There's not a penalty to harsh for PSU!

[PuntBamaPunt]

No. It's a permanent reminder of what happened.

Which is why they'll eventually take it down.

 

[Shaun1985]

Amazing. Imagine walking around campus, looking up and seeing a plane that has that banner lol. They might as well go ahead and take it down.

 

[bamawriter]

Amazing. Imagine walking around campus, looking up and seeing a plane that has that banner lol. They might as well go ahead and take it down.

The sad thing is that there will be a few hundred students trying to play human shield when they attempt to take it down.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

No it didn't. The football program got no quantifiable benefit from keeping Sandusky's actions secret, even if the idiots involved thought that it might.

Yes it did. Had Sandusky been arrested, fired, tried, and convicted at the outset...as he should have been...it would have had a measurable, and perhaps dramatic effect on Penn State's image, recruiting, ticket sales, merchandise sales, and perhaps victories. The "quantifiable benefit" was protecting PSU's pristine image, not to mention potentially millions in revenue.

The idiots involved were not all that stupid after all. They knew what the impact of exposing Sandusky would be, and chose to keep it a secret.

Burn 'em all. And make an example out of PSU for the next school that might be tempted to hide a demon in their midst.

Go Vols.

 

[bamawriter]

Yes it did. Had Sandusky been arrested, fired, tried, and convicted at the outset...as he should have been...it would have had a measurable, and perhaps dramatic effect on Penn State's image, recruiting, ticket sales, merchandise sales, and perhaps victories. The "quantifiable benefit" was protecting PSU's pristine image, not to mention potentially millions in revenue.

If it's "measurable", then please provide some kind of evidence, statistical or otherwise, that turning Sandusky over to the authorities would have caused damage to PSU football, instead of causing Joe Paterno to look like a hero for getting a pedophile off the street as soon as he was able.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

I would say yes -- I dont think Joe Pa will mind

That statue should have been down an hour after the Freeh Report was made public. The fact that it still stands is testament to the isolation and arrogance of the PSU BoT, who apparently still doesn't understand what being a "Trustee" of an institution really means.

Disgusting. The whole bunch.

Go Vols.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

If it's "measurable", then please provide some kind of evidence, statistical or otherwise, that turning Sandusky over to the authorities would have caused damage to PSU football, instead of causing Joe Paterno to look like a hero for getting a pedophile off the street as soon as he was able.

Gee...I don't know...was just guessing there...that admitting you had a pedophile on your staff might hurt recruiting; ticket sales; merchandise; or your reputation.

I know, it was a silly thing to say.

Go Vols.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

If it's "measurable", then please provide some kind of evidence, statistical or otherwise, that turning Sandusky over to the authorities would have caused damage to PSU football, instead of causing Joe Paterno to look like a hero for getting a pedophile off the street as soon as he was able.

But since Joe Pa didn't do that...choosing instead to conceal the serial pedophile on his staff, well....

So much for the "hero" argument, huh?

Go Vols.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

If it's "measurable", then please provide some kind of evidence, statistical or otherwise, that turning Sandusky over to the authorities would have caused damage to PSU football, instead of causing Joe Paterno to look like a hero for getting a pedophile off the street as soon as he was able.

Oh, missed a point, and it certainly deserves to be made here...

You said "please provide some kind of evidence...that turning Sandusky over to the authorities would have caused damage to PSU football, instead of causing Joe Paterno to look like a hero for getting a pedophile off the street as soon as he was able."

May I submit as my evidence the facts as they exist?

Go Vols.

 

[ukvols]

Paterno would obviously have come out of this looking a lot better had Sandusky been turned into police in 2001. But, that doesn't mean PSU's recruiting wouldn't have been affected, and it's possible that more PSU fans would have been ready for a change at the top, when you also consider the consecutive losing seasons they had at the time. We don't know if Paterno would have been forced into the sunset, and we don't know how successful another coach would have been, so we don't know if PSU gained a benefit from 2001-2011. But, they obviously attempted to benefit; otherwise, they wouldn't have covered it up. That's where I think the NCAA can find the opportunity to get involved, if they choose to. I don't know exactly what the violation would be to enable a finding of LOIC, but with ethics and morals having been completely tossed out the window for the benefit of the football program, it would seem that there is a way in for the NCAA. I don't think covering up these acts to protect either the football coach's job, the football program's reputation, or both, constitutes fair play, and that's what the NCAA exists for.

But, I would prefer PSU do something productive with its football program than the NCAA levy the destructive death penalty.

 

[bamawriter]

Gee...I don't know...was just guessing there...that admitting you had a pedophile on your staff might hurt recruiting; ticket sales; merchandise; or your reputation.

I know, it was a silly thing to say.

Go Vols.

Can you provide numbers, or statements from former players and recruits?

Of course you can't, because we have absolutely no idea what might have happened if Sandusky hadn't been protected. We can assume, but that is the exact opposite of "measurable." And you can't punish a program for an unfair advantage that might or might not have even existed.

 

[bamawriter]

Oh, missed a point, and it certainly deserves to be made here...

You said "please provide some kind of evidence...that turning Sandusky over to the authorities would have caused damage to PSU football, instead of causing Joe Paterno to look like a hero for getting a pedophile off the street as soon as he was able."

May I submit as my evidence the facts as they exist?

Sure, but like I said, those facts only lead to hypothetical reactions on the part of recruits/players/fans/boosters. It's impossible to know what might have happened had the events of 11 years ago been different.

 

[bamawriter]

ukvols,

Your thoughts are well-considered. Here's the important question: would the precedent set by the NCAA's unilateral expansion of its authority be a good thing for the future of college athletics?

 

[ukvols]

Can you provide numbers, or statements from former players and recruits?

Of course you can't, because we have absolutely no idea what might have happened if Sandusky hadn't been protected. We can assume, but that is the exact opposite of "measurable." And you can't punish a program for an unfair advantage that might or might not have even existed.

Technically, it would be difficult to prove a "measurable" benefit anytime there's a violation. What was the measurable benefit of Bruce Pearl's cookout? The issue is whether or not the NCAA can read in a violation; there's no reason to debate whether or not a benefit was attained.

 

[ukvols]

ukvols,

Your thoughts are well-considered. Here's the important question: would the precedent set by the NCAA's unilateral expansion of its authority be a good thing for the future of college athletics?

That depends on the precedent that is set. Punishing PSU wouldn't necessarily mean the NCAA is going to get involved and levy sanctions every time a student-athlete is arrested by police. The NCAA could simply set a precedent that they can find LOIC when the leaders of an athletics program and institution conspire to cover up criminal acts for the perceived betterment of the athletics program. So, Clear's arrest for theft would not be within the NCAA's scope unless UT covered it up so that he could keep playing (if I am correct about what the precedent would be).

If an institution covers up acts committed by student-athletes that, if publicly known, would have to result in expulsion from their team, then I think the NCAA should be involved, because that shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[GhostVol]

Can you provide numbers, or statements from former players and recruits?

Of course you can't, because we have absolutely no idea what might have happened if Sandusky hadn't been protected. We can assume, but that is the exact opposite of "measurable." And you can't punish a program for an unfair advantage that might or might not have even existed.

Have you considered the fact that this mess had been going on for several years prior to 2001? There were concerns about Sandusky from back in 1998. Nothing was done about it then. That inaction would have gotten Paterno canned in 2001. The fact that he was able to continue coaching for more than a decade than he otherwise would have (and the salary, wins, etc.) is your measurable benefit.

 

[bamawriter]

Technically, it would be difficult to prove a "measurable" benefit anytime there's a violation. What was the measurable benefit of Bruce Pearl's cookout? The issue is whether or not the NCAA can read in a violation; there's no reason to debate whether or not a benefit was attained.

Big difference. That was actually direct contact with a recruit in direct defiance of NCAA regulations. The PSU situation didn't involved contact or dealings with recruits, even indirectly.

 

[bamawriter]

Have you considered the fact that this mess had been going on for several years prior to 2001? There were concerns about Sandusky from back in 1998. Nothing was done about it then. That inaction would have gotten Paterno canned in 2001. The fact that he was able to continue coaching for more than a decade than he otherwise would have (and the salary, wins, etc.) is your measurable benefit.

You have no idea that Paterno would have been fired in '01. The situation in '98 was investigated by the police, and the DA declined to press charges. The next moment that anyone at PSU became aware of more illicit acts was 2001. That was the moment when they had no appropriate recourse but to turn him in. To assume that Paterno would have been fired simply because he was aware of the accusation in '98 is a huge stretch.

As such, there's no measurable benefit.

 

[GhostVol]

You have no idea that Paterno would have been fired in '01. The situation in '98 was investigated by the police, and the DA declined to press charges. The next moment that anyone at PSU became aware of more illicit acts was 2001. That was the moment when they had no appropriate recourse but to turn him in. To assume that Paterno would have been fired simply because he was aware of the accusation in '98 is a huge stretch.

As such, there's no measurable benefit.

Yeah, because having a coach on your staff that you suspect is a pedophile, and covering it up from '98 to '01, is no biggie.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You have no idea that Paterno would have been fired in '01. The situation in '98 was investigated by the police, and the DA declined to press charges. The next moment that anyone at PSU became aware of more illicit acts was 2001. That was the moment when they had no appropriate recourse but to turn him in. To assume that Paterno would have been fired simply because he was aware of the accusation in '98 is a huge stretch.

As such, there's no measurable benefit.

hold up, you think this thing just died of inactivity between 98 and 01? Serious?

 

[bamawriter]

hold up, you think this thing just died of inactivity between 98 and 01? Serious?

No, I don't think that. The case against Sandusky proved otherwise.

But, the issue is what Paterno and Co. knew, and when they knew it. The Grand Jury report and the Freeh Report indicate that Paterno and Co. were made aware of the accusations in '98, and then knew nothing else until McQueary notified Paterno in '01.

 

[bamawriter]

Yeah, because having a coach on your staff that you suspect is a pedophile, and covering it up from '98 to '01, is no biggie.

While the BOT should have been notified about the issues in '98, you have to remember that the police and the DA didn't think there was enough evidence to charge Sandusky at that time. When it popped up again in '01, I'm sure hindsight would have suggested that Sandusky be canned (or charged) in '98. But for all the wrong that those guys did, I'm not going to destroy them over the incident in '98, because they relied on the decisions of the proper authorities. With proof of nothing but Sandusky being a creepy old man, going public wouldn't have been terribly appropriate.

The difference in '01 is that they knew that Sandusky's recent actions would be tied to '98, and Sandusky would certainly be charged at that point. They not only chose not to rely on the decisions of the proper authorities, they took pains to keep the authorities in the dark.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No, I don't think that. The case against Sandusky proved otherwise.

But, the issue is what Paterno and Co. knew, and when they knew it. The Grand Jury report and the Freeh Report indicate that Paterno and Co. were made aware of the accusations in '98, and then knew nothing else until McQueary notified Paterno in '01.

but it's clearly absurd to believe that the Grand Jury report is the long and short of it, especially given the few emails that have been publicized.

Whether he would have been fired is a different question and tough to answer because of the clear lack of leadership at PSU.

 

[GhostVol]

No, I don't think that. The case against Sandusky proved otherwise.

But, the issue is what Paterno and Co. knew, and when they knew it. The Grand Jury report and the Freeh Report indicate that Paterno and Co. were made aware of the accusations in '98, and then knew nothing else until McQueary notified Paterno in '01.

Sandusky "resigned" (i.e. was fired) in '99, had his keys taken away from him and was banned from the facilities (none of which was actually enforced). Is it your contention that PSU took these actions for shiz & giggles??

 

[bamawriter]

but it's clearly absurd to believe that the Grand Jury report is the long and short of it, especially given the few emails that have been publicized.

Whether he would have been fired is a different question and tough to answer because of the clear lack of leadership at PSU.

You may well be right. I imagine that we're going to learn a lot more during the trials of Schultz and Curley (and hopefully Spanier) and none of it is going to be good.

And your take on the potential firing is exactly what I've been getting at the whole time. It's impossible to know for sure what might have happened.