Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 288
  1. #201

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    10,726
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33547
    Quote Originally Posted by KCC View Post
    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.
    Which only makes sense. Being stripped of a win is not the same thing as forfeiting a game.
    Lady 2: there isn't anything about me on goooogle, I mean, I must take it off if there is.....
    Lady 3: The google is a terrible thing, I mean I don't want anything on there! (Overheard by millyskate on a London train.)

  2. #202
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,859
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    ^^^ 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!

  3. #203
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,077
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Not to mention Penn State will lose all their top players, they have no reason to stay.
    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?

  4. #204
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    The bowl wins boost the school--not individual players.
    That is usually said by players who never won one. It is a very big deal to the payers.

    Speaking generally, so much more concern has been expressed over how football players will be impacted than how the myriad rape survivors are doing.
    No one has forgot what happened nor are the victims being trivialized. We are capable of discussing other facets of this case.

  5. #205

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    West of the 5th...
    Posts
    29,318
    vCash
    100
    Rep Power
    41928
    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.
    Haunting the Princess of Pink since 20/07/11...

  6. #206
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by heckles View Post
    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?
    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.

  7. #207
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,077
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    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.

  8. #208
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,859
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Really View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. #209
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by heckles View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #210
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,077
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    True if their a senior but it may be worth it for a junior, sophomore or freshman.
    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.

  11. #211

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Thankfukky watching skating
    Posts
    13,648
    vCash
    317
    Rep Power
    41192
    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.

  12. #212
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,811
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    I don't think it's completely different.
    We'll have to disagree then.

    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by berthesghost View Post
    ^it actually started with a shockingly literal interpretation of a rather rhetorical question imho.
    SHOCKING, eh! Talk about blowing things out of proportion.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  13. #213
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by taf2002 View Post
    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.
    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.

  14. #214
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,077
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    I don't think your example of the doorman is remotely applicable to this situation.
    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.

  15. #215
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,859
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    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.
    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.
    And speaking of straw man arguments, I don't think your example of the doorman is remotely applicable to this situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by heckles View Post
    The doorman analogy was spot-on.
    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.

  16. #216
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,811
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    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 already said they weren't. (I don't think the discussion actually needs "focusing" either. )

    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    I say they are.
    You already said that.

    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    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.
    My thought is that our criminal justice system is a mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    Yeah, I was going to say that analogy was taken from the Freeh report.
    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.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  17. #217
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,077
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    I don't understand how Paterno has become this lightening rod for scorn and derision when Sandusky actually raped young adults in his care.
    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.

  18. #218
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    We are...Penn State
    Posts
    405
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by heckles View Post
    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.

    Carol

  19. #219

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,169
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4024
    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.
    Last edited by judiz; 07-26-2012 at 01:06 PM.

  20. #220
    a monkey stole my title
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Globetrotting
    Posts
    8,920
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    13961
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    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.
    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.

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •