<p>
</p>
<p>Nah, anything close to a real penalty should have made the “no bowl appearance” an unavoidable fact for at least a decade. If SMU was effectively banned from football for two years, PSU deserved even more. </p>
<p>There should have been no collegiate football at Happy Valley for at least several years, and no bowls for much longer. How long? How about the same number of years they hid the truth?</p>
<p>cosmic–this was your original statement about information being “thin”</p>
<p>you stated,“There is no doubt that everyone involved saw at least something that should have concerned them, but it is unclear how much any of them saw, and whether or not that level of knowledge rose to the level where reporting a coworker/employee/acquintance for a career-ending charge was the “ordinary” thing to do. Even with the higher standards expected of such people, the information is just so thin.”</p>
<p>I simply pointed out that to me, Spanier knowing about McQueary’s report, and the 1998 incident as well, demonstrates that it was not thin at all what Spanier knew.</p>
<p>you continue to claim there’s little and vague evidence about Paterno and Spanier and I respectfully but strongly disagree.</p>
<p>Perhaps Penn State, now the certain doormat of the Big 10, should surrender its Div I status and schedule games against Lafayette, Lehigh, Gettysburg, Muhlenberg, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What else is public other than the assumptions in the report? Paterno is deceased so an easy target for the court of public opinion. Spanier, on the other hand, time will only tell. He’s not indicted…yet…so I guess we’ll all see if there is enough to convict him in something other than the court of public opinion.</p>
<p>Freeh looked at everything, and determined their guilt of at a minimum knowing and not reporting. Do some of you know more then he and his staff do?</p>
<p>I wish paterno was alive and we could watch him lie and deny and act all self righteous. HIs family does his legacy no good by arguing ad naseum every time someone says oh paterno wasn’t god.</p>
<p>He is an easy target because he was a protector of a child rapsit. Gave him money. Allowed him access and gave Sandusky credibility. That’s why he is a target.</p>
<p>The defense of these men is just so disappointing. They saw Sandusky with children for over a decade and abetted. If not legally criminal it should be.</p>
<p>“They saw Sandusky with children for over a decade…”</p>
<p>This is the most heart breaking part of this mess. Multiple adults in positions of authority had good reason to know/believe Sandusky was abusing children. And they looked the other way for years. Evil just plain evil.</p>
<p>momofthree–“assumptions in the report”? </p>
<p>so Spanier indicating in email, that they may be vulnerable for not reporting Sandusky is an assumption now?</p>
<p>That was in response to another post that implied that there was more than vague and little evidence…and the evidence against Spanier is vague and little…or at least what is public. if they indict then clearly there is more evidence that is not public. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And so it begins…</p>
<p>While I have followed this thread from its beginning, I have not posted until now. I think the punishment is fare. I am hoping now that no Big 10 school accepts any players on transfer, as to me it would seem hypocritical. </p>
<p>Lafayette and Lehigh are DI, though not of the same category as PSU.</p>
<p>whether it’s in your view vague or little evidence, you wrote the word assumptions. I don’t consider a written email that indicates Spanier’s agreement to not report Sandusky as an assumption. It’s a fact. (I don’t consider it vague either.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m curious why you would think this. The kids coming in as freshman and even the sophs and juniors had nothing to do with any of this…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, Paterno and the others did express some sympathy in the e-mails. Unfortunately, it was only sympathy for Sandusky (of all people). They wanted to be sure he was treated “humanely.” Too bad about the little boys. Even the least thought of their welfare apparently never crossed anyone’s mind. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, it is. And that’s why Penn State got off easy. The bowl ban is the worst they got. Not even one football game canceled. Four years is doesn’t amount to all that much in Paterno-land. It will be a relatively simple matter for the Penn State Football Faithful to bide their time, keep going to the games, keep the memory of St. Joseph and glory days alive, keep buying season tickets, and simply run out the clock on the NCAA sanctions. After that it will be “Game on! Bring the statue and the other holy relics out of storage and we are back in business! We are…Penn State!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to disagree with this. These sanctions are to punish the school, not the players. I do think that the agreement to allow players to transfer is so that players, who have NOT caused this mess, may be able to still be part of a football program.</p>
<p>I actually agree with whoever posted that the sanctions should last as long as the cover up lasted. That would have made sense.</p>
<p>
^^Probably,but with a heck of alot stronger administration in 4 years and oversight into campus activities…and I have no problem with that hopefully that is the point of the sanctions…for administration not to turn a blind eye to what is happening under their noses. That’s life in Big 10 football…go over to the Michigan board…they are debating this year’s recruits.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’d like to think so, but I’m dubious. Isn’t the current president the one of who agreed to honoring Sandusky by granting him emeritus professor status even after all this child rape stuff came out? That’s not a particularly confidence-inspiring start.</p>
<p>I probably should have elaborated. The Big 10 imposed sanctions on PSU. I don’t disagree that the students should be able to transfer, but to me it would be hypocritical for the Big 10 to accept them, because those kids would be now be playing against PSU, the school upon which they imposed sanctions.</p>
<p>The sanctions are in place to “punish” the administration which should have had oversight over the activities of the athletic director’s office not because the players were engaged in criminal or unethical behavior. The entire reason the NCAA gave the players the ability to transfer to another program was exactly so they would not be harmed…it was an “out” for them should they want it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of the best well-argued posts I have ever seen on CC. I learned here a great deal about “due process.” I wish the Paterno family and hagiographers would read it.</p>
<p>gloworm - I see your point, although I don’t necessarily agree. The incoming freshman have never played a down for anyone. The seniors are very unlikely to transfer their last year. That leaves sophomores and juniors as the unknowns (although I’m also less sure about jr’s leaving the program). I’m obviously not accounting for players who were red-shirted along the way, but you get the idea. You’re talking about half the team that have played against other teams before. Many of them will decide very quickly they are not leaving. Also, with out of conference games that widens the pool of teams that these players have met on the field. You can’t say “you can go to other teams without restrictions, except these schools…”.</p>
<p>The goal is to give these athletes the choice. You love PSU and want to play ball and get your education there, you can do that. If you want to explore other opportunities that might afford you the chance to play in bowl games, you can do so without penalty of missing a single game. They deserve that and it was the right call.</p>
<p>Xiggi, would you feel so strongly if this problem centered around Mack Brown and your Longhorns?</p>