There's not a penalty to harsh for PSU!

#576
#576
GhostVol said:
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??
Click to expand...

You have your timeline wrong. He resigned in '98 after Curley confronted him and told him not to shower with kids anymore, then was rehired under an emergency clause in '99. After '99 he resigned for good. He was then given emeritus status (which he should not have been, given his academic position) and was given an office and had free access to the facilities.

He wasn't banned from the facilities until after the '01 incident. And to be more accurate, he wasn't personally banned, he was just banned from bringing kids to the facility. And as you noted before, the ban was never enforced.
 
Last edited:
#577
#577
bamawriter said:
You have your timeline wrong. He resigned in '98 after Curley confronted him and told him not to shower with kids anymore, then was rehired under an emergency clause in '99. After '99 he resigned for good. He was then given emeritus status (which he should not have been, given his academic position) and was given an office and had free access to the facilities.

He wasn't banned from the facilities until after the '01 incident. And to be more accurate, he wasn't personally banned, he was just banned from bringing kids to the facility. And as you noted before, the ban was never enforced.
Click to expand...

Thanks for straightening out the timeline for me..... Thought those actions were concurrent. My bad....

By your own admission, Sandusky was terminated for highly unacceptable behavior in '98. You mean to tell me that Joe Paterno was not aware of the reasons behind the firing? And you contend that Paterno didn't know that it was continuing? In his own facility? Is that what you're saying? I just want to be completely clear about your stance on this.
 
#578
#578
Guys, don't aurgue with a Bamer over this. Everyone knows that if ST Nick was caught in the shower with a little boy the whole bamer nation would come to his defense. If it ever came to light.
 
#579
#579
GhostVol said:
Thanks for straightening out the timeline for me..... Thought those actions were concurrent. My bad....

By your own admission, Sandusky was terminated for highly unacceptable behavior in '98. You mean to tell me that Joe Paterno was not aware of the reasons behind the firing? And you contend that Paterno didn't know that it was continuing? In his own facility? Is that what you're saying? I just want to be completely clear about your stance on this.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's true. I think Sandusky legitimately resigned under his own free will, because Paterno told him that he was never going to be the head coach at Penn State. It would actually look better on Curley if he'd fired Sandusky over the '98 shower incident.

As for Paterno, I think Paterno was completely aware of what Sandusky was doing, but those actions weren't the reasons for Sandusky leaving the coaching staff. Given that Sandusky should not have been eligible for emeritus status, I think it was given to him in order to keep tabs on him. As sick as it sounds, I think to a certain degree Paterno and Co wanted to keep Sandusky close, because they'd have an easier time keeping his actions hidden. And they may have been right, since the incident that finally broke the whole case wide open took place away from the PSU campus.
 
Last edited:
#580
#580
hog88 said:
Guys, don't aurgue with a Bamer over this. Everyone knows that if ST Nick was caught in the shower with a little boy the whole bamer nation would come to his defense. If it ever came to light.
Click to expand...

Look everyone! We've found the guy who's unable to participate in an intelligent conversation about a serious subject matter!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#581
#581
bamawriter said:
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's true. I think Sandusky legitimately resigned under his own free will, because Paterno told him that he was never going to be the head coach at Penn State. It would actually look better on Curley if he'd fired Sandusky over the '98 shower incident.

As for Paterno, I think Paterno was completely aware of what Sandusky was doing, but those actions weren't the reasons for Sandusky leaving the coaching staff. Given that Sandusky should not have been eligible for emeritus status, I think it was given to him in order to keep tabs on him. As sick as it sounds, I think to a certain degree Paterno and Co wanted to keep Sandusky close, because they'd have an easier time keeping his actions hidden. And they may have been right, since the incident that finally broke the whole case wide open took place away from the PSU campus.
Click to expand...

That just doesn't make sense to me. Paterno and company gave Sandusky emeritus so that he would stick around more???? Come on. I think it is more plausible to believe that Sandusky had information on Joe Pa which would be damaging to him (and/or Penn State) and treating him with kid gloves was a way for him to keep his mouth shut.
 
#582
#582
bamawriter said:
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's true. I think Sandusky legitimately resigned under his own free will, because Paterno told him that he was never going to be the head coach at Penn State. It would actually look better on Curley if he'd fired Sandusky over the '98 shower incident.

As for Paterno, I think Paterno was completely aware of what Sandusky was doing, but those actions weren't the reasons for Sandusky leaving the coaching staff. Given that Sandusky should not have been eligible for emeritus status, I think it was given to him in order to keep tabs on him. As sick as it sounds, I think to a certain degree Paterno and Co wanted to keep Sandusky close, because they'd have an easier time keeping his actions hidden. And they may have been right, since the incident that finally broke the whole case wide open took place away from the PSU campus.
Click to expand...

In a previous post you said he "resigned" after being confronted with showering with children. Later you say that it was because Paterno told him he'd never be head coach. Which was it? Let's pick one or the other, shall we?

And if you think he "resigned" voluntarily I have two comments. 1)I'm sure you think Fulmer "resigned" of his own free will and 2) I've got some oceanside property up for sale in Kansas. I'd be more than willing to sell it to you.

None of this speaks to the fact that the only time Paterno had any chance of getting out of this with his job presented itself in '98 and maybe not even then. The coverup from '98 to '01 would have cost him his job in '01 just as it did ten years later.
 
Last edited:
#584
#584
GhostVol said:
In a previous post you said he "resigned" after being confronted with showering with children. Later you say that it was because Paterno told him he'd never be head coach. Which was it? Let's pick one or the other, shall we?
Click to expand...

Sorry, my posts were very confusing. When I said that he resigned "after" being confronted about the '98 accusations, I meant "after" in the chronological sense, as in "The confrontation occurred before the resignation." I didn't mean to suggest that the resignation happened as a result of the confrontation. Hope that clears it up.

And if you think he "resigned" voluntarily I have two comments. 1)I'm sure you think Fulmer "resigned" of his own free will and 2) I've got some oceanside property up for sale in Kansas. I'd be more than willing to sell it to you.
Click to expand...

I understand why you're assuming this. However, if they forced him out, why give him the emeritus status? All that changed after Sandusky's resignation is that he was no longer on the coaching staff. He still had an office in the athletics department and kept office hours. He still had open access to all of the athletics facilities. He still traveled with the team to some away games. And PSU still worked closely with his charity. If he was forced out because of his actions in '98, it makes no sense for them to keep him around.

Like I said before, I think it's more likely that they kept him around because they felt like it would be easier to keep him under wraps if he was still close at hand. But I'm totally guessing on all of that.

None of this speaks to the fact that the only time Paterno had any chance of getting out of this with his job presented itself in '98 and maybe not even then. The coverup from '98 to '01 would have cost him his job in '01 just as it did ten years later.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's accurate to paint what happened between '98 and '01 as a coverup. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz cooperated with the police and the DA throughout the investigation. Spanier certainly should have gone to the BOT, but that's about as much as can be considered a coverup. Given that Sandusky wasn't charged, I think going public at that time would have been inappropriate. In hindsight, it would have been a deterrent to Sandusky's behaviors. But at the time he seemed to be nothing more than a dirty old man.

That said, I think it's a given that Sandusky was raping children long before '98, and it's quite likely that folks at PSU knew about it before the accusations came to light in '98. But I'm basing my comments on what we know to be true at this point, based on the Freeh Report and the legal proceedings.
 
#585
#585
OldandStillaVol said:
That just doesn't make sense to me. Paterno and company gave Sandusky emeritus so that he would stick around more???? Come on. I think it is more plausible to believe that Sandusky had information on Joe Pa which would be damaging to him (and/or Penn State) and treating him with kid gloves was a way for him to keep his mouth shut.
Click to expand...

You could be right. I have no idea.

As twisted as it may be, isn't there some logic in saying "If he's doing his thing here, we have a better chance of making sure it never comes out. If we bar home from campus, he's more likely to do something stupid and get caught,"?

I hope that wasn't the thought process, but it wouldn't surprise me.
 
#587
#587
bamawriter said:
Sorry, my posts were very confusing. When I said that he resigned "after" being confronted about the '98 accusations, I meant "after" in the chronological sense, as in "The confrontation occurred before the resignation." I didn't mean to suggest that the resignation happened as a result of the confrontation. Hope that clears it up.



I understand why you're assuming this. However, if they forced him out, why give him the emeritus status? All that changed after Sandusky's resignation is that he was no longer on the coaching staff. He still had an office in the athletics department and kept office hours. He still had open access to all of the athletics facilities. He still traveled with the team to some away games. And PSU still worked closely with his charity. If he was forced out because of his actions in '98, it makes no sense for them to keep him around.

Like I said before, I think it's more likely that they kept him around because they felt like it would be easier to keep him under wraps if he was still close at hand. But I'm totally guessing on all of that.



I'm not sure it's accurate to paint what happened between '98 and '01 as a coverup. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz cooperated with the police and the DA throughout the investigation. Spanier certainly should have gone to the BOT, but that's about as much as can be considered a coverup. Given that Sandusky wasn't charged, I think going public at that time would have been inappropriate. In hindsight, it would have been a deterrent to Sandusky's behaviors. But at the time he seemed to be nothing more than a dirty old man.

That said, I think it's a given that Sandusky was raping children long before '98, and it's quite likely that folks at PSU knew about it before the accusations came to light in '98. But I'm basing my comments on what we know to be true at this point, based on the Freeh Report and the legal proceedings.
Click to expand...

Here's a shocker for you.... I agree with all of this. Which makes it even worse. It goes to show that the coverup was even more pervasive than we've been led to believe at this point. And the ONLY reason to cover up crimes of this magnitude is to protect the football program and the reputation of the institution an the persons involved however peripherally.
 
#588
#588
GhostVol said:
Here's a shocker for you.... I agree with all of this. Which makes it even worse. It goes to show that the coverup was even more pervasive than we've been led to believe at this point. And the ONLY reason to cover up crimes of this magnitude is to protect the football program and the reputation of the institution an the persons involved however peripherally.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Then it all comes back to whether or not the NCAA should be involved.
 
#590
#590
GhostVol said:
It seems crystal clear to me that not only SHOULD they get involved, they MUST get involved.
Click to expand...

Their involvement won't help anything. It can't punish those that were involved, because they will be in prison or are already dead.

As such, it will do nothing but punish thousands of people who were not involved, and may cost many people their livelihoods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#591
#591
bamawriter said:
Their involvement won't help anything. It can't punish those that were involved, because they will be in prison or are already dead.

As such, it will do nothing but punish thousands of people who were not involved, and may cost many people their livelihoods.
Click to expand...

And it is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I'm willing to entertain levels of punishment other than the death penalty.

We've established that the NCAA has the authority (insofar as protecting the football program qualifies as a benefit to that program even if you can't quantify that benefit) now we need to establish what that penalty should be.

What do you think it should be?
 
#592
#592
GhostVol said:
And it is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I'm willing to entertain levels of punishment other than the death penalty.

We've established that the NCAA has the authority (insofar as protecting the football program qualifies as a benefit to that program even if you can't quantify that benefit) now we need to establish what that penalty should be.

What do you think it should be?
Click to expand...

No we haven't. This is the logic your working with: The football program served as the motivated for a crime; The NCAA has authority over the football program; so the NCAA must punish the football program. I cannot agree with you on that. The NCAA does not have the authority to punish criminal acts, even if a football program served as the motivation for those acts.

The football program is made up of hundreds of individuals, all but 5 of whom had nothing to do with these abhorrent actions. And those 5 are being punished by the legal system, and the institution will be punished by having to write massive checks. The NCAA's punishments could serve no other purpose than making a point, and I'm not sure that the point hasn't already been made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#593
#593
bamawriter said:
The football program is made up of hundreds of individuals, all but 5 of whom had nothing to do with these abhorrent actions. And those 5 are being punished by the legal system, and the institution will be punished by having to write massive checks. The NCAA's punishments could serve no other purpose than making a point, and I'm not sure that the point hasn't already been made.
Click to expand...

This is the thing for me. All of the main players in this story are no longer a part of the university. Punishing the university when the people who now work there had nothing to do with it doesn't seem right to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#594
#594
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one's assuming he would have been fired in 2001. We're, or at least I'm, saying he might have been fired. And, Bruce Pearl directly broke NCAA rules, but he attained no measurable benefit. My point is that there does not need to be a measurable benefit. PSU attempted to benefit by covering up Sandusky; that should be enough, whether or not anyone thinks they actually benefitted.
 
#595
#595
ukvols said:
No one's assuming he would have been fired in 2001. We're, or at least I'm, saying he might have been fired. And, Bruce Pearl directly broke NCAA rules, but he attained no measurable benefit. My point is that there does not need to be a measurable benefit. PSU attempted to benefit by covering up Sandusky; that should be enough, whether or not anyone thinks they actually benefitted.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. You can quantify how Pearl's rule-breaking benefited him. It gave him an unfair advantage with that particular recruit that other coaches and programs did not have. It might not have been much of an advantage (and apparently didn't help all that much), but it was an advantage nonetheless.
 
#596
#596
bamawriter said:
You are incorrect. You can quantify how Pearl's rule-breaking benefited him. It gave him an unfair advantage with that particular recruit that other coaches and programs did not have. It might not have been much of an advantage (and apparently didn't help all that much), but it was an advantage nonetheless.
Click to expand...

So you're basically saying that this will have (or wouldn't have, then) any influence on whether a recruit would choose to go to PSU? Riiiiight.....

I'll say it again..... If even ONE recruit chooses (or would have chosen) to go somewhere else because of this then PSU DID gain a competitive advantage. How is this hard to understand?
 
#597
#597
bamawriter said:
Their involvement won't help anything. It can't punish those that were involved, because they will be in prison or are already dead.

As such, it will do nothing but punish thousands of people who were not involved, and may cost many people their livelihoods.
Click to expand...

No one will ever know if there's still people working for PSU who knew this was going on.
 
#598
#598
bamawriter said:
You are incorrect. You can quantify how Pearl's rule-breaking benefited him. It gave him an unfair advantage with that particular recruit that other coaches and programs did not have. It might not have been much of an advantage (and apparently didn't help all that much), but it was an advantage nonetheless.
Click to expand...

The three juniors at the cookout were already committed to Tennessee, and two of them ended up not coming. So, there was no measurable benefit. The cookout MIGHT have helped retain the lone recruit Pearl managed to keep committed, but that's impossible to know for sure. Therefore, there was no "measurable benefit" there. There was an NCAA violation but no measurable benefit.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top