Penn State scandal (merged)

#5,126
#5,126
Gramps said:
The NCAA should give them the death penalty for lack of institutional control..

If this does not meet that criteria nothing never will.
Click to expand...

this.

If they don't get the death penalty then it's just saying 'hey you can cover anything up, nothing will happen.'
 
#5,127
#5,127
bamawriter said:
That's why I didn't go with the death penalty. Apples to oranges crime gets an apples to oranges penalty.

I just want to see if you really want the NCAA to be the arbiter of moral and/or criminal activity.
Click to expand...

This coming from a guy who's team has a history of cheaters and has gotten to know the cheating process very well. Well said, sir.

"If that's the culture at the bottom, God help the culture at the top," Freeh said this morning.

Do you really think that Sandusky just all the sudden began raping kids at an old age in 1998? A light switch just went on and he got all horny for young boys? Probably not. Second Mile has been around since 1977, I would bet this culture has been around much longer than 1998.
 
Last edited:
#5,128
#5,128
im not saying they should get it because kids were raped, that's not in the ncaa's jurisdiction, but because they covered it up.
 
#5,130
#5,130
TrueOrange said:
My bad I had figured you were doing the same to me.
Click to expand...

No. I am just frustrated like you are. I went back and forth about what should happen to the team, but I think it's just a culture that will not change without it. I mean **** football, this is about whats right imo. I respect your opinion, butI just can't personally agree with it just because of the culture that has been there for 61 years.
 
#5,133
#5,133
Spartacavolus said:
don't really understand the thought of punishing players that had nothing to do with anything except playing football. They've already been through the muck with this thing. Cancelling the football program and telling players and family to take a hike doesn't make much sense to me. Find a way to punish all the offenders to the maximum, but adversely affecting thousands of people due to the actions of a few doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

USCs sanctions are punishing players that had nothing to do with Bush

Bamas sactions punished players that didnt take money

Auburns sactions punished players that didnt take money
 
#5,135
#5,135
rmsmith said:
im not saying they should get it because kids were raped, that's not in the ncaa's jurisdiction, but because they covered it up.
Click to expand...

The NCAA is not upholding any law

The NCAA would be upholding rules that are already established in their bylaws.

Member organizations must abide by those laws

It is like a business upholding the SOP within their company. Its not anything to do with criminal law

The NCAA can hand down sanctions for anything that violates their bylaws.
 
#5,136
#5,136
CountVolcula said:
The NCAA is not upholding any law

The NCAA would be upholding rules that are already established in their bylaws.

Member organizations must abide by those laws

It is like a business upholding the SOP within their company. Its not anything to do with criminal law

The NCAA can hand down sanctions for anything that violates their bylaws.
Click to expand...

that's what i'm saying.. There isn't anything about child rape in the ncaa bylaws. If they get hit with lack of institutional control then it's the same thing USC was sanctioned with.
 
#5,137
#5,137
rmsmith said:
that's what i'm saying.. There isn't anything about child rape in the ncaa bylaws. If they get hit with lack of institutional control then it's the same thing USC was sanctioned with.
Click to expand...

So there is nothing they can do because "Child Rape" isnt included in the bylaws?

Would the words moral or ethical behavior mean anything?

Is Child rape moral or ethical behavior?
Is covering up child rape moral or ethical?
Is continuing to allow a child molestor on campus, use campus facilities and bring children with him to mentioned facilities either moral or ethical behavior?
 
#5,138
#5,138
CountVolcula said:
So there is nothing they can do because "Child Rape" isnt included in the bylaws?

Would the words moral or ethical behavior mean anything?

Is Child rape moral or ethical behavior?
Is covering up child rape moral or ethical?
Is continuing to allow a child molestor on campus, use campus facilities and bring children with him to mentioned facilities either moral or ethical behavior?
Click to expand...

don't get me wrong.. personally i feel they should get the ax. but legally i'm not sure if it can happen. Moral and ethical behavior have different meanings for different people. It needs to be much more specific.
 
#5,139
#5,139
this is what's going to get them

19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct. Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.
Click to expand...
 
#5,140
#5,140
rmsmith said:
this is what's going to get them
Click to expand...

Or the dept of Education...


The Department of Education could be a bigger threat to Penn State than the NCAA | Dr. Saturday - Yahoo! Sports


While many are waiting for the NCAA to step in and issue some sort of death penalty against Penn State for its lack of institutional control following the release of the Freeh report, which detailed a university-wide cover-up of sexual abuse by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, the harshest penalties could be coming from the Department of Education (DOE).

John Infante, who created bylawblog.com and works for NCAA.org, stated on Twitter that: "Dept. of Ed could prohibit Penn State from receiving federal student aid…. Prohibiting a school from receiving federal financial aid is the DOE's death penalty. But we're in "If not here, then where?" territory."

The issue at hand is Penn State's compliance (or lack thereof) with the Clery Act. The Clery Act requires that any public or private university that receives federal financial aid publicly report any crime on or near campus.

The federal government enacted the Clery Act in 1990 and Penn State adopted it in 1991 by designating a member of the university police to be the act's coordinator. However, according to the Freeh report, an independent investigation of the Penn State scandal by former FBI investigator Louis Freeh, Penn State did not train the officer to enforce the act until 2007, six years after Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary reported seeing Sandusky in the Penn State locker room showers with a young boy.

The Freeh report also stated that Penn State's "awareness and interest" in Clery Act compliance was "significantly lacking." And according to the report, no record of McQueary's observation of Sandusky in the shower with a young boy exists despite the fact that he reported the matter to coach Joe Paterno and subsequently athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz.

In fact, before 2007, the report directed by the board of trustees, says the officer in charge of compliance was unaware of the actual duties he and the university were to perform to be in compliance with the law. In an email to his supervisors, the officer alerted them to the problem, stating "We could get hurt really bad here."

While the university began to provide training to staff and officers post-2007, Freeh's report states that awareness and interest in compliance with the law "remained lacking throughout the university."

Training sessions, the report notes were "sporadic" and "not well attended."

As of November 2011 — 21 years after being signed into law — Penn State's Clery Act policy was still in draft form and had not been implemented.

The Department of Education has stated that it is looking into the findings from the Freeh report, but declined to make any other public comments about the matter. But if the DOE were to come down on Penn State, it could remove the university's accreditation and prohibit students from obtaining Pell Grants and federal student loans. In essence, it would cripple Penn State's ability to be a viable institution.

"The death penalty for football and major Clery Act sanctions are the same thing, just different in degree," Infante wrote on Twitter. "Students have to transfer, people lose their jobs, the character of the institution changes for a long time if not forever."

And if the DOE comes down on Penn State, it would make for an easy decision for the NCAA to strip the school of its Division I status.(US Presswire)

But that doesn't mean the NCAA is waiting for the DOE to act first. NCAA vice president for communications Bob Williams released a statement after the Freeh report came out stating that the NCAA was going to review the report before making a decision.

"Like everyone else, we are reviewing the final report for the first time today," Williams said. "As President Emmert wrote in his November 17th letter to Penn State President Rodney Erickson and reiterated this week, the university has four key questions, concerning compliance with institutional control and ethics policies, to which it now needs to respond. Penn State's response to the letter will inform our next steps, including whether or not to take further action. We expect Penn State's continued cooperation in our examination of these issues."

Lack of institutional control — whether the DOE or the NCAA declares it — would devastate Penn State. According to Infante, the DOE has never prohibited a school from receiving financial aid and the largest fine a school has ever received from the DOE is $350,000.

The NCAA has only issued the death penalty once — to SMU in 1986 — and it damaged the SMU football program for more than 20 years. SMU wasn't allowed to play football in 1987 and all of its home games in 1988 were cancelled. No bowl games until 1989 and it lost 55 scholarships over a four-year period. Only now is SMU starting to have winning seasons, play in bowl games and recruit high-level talent.

So while the release of the Freeh report might have signaled the end of Penn State's internal investigation, it might be the beginning of the end for Penn State football and the university.
 
Last edited:
#5,141
#5,141
on ESPN, they had a statement from the NCAA, that said the NCAA had asked Penn State to answer 4 questions. Then once they had those answers they would evaluate thier options..

Does anyone know what those 4 questions are?
 
#5,143
#5,143
bamawriter said:
Scenario for all Vols fans saying the NCAA should get involved:

The Cam Clear situation plays out exactly the same way, except Dooley doesn't dismiss him. He cops a very fast plea and get probation. Dooley suspends him for four games.

The NCAA decides that's not enough and suspends Clear for 12 games. And because Dooley didn't act when the accusations were first brought to his attention, they dock Tennessee 6 scholarships and give them a one year bowl ban.


You okay with that?
Click to expand...

This is a terrible analogy because it doesn't include covering up a crime, which is only the most important reason people are excoriating Penn State.

A better analogy would have been: let's say Clear stole laptops, and Dooley caught him and disciplined him in-house, but stonewalled the cops and prevented him from being criminally investigated. And then that subsequently came out. Hell yes I'd be okay with Tennessee being sanctioned for that.
 
#5,144
#5,144
TrueOrange said:
I must have totally forgotten where the NCAA was actually an organization of the law not just a system of monitoring the fair/equal play of sports as well as student athletes...:ermm:
Click to expand...

But I guess my point is, the NCAA is corrupt and anything is possible with them. It would not surprise me for them to either give the death penalty or not do anything.
 
Last edited:
#5,145
#5,145
Vercingetorix said:
This is a terrible analogy because it doesn't include covering up a crime, which is only the most important reason people are excoriating Penn State.

A better analogy would have been: let's say Clear stole laptops, and Dooley caught him and disciplined him in-house, but stonewalled the cops and prevented him from being criminally investigated. And then that subsequently came out. Hell yes I'd be okay with Tennessee being sanctioned for that.
Click to expand...

If you want the NCAA to have authority to punish crime, you don't get to choose which crimes.
 
#5,150
#5,150
bamawriter said:
If PSU falls into an application of LOI, so does my Cam Clear hypothetical. Precedent can lead you places you don't want to go.
Click to expand...

Cause stealing laptops, finding out, due process, and expelling the offender is so much like raping children and covering it up for 14 years to protect the University and its Football program and image
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top