocre major league baseball player can make over a million dollars a year while teachers/police/daycare workers are struggling to pay their bills and won't see that much income in a decade? I don't have the answers, but if people are making the case that the PSU football culture led to the coverup, then it's logical for me to ask what made the football culture so powerful to begin with- and I think that extends beyond Penn State to our society as a whole.
     
  13. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Ah, it means a lot. No longer can the alumni brag about the school's winning record for those years, since at best that winning record has an asterisk attached, and at worst has been wiped away. Penn State may see that those lack of bragging rights leads to decreased attendance and donations. Which is probably good for current students, because Baby Boomer-age college alumni wandering their old campuses on game days in their XXL college sweatshirts and baseball caps, blathering about graduating from there in 1978 "back when Bob Burgers was new and before the Engineering building was over there" are super-lame.
     
  14. Theatregirl1122

    Theatregirl1122 Well-Known Member

    18,762
    3,270
    113
    Except that's not how alumni really view it. The wins don't disappear just because the NCAA says they didn't happen. I really don't believe that anyone who would have donated to the Penn State Football team considering everything else that has happened will be stopped from donating because those wins have been stripped.

    At Syracuse, if you say that the school has 10 Lacrosse championships, you will get a long rant about how we have 11 championships, we won that championship on the field, the coach that we beat thought the punishment was BS and said in an interview that the punishment was BS, the title was stripped because of a secondary violation which was an unprecedented and unwarrented reaction, the NCAA has never stripped a team of wins or titles for a secondary violation other than this either before or since, etc. etc. etc. Even the vast majority of fans of our greatest rivals count that title, the press, including people who blog for the NCAA count that title when they talk about our records, we put that title on our t-shirts, we have posters including that title, heck, the banner for that title hangs in our stadium to this day.

    Taking the title away has had zero effect on our program aside from provoking internet rants.
     
  15. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    PSU may have a number of longtime donors who, over the past several months, have slowly lost some of their enthusiasm but didn't completely face the situation. This sanction might be their tipping point.

    I suppose we'll know more in a few years when we look at the program's financials. That is, if PSU's athletic department doesn't creatively cover up the decreased donations. We already know they're good at evasion.
     
  16. attyfan

    attyfan Well-Known Member

    7,480
    810
    113
    I thought the fine was designed to strip the monetary profits from Penn State -- doesn't it represents the money earned from the football? If so, then the "stripping" completes the goal of taking from Penn State everything gained from the cover up. If not, there is still the civil lawsuits from the victims.
     
  17. BelleBway

    BelleBway a monkey stole my title

    9,016
    2,993
    113
    It doesn't seem like the fine amount would strip 14 years of profits, but I could be wrong.
     
  18. skatingfan5

    skatingfan5 Well-Known Member

    10,836
    2,051
    113
    No, the $60M fine is less than Penn State's football profits from the past two years. Of course, the profits from the coming several years will be considerably less, given no possibility of post-season bowl appearances and the BigTen withholding Penn State's usual share of the bowl revenue during the ban (approx. $3.5 M/year). I read somewhere what the $60M figure was based on, but can't remember what it was or where I read it.
     
  19. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    3,685
    340
    83
    Not to mention Penn State will lose all their top players, they have no reason to stay. The NCAA said they can transfer with no penalty, why wouldn't they. They fired a huge waring shot to other colleges and sport programs so hopefully these cover-ups won't happen again. I'm just sorry Paterno isn't alive to see it.
     
  20. KCC

    KCC Active Member

    961
    139
    43
    Our newspaper had an AP article with a q&a about what happens when wins are vacated. Individual player records do not appear to be affected (they can alter stats for just one person, I guess). Also, the opposing teams will not record wins that PSU is giving up.
     
  21. skatingfan5

    skatingfan5 Well-Known Member

    10,836
    2,051
    113
    Which only makes sense. Being stripped of a win is not the same thing as forfeiting a game.
     
  22. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    24,038
    4,394
    113
    ^^^ 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!
     
  23. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    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?
     
  24. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    3,685
    340
    83
    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.
     
  25. Really

    Really No longer just a "well-known member" Yay!

    29,678
    6,102
    113
    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.
     
  26. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    3,685
    340
    83
    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.
     
  27. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    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.
     
  28. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    24,038
    4,394
    113
    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.
     
  29. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    3,685
    340
    83
    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.
     
  30. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    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.