<p>So Penn State gets sanctions removed. Johnny Football gets almost no sanctions…USC still gets a sack load of sanctions. And the NCAA has some sort of integrity? Makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>I would not consider what has been done close to a slap on the wrist. All important parties on campus then either dead, gone or in jail. $60 Million fine plus $$$ victim liability cases yet to come. Loss of all records and major hit to image. Still a reduction in scholarships for several years. Probably 3 yr total bowl ban.</p>
<p>Without putting to fine a point on it USC had major issues in football and basketball and previous academic fraud issues etc etc etc. Not their first rodeo.</p>
<p>Slap on the wrist or not, the penalties fell really short of what a death penalty would and SHOULD have meant. The football machine is still in full force. The utterly fake contrition act lasted all but a couple of downs. The pageantry was back within one week. All in all, the scandal is that this team was still allowed on the field. The TV networks did find it in their heart to suspend televising the games. But why would they … their master is money.</p>
<p>And money was still allowed to flow freely in the coffers of PSU and their football program. A real penalty would have cost them dollars. Real dollars, and not a mere reduction in the typical windfall flowing to Happy Valley. </p>
<p>Loss of scholarships? Oh well, that did not last too darn long, and again a death penalty would have rendered this moot. Did PSU really not deserve a stronger penalty than SMU. How long has it been seen the Mustangs were relevant? Compare to this joke of a penalty imposed on PSU. </p>
<p>What seemed to have hurt them the most is to have had to go store the Paterno statue somewhere … until they will bring it back when the “noise” will be distant enough.</p>
<p>This program was a disgrace. And the lack of true penalty simply shared that disgrace all around. Happy Valley should have been Death Valley for half a decade. No sale of bratwurst. No sale of jerseys. Nothing should have been allowed for 40 to 60 weeks. And the team and the community hit hard in the only place it mattered to them: their wallet and pride!</p>
<p>xiggi - I hope that no one in any organization you have ever been a part of turns out to be a monster. Although clearly that could not be the case - you would have spotted them, and then removed yourself from the world in shame at the association.</p>
<p>What is the “continued progress”? That Sandusky doesn’t rape any more and Joe Pa doesn’t come back from the dead to cover for him?</p>
<p>(There were at least FOUR monsters, and I’m not counting the Governor.)</p>
<p>I was also wondering what the reference to Penn State’s progress meant…</p>
<p>possibly paying the first victim?</p>
<p>What it meant is that they have no real idea what happened or how to prevent it again. Penn State started to implement some procedures and training, and the NCAA really does not know what else anyone can do to prevent a once-in-a-century kind of snafu. Lacking any idea how to improve things, and aware that their inconsistency and own lack of integrity are costing them in the public eye, they are walking things back.</p>
<p>once in a century snafu? seriously? you think the sexual predation and assault of boys over a period of years was a snafu? the “missing” the clues was a snafu?</p>
<p>there are many things they could have and should now be doing. </p>
<p>I am not one that thinks the entire school should be shamed, or reviled. However I don’t get why sanctions that were determined to be appropriate would now be lifted? doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>If you don’t like my choice of words, I apologize - would abomination be better?</p>
<p>What are the things they should be doing, what purpose would these things serve, and how would they accomplish these goals?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, I hope you know what the term “ad hominem” means. And I hope you realize that such type of arguments are prohibited on this site. </p>
<p>In so many words, MY ability to spot monsters is not in question here. The evidence has shown that the people “in charge” at PSU failed on many accounts. But that is not even relevant anymore, as those faulty lack of judgment and attempts to cover up the transgressions have been accepted by the school, as its leaders bargained to save the uber-important football program from the death penalty. </p>
<p>All we are doing here is expressing our opinions about how well the punishment matched the crimes. Obviously, you are in a camp that believes that the sanctions were either too drastic or perhaps … just right. I, on the other hand, believe that the negotiated sanctions fell quite short from the acceptable and decent. </p>
<p>And, we can safely assume that the differences can be traced quite directly to individual biases and self-interest. People with any involvement with PSU, or by extension, the Big Whatever Football Family, will prefer wearing blinders or rose tinted glasses. I would venture to say that people who have no relation with PSU might be a tad more objective. For the record, what some of us wanted to see is confined to a death penalty imposed on the FOOTBALL program and a five years opportunity to reflect and show contrition. No fines would have been necessary.</p>
<p>I agree. The football program should have been put to death. I remember one pundit calling it “a deformed and demented undertaking.” That sums it up for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>cosmicfish, as was discussed in this thread ad nauseum, the issue wasn’t the monster. Monsters can turn up anywhere. The question is what do the powers of the institution do once they know about the monster? Do they do everything in their power to make sure he’s put behind bars as quickly as possible? Or do they continue to employ him for 15 or 20 years, shower him with honorary titles, and fund little-boy charities for him to enjoy?</p>
<p>
I think it is. If you want to single out specific people, then please do so. Your statement, your assignment of condemnation, went well beyond those who have been directly, personally accused of wrongdoing. These are people for whom there is no evidence that they were aware of any wrongdoing, yet they worked side by side with Sandusky for years. I think that condemning them for missing what was going on is absurd, unless you yourself possess an ability that almost no one really has - the ability to spot a child molester without catching them in the act.</p>
<p>
Yes, although my list might look different than yours.</p>
<p>
And incidentally broadly attacking everyone associated with the school or the program.</p>
<p>
Probably. I would venture that there are a lot of other biases that might kick in as well. FWIW, there are a lot of people decrying the sanctions who have no connection to Penn State whatsoever, so maybe not.</p>
<p>
You think that the kind of people involved with doing this would really consider the risk of a death penalty to the football program a bigger disincentive than personal criminal prosecution and a lifetime of losing lawsuits? </p>
<p>And what reflection and contrition? The people directly responsible are (as I and others have noted) are gone punished far beyond the capabilities of the NCAA. The rest of the people are waiting for someone to say “This thing, this precise thing right here that no one else in college sports does, this thing right here is where you screwed up and is what led to this happening”. Because without that, what is there to reflect on? On what basis should Penn Staters be contrite? Because we liked football? Ohio State likes football. So does Notre Dame. I think Florida State too. Heck, Harvard likes football.</p>
<p>If you can tell me what I as a Penn State alum did wrong, if you can find something that I did that doesn’t happen at other schools, something that could reasonably have been expected to go wrong, then I will reflect and be contrite. Until then, I have nothing to go on.</p>
<p>
And my question is what power does the NCAA to influence this that the combined state and federal courts do not?</p>
<p>You think any of these men were not aware that knowingly abetting a child molester would bring massive criminal and civil penalties to rain down on them? Do you really think that their love of Penn State Football was so great that the prospect of shutting down a program that would have at least fired and shamed them would be a greater obstacle than the possibility of spending the rest of their lives playing “hide the salami” with Bruno the Butcher in a state penitentiary? While every cent they ever earned or earn again goes to pay the victims?</p>
<p>“You think any of these men were not aware that knowingly abetting a child molester would bring massive criminal and civil penalties to rain down on them?”</p>
<p>I think they all thought, starting with Joe Pa, that they could get away with it, just like every coldblooded killer thinks he can get away with it.</p>
<p>
In which case, there is no disincentive possible, and punishment serves no purpose whatsoever in preventing further transgressions - it serves only to provide collateral damage and warn people who need no warning.</p>
<p>cosmicfish - No one here is going to change your mind. I accept that. However, you cannot change my perspective that the PSU community served as an nesting place for Sandusky’s perversions. Many people looked the other way. I also believe it is not so far fetched that those in charge would risk their personal freedom for football. That was part of the problem. It is not so far from what happens in cults all across the world. Very often, the legal standard is “knew or should have known.” I believe many had knowledge of a lot of the pieces and simple chose not to put them together. If they did not know, they should have known. I have no problem holding them accountable by that standard. I have no problem holding PSU as an example of what happens when football rules not just a university but an entire region.</p>
<p>Well said, cartera45. Something is wrong when a sport (regardless of what sport) rules the roost.</p>
<p>“In which case, there is no disincentive possible, and punishment serves no purpose whatsoever in preventing further transgressions - it serves only to provide collateral damage and warn people who need no warning.”</p>
<p>For crimes as extreme as those committed by Joe Pa and the others, you may very well be correct. Except that society has an expectation that evil men need to be punished by society itself, rather than through individual retribution.</p>
<p>
I don’t - this may come as a surprise to you, but I really do come here to discuss and to either change minds or be changed.</p>
<p>
And what evidence do you have for this perspective? Or is it just guilt by association? Calling it a “nesting place” implies that there is something wrong with the people of the school and the town. And I think saying that something at Penn State actively enables child molesters (based on a sample of 1) is a hell of a statement to make with supplying any evidence of what that “thing” is.</p>
<p>
Welcome to the world of child molestation. MOST cases of child molestation are missed by family, coworkers, neighbors, etc. Even if you have suspicions, it is a huge charge to make without substantial evidence, and many people are too afraid or nervous to report anything. This is not unique to Penn State.</p>
<p>What WAS unique was the response of a handful of people who DID have substantial evidence… and they are currently being worked over by the criminal and civil court systems.</p>
<p>
Sure, hold them accountable. With evidence. You state “I believe”, but you offer no evidence, not even a hint other than your belief. What makes you think that they had the pieces when it seems that everyone who has investigated the case has said that Sandusky (with the help of the aforementioned administrators) hid things very well? What makes you think that they “should have known”? Their amazing psychic powers that work in the absence of evidence?</p>
<p>You have offered no standard against which someone can be held responsible.</p>
<p>
In what way did it rule? Specifically, and in a way that differentiates it from all the other schools with major football programs?</p>
<p>Because I cannot see how you can castigate Penn State for its “culture” and NOT do the same to dozens of other schools. Not without drawing a line and saying “these actions by the students, staff, and alumni, these actions that no one else did, these actions are what allowed this to happen, and anyone should have seen that beforehand.”</p>
<p>Which would be impressive, because prior to this incident, Penn State was more likely to be praised for its culture than condemned.</p>