There's not a penalty to harsh for PSU!

#130
#130
OrangeEmpire said:
You are being serious?
Click to expand...

Cite the bylaw or rule they violated.

I'm sure you'll say LOI, but LOI only applies to the school's response to another a violation, it is not a stand alone violation. If you think PSU committed LOI, you need to cite the bylaw or rule that was violated and was improperly handled.
 
#131
#131
VolBeef88 said:
Then why ever punish the institution for anything? Just fire the coach/AD and all is forgiven because after all if those who commit the crime are gone (using your logic) the institution is absolved? SMU got the death penalty for paying players. PSU knowingly allowed little boys to be raped for at least 14 years. Maybe you disagree with me but I believe what PSU did was a helluva lot worse that what SMU did.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Because the institution didn't molest little boys or cover up for that, the people did.

Cars are fantastic things, incredibly useful and have been a cornerstone of society as we know it. But when somebody gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of one, it can turn into a murder weapon.

Universities and football programs have had a fantastic impact on society. The results of American universities speak for themselves, and football programs are responsible for bringing people together, lifting 18 year old kids out of poverty, providing an outlet for the rest of us, and countless other goods. This is the result of a drunk person, so to speak, getting behind the wheel of an institution.

I've never bought into punishing institutions, I've always bought into punishing the people who actually commit crimes.

SMU's death penalty wound up harming thousands of people and having an impact probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars, almost entirely on people who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the infractions.

The people guilty for what happened are already dead, in jail or are about to lose the rest of their lives through criminal and civil action. Just like how Sandusky ruined the lives of those kids. That sounds like justice served to me.

Anything above and beyond that, specifically by the NCAA, will hurt holders of Penn State diplomas. It will hurt Penn State athletes. It will hurt Penn State students. It will hurt the rest of the Big Ten. It could possibly wreck the economy in central Pennsylvania.

But you know who it won't touch? Actions by the NCAA at this point won't touch ONE DAMNED PERSON who was complicit in any way in Sandusky's actions.

You can be damned sure this whole episode is yet another swift kick in the gonads to society about rethinking how we view institutions, but responding by burning one to the ground, specifically one that is the very lifeblood of its area, is reckless, it's irresponsible and it's outright stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#132
#132
vols4sure said:
This is not one coach covering up one crime. This is at least a President, AD, VP, and head coach involved in a 14 year cover up while additional crimes occurred. Huge difference.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, you're trying to split hairs. PSU's coverup was more expansive that Baylor's, for sure. But they were both felonies covered up by people in positions of authority.

And one could argue that Baylor's coverup was a more direct NCAA violation, since Bliss was trying to keep a player eligible when he would have otherwise been ineligible because he would have been behind bars. That didn't happen at PSU.
 
#133
#133
utvolpj said:
funny thing about precedent is that it has to be set first. This is the opportunity to do that
Click to expand...

The NCAA can't make up the rules as they go though. That's the problem with that idea.

Like it's their own design/their own rules/ by their own choice that they can't do such...espn noted it multiple times yesterday.

They (PSU) has to have have broken something set by precedent for the NCAA to really do something here, short of the NCAA just making a new rule next summer.
 
#134
#134
To be honest, there isnt an actual NCAA bylaw that was violated, so I dont know what the NCAA would be investigating in this situation or penalizing
 
#136
#136
milohimself said:
Because the institution didn't molest little boys or cover up for that, the people did.

Cars are fantastic things, incredibly useful and have been a cornerstone of society as we know it. But when somebody gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of one, it can turn into a murder weapon.

Universities and football programs have had a fantastic impact on society. The results of American universities speak for themselves, and football programs are responsible for bringing people together, lifting 18 year old kids out of poverty, providing an outlet for the rest of us, and countless other goods. This is the result of a drunk person, so to speak, getting behind the wheel of an institution.

I've never bought into punishing institutions, I've always bought into punishing the people who actually commit crimes.

SMU's death penalty wound up harming thousands of people and having an impact probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars, almost entirely on people who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the infractions.

The people guilty for what happened are already dead, in jail or are about to lose the rest of their lives through criminal and civil action. Just like how Sandusky ruined the lives of those kids. That sounds like justice served to me.

Anything above and beyond that, specifically by the NCAA, will hurt holders of Penn State diplomas. It will hurt Penn State athletes. It will hurt Penn State students. It will hurt the rest of the Big Ten. It could possibly wreck the economy in central Pennsylvania.

But you know who it won't touch? Actions by the NCAA at this point won't touch ONE DAMNED PERSON who was complicit in any way in Sandusky's actions.

You can be damned sure this whole episode is yet another swift kick in the gonads to society about rethinking how we view institutions, but responding by burning one to the ground, specifically one that is the very lifeblood of its area, is reckless, it's irresponsible and it's outright stupid.
Click to expand...

Wow, nice post
 
#137
#137
bamawriter said:
Like it or not, you're trying to split hairs. PSU's coverup was more expansive that Baylor's, for sure. But they were both felonies covered up by people in positions of authority.

And one could argue that Baylor's coverup was a more direct NCAA violation, since Bliss was trying to keep a player eligible when he would have otherwise been ineligible because he would have been behind bars. That didn't happen at PSU.
Click to expand...

Would you call the Baylor coverup systematic through the Athletic department?

How about PSU?

Assuming your answers are yes to PSU and no to Baylor, then that is your difference and it is a big difference when discussing lack of institutional control.
 
#138
#138
vols4sure said:
Would you call the Baylor coverup systematic through the Athletic department?

How about PSU?

Assuming your answers are yes to PSU and no to Baylor, then that is your difference and it is a big difference when discussing lack of institutional control.
Click to expand...

PSU was only slightly more systemic than Baylor. Instead of 1 person, it was 4. That's hardly the entire athletic staff working to cover up a crime.

As far as LOI, like I said earlier, you can't have LOI without another violation.
 
#139
#139
bamawriter said:
Which is why PSU should expunge themselves of Paterno's post-coverup accomplishments. But just because Paterno thought it might affect recruiting doesn't mean it did.



Actually, the DA who disappeared, and is assumed to be dead (no body was ever found), was not actively investigating Sandusky at the time of his disappearance. He had already declined to press charges over the 1998 incident, and was gone by the time '01 rolled around. Trying to draw a line between his disappearance and Sandusky's continuing behavior is going to be difficult to do.
Click to expand...

Really? Not the word here in Pa.
 
#140
#140
vols4sure said:
Would you call the Baylor coverup systematic through the Athletic department?

How about PSU?

Assuming your answers are yes to PSU and no to Baylor, then that is your difference and it is a big difference when discussing lack of institutional control.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the AA bylaws
 
#141
#141
bamawriter said:
PSU was only slightly more systemic than Baylor. Instead of 1 person, it was 4. That's hardly the entire athletic staff working to cover up a crime.

As far as LOI, like I said earlier, you can't have LOI without another violation.
Click to expand...

Really? The difference between one person and four is big when trying to cover something up.
 
#147
#147
For some schools they need to pay players or have boosters provide benefits for them to get the right type of recruit to maintain their edge. Others rely on the success of their coach to draw them in. For PSU, they relied on their image of integrity and being above the temptations of college football. To maintain that they instilled a culture across the valley that the football program was above reproach and anyone who saw or reported anything bad about the football program would be labeled as disloyal. That culture eventually led to wholesale cover ups of crimes committed by football players and, we know now, coaches. That culture that puts a sport above the lives of children, that said a football coach was greater than the law of the land and that encouraged everyone to play along is what must be destroyed.

The legal system will deal with those who committed the crimes, but only two institutions have the power to do away with that culture of cover up--Penn State itself and the NCAA. Given that PSU lives the culture, it is highly unlikely they will be able to reshape themselves. Consequently, that leaves on the NCAA with the power to make this come out right in the end.
 
#148
#148
YorkVol said:
For some schools they need to pay players or have boosters provide benefits for them to get the right type of recruit to maintain their edge. Others rely on the success of their coach to draw them in. For PSU, they relied on their image of integrity and being above the temptations of college football. To maintain that they instilled a culture across the valley that the football program was above reproach and anyone who saw or reported anything bad about the football program would be labeled as disloyal. That culture eventually led to wholesale cover ups of crimes committed by football players and, we know now, coaches. That culture that puts a sport above the lives of children, that said a football coach was greater than the law of the land and that encouraged everyone to play along is what must be destroyed.

The legal system will deal with those who committed the crimes, but only two institutions have the power to do away with that culture of cover up--Penn State itself and the NCAA. Given that PSU lives the culture, it is highly unlikely they will be able to reshape themselves. Consequently, that leaves on the NCAA with the power to make this come out right in the end.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying and agree with its intent, but the bottom line is that the NCAA has no authority here to do anything. You show me a rule or bylaw of the NCAA that covers anything in this case that is currently in writing, then I can agree with you. The fact is, the AA doesnt have anything that covers this and IMO, has no grounds to either investigate or to punish. JMO
 
#149
#149
YorkVol said:
The legal system will deal with those who committed the crimes, but only two institutions have the power to do away with that culture of cover up--Penn State itself and the NCAA.
Click to expand...

You're half right. PSU has the power to do something, as do various accreditation agencies and the DOE. I would the think the State of Pennsylvania could do some damage, as well.

As stated before, the NCAA isn't really the proper source of discipline in this matter.
 
#150
#150
YorkVol said:
For some schools they need to pay players or have boosters provide benefits for them to get the right type of recruit to maintain their edge. Others rely on the success of their coach to draw them in. For PSU, they relied on their image of integrity and being above the temptations of college football. To maintain that they instilled a culture across the valley that the football program was above reproach and anyone who saw or reported anything bad about the football program would be labeled as disloyal. That culture eventually led to wholesale cover ups of crimes committed by football players and, we know now, coaches. That culture that puts a sport above the lives of children, that said a football coach was greater than the law of the land and that encouraged everyone to play along is what must be destroyed.

The legal system will deal with those who committed the crimes, but only two institutions have the power to do away with that culture of cover up--Penn State itself and the NCAA. Given that PSU lives the culture, it is highly unlikely they will be able to reshape themselves. Consequently, that leaves on the NCAA with the power to make this come out right in the end.
Click to expand...
I think it says we need to reevaluate how we view institutions like football programs, but isn't it possible, or even probable that football programs enrich the lives of some people and can be a force for good and positive change?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top