Penn State Sandusky scandal

[vlines]

<p>

except perhaps for a more general incentive to improve institutional control.

</p>

<p>That, and illegal cover-ups will not be tolerated by athletics OR the institution. </p>

<p>maybe that is enough.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

Is somebody going to say, “I’d better not protect this child molester–we might lose our bowl bid”–? Well, maybe they would.

</p>

<p>Which is why I believe that the death penalty was warranted. Most USC fans of which I am aware still revel in their (tainted) national championships. I don’t see anyone being concerned about the loss of a couple of bowl games post-Pete Carroll. Heck, the loss of two bowl games might be a worthly trade-off for two national championships.</p>

<p>BUT, if the thinking was: “I’d better not protect this child molester–we might lose our whole team and the millions that support every non-revenue sport”–? Well, maybe they would."</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Good question…do you believe the administration/athletic department/coaching staff at PSU will ever again harbor and protect a pedophile? I believe they won’t, therefore the answer to your question would be yes.

All I’m saying is that I don’t think the NCAA sanctions were necessary to achieve that specific result at PSU. The giant scandal, criminal prosecutions, and inevitable civil lawsuits would be enough for that.</p>

<p>But I agree with vlines that the issue of improved institutional control is enough to support the sanctions that NCAA imposed. It will be interesting to see if other universities take action in response, or just say “it can’t happen here.”</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>If only for liability concerns, I would suspect most other universities w similar big sports are reviewing their own internal policies, procedures, reinforcing zero tolerance, etc.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Someone above brought up the analogy of EPA rules. I’m ok if a future would-be polluter is dissuaded by the fear of having to pay big bucks in fines vs the inherent value of just not polluting.</p>

[vlines]

<p>

If only for liability concerns, I would suspect most other universities w similar big sports are reviewing their own internal policies, procedures, reinforcing zero tolerance, etc.

</p>

<p>I certianly hope so…</p>

[blueiguana]

<p>Call me nieve, but I think a lot of schools with big programs on down the line started this last year. This will only increase the efforts. Will a lot change? As far as football being a huge culture at many schools? No, that’s not going to change. As far as trying to run a clean(er) program? I think there is going to be more effort from guys who may have once been on the fence but looked the other way to now stand up and instead of feeling like Dudley-Do-Right in front of his peers be able to say “This just isn’t worth the risk”. Sadly, this will always hold more weight then “This isn’t the right thing to do”.</p>

[mom2collegekids]

<p>So, if this had happened at a school that was far less affluent and had a lesser quality team, what do YOU think that the penalties should have been for the SAME offenses? The same punishment? </p>

<p>Would the NCAA have given the SAME punishment for the SAME offenses if the school had been - say - a Div 2 school that doesn’t have a good endowment, successful football, etc? </p>

<p>What about a Div 3 or ivy school that doesn’t give scholarships? What would the NCAA have given Cornell or a D3 school for the same offenses? Do Div 3 teams even have bowl games? If so, losing those may not be much of a financial impact. </p>

<p>How do you punish a school for the same offenses IF…the team was never likely to go to bowl games, didn’t offer athletic scholarships, and the school has no money???</p>

<p>WHAT IF next year a poorer school without a winning team is found to have similar or WORSE offenses and the NCAA only gives them a much smaller fine? What would PSU do then???</p>

[coase]

<p>

All I’m saying is that I don’t think the NCAA sanctions were necessary to achieve that specific result at PSU. The giant scandal, criminal prosecutions, and inevitable civil lawsuits would be enough for that.

</p>

<p>The ex ante/ex post distinction is important here. Suppose that it is worth $20 to me to park illegally and there is a 50-50 chance of being ticketed. Unless the ticket is more that $40, it is worth taking the chance. In the current case, if the parties had known with probability one that 10 accusers would come forward and testify, they would have moved heaven and earth to put Sandusky in jail in 1998. Instead, they played the odds. To the extent that you care about deterrrence rather than some notion of letting the punishment fit the crme, the punishment must exceed the benefit, with the proportionality depending on the probability of being caught.</p>

[Mom2M]

<p>Given the sanctions just handed down to Caltech, yes I think the NCAA would have been equally severe to a smaller, less profitable program.</p>

[mini]

<p>“WHAT IF next year a poorer school without a winning team is found to have similar or WORSE offenses and the NCAA only gives them a much smaller fine? What would PSU do then??”</p>

<p>More likely, PSU is going to be found have committed even worse offenses, and NCAA will be stuck with having handed down sanctions that are far too lenient.</p>

[LakeWashington]

<p>Joe Paterno was no John Wooden. Coach Wooden reprimanded star players for non-basketball related infractions. Just ask superstar Bill Walton, who recalled how he once told the coach that he wouldn’t abide by any team rules which he thought infringed upon his campus life. Coach Wooden’s response to an incredulous Walton was, ‘I’m sure you’ll enjoy the time that you won’t be spending on the team, William.’ Paterno’s actions regarding his players running riot at student parties demonstrates a world of difference.</p>

<p>Please, let’s stop saying that Paterno was comperable to Wooden. Clearly, he was not.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

The ex ante/ex post distinction is important here. Suppose that it is worth $20 to me to park illegally and there is a 50-50 chance of being ticketed. Unless the ticket is more that $40, it is worth taking the chance. In the current case, if the parties had known with probability one that 10 accusers would come forward and testify, they would have moved heaven and earth to put Sandusky in jail in 1998. Instead, they played the odds. To the extent that you care about deterrrence rather than some notion of letting the punishment fit the crme, the punishment must exceed the benefit, with the proportionality depending on the probability of being caught.

I don’t really disagree with you–I’m just saying that if I were a university president, I’d be much more interested in what happens to Spanier personally than in the NCAA sanctions on the school.</p>

[Consolation]

<p>The NCAA fined PSU one year’s worth of football profits. So it would be “fair” to fine some other school one year of THEIR football profits. If they don’t have any football profits–and of course, most schools don’t–then the NCAA would have to craft some other punishment. See CalTech.</p>

<p>It is worth noting that in the famous MacDonald’s coffee case–another one that many love to decry–A) McD had been asked repeatedly by the national medical association devoted to burn injuries to reduce the temp of their coffee because it was dangerously hot and had caused serious injuries, but McD refused, and B) the amount of the award was what McD made selling coffee in ONE DAY.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>I would think a univ president would care about both what happens to Spanier personally and the impact on the school.</p>

[mini]

<p>I would have thought that a Univ. President would be concerned about the academic integrity of his school, where the library is named after a facilitator of child sex trafficking, a convicted child molester is a Professor Emeritus, another facilitator is a professor in the so-called college of health and human development, and, despite pleas from his spokesperson, a professor of communication for them to speak out publicly, the faculty doesn’t seem to mind.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Sandusky’s emeritus status has been revoked, according to this:
[Jerry</a> Sandusky Retirement Package Revoked By Penn State University, Pension Remains](<a href=“http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/jerry-sandusky-retirement-package-revoked-psu_n_1679879.html]Jerry”>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/jerry-sandusky-retirement-package-revoked-psu_n_1679879.html)</p>

[vlines]

<p>Hunt, that did not say his emeritus status was revoked, just the perks.</p>

[coase]

<p>

I don’t really disagree with you–I’m just saying that if I were a university president, I’d be much more interested in what happens to Spanier personally than in the NCAA sanctions on the school.

</p>

<p>That is fair enough. This is where the Board of trustess also has to come into play. Perhaps the BOT did not know what was going on, but they should have made it clear to all that they did not like surprises, ever. But just look at the recent BOT elections. Three new members were elected. One is a former football player (with an inspiring story) and the other two are strong critics of the BOT’s decision to fire Paterno. One of them, Anthony Lubrano, wanted Paterno named “Head Football Coach Emeritus” posthumously. </p>

<p>

First, I want the Board of Trustees to acknowledge their mistake in firing Coach Paterno and offer a public apology to the Paterno family. Since Nov 9th, my contention has been that the Penn State community cannot begin to move forward until such an apology is made. I have shared this view publicly and privately with many of the Trustees.</p>

<p>Second, I want the wrongful termination of Coach Paterno as head football coach rescinded followed immediately by the granting of Head Football Coach Emeritus posthumously.

[PS4RS.org</a> | PS4RS - Anthony P. Lubrano](<a href=“http://ps4rs.org/2012anthonyplubrano.html]PS4RS.org”>Live Draw HK | Live HK | Live Draw HK Pools | Result HK Malam Ini)</p>

<p>If that was not enough, it turns out that Lubrano’s background has been misrepresented.<br>

The Penn State Nittany Lions play baseball in Medlar Field at Lubrano Park. Anthony Lubrano, according to Penn State’s media guide, was a four time varsity letter man at the school from 1979-1982. That bit of information has been in the guide “for years.” Lubrano, it turns out, is actually just a rich dude who paid to have his name on the stadium and doesn’t mind letting people think he was a college jock.</p>

<p>After being called out by a former Penn State graduate, Lubrano now “acknowledges that he neither lettered nor played in an official game. He said in an interview Friday that he was only on the equivalent of the ‘practice squad.’” John Zipay wrote an email to the school complaining and noted “I don’t think anyone who misrepresents himself like that should be on the ballot for the board of trustees.”</p>

<p>Lubrano was given the opportunity to retort and pointed out that he never said he was a baseball star and furthermore, he is under no obligation to correct every misstatement of fact he comes across.

[Penn</a> State Alum And Potential Trustee Is Not A Baseball Star, Doesn’t Feel The Need To Correct Anyone Who Says Otherwise](<a href=“Penn State Alum And Potential Trustee Is Not A Baseball Star, Doesn't Feel The Need To Correct Anyone Who Says Otherwise”>Penn State Alum And Potential Trustee Is Not A Baseball Star, Doesn't Feel The Need To Correct Anyone Who Says Otherwise)</p>

[Grcxx3]

<p><<Hunt, that did not say his emeritus status was revoked, just the perks. <<</p>

<p>Yes, it did.</p>

<p>"La Torre told The Huffington Post Sandusky’s emeritus was officially removed. "</p>