HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

PSU Death Penalty?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-22-2012, 12:18 PM
  #26
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,910
vCash: 500
I kinda expect stripping ALL scholarships and those who lose scholarships can transfer without a waiting period. PA. ST. can play....a I-AA schedule but is on playoff probation for 5 years.

The program will get hit because they are too big to be healthy. The students who have nothing to do with it can transfer. PA St. can rebuild the program after a year in I-AA.

Almost like relegation in European soccer.

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:19 PM
  #27
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
Issues Penn State had: not doing full investigations and putting too much power in 1 person.
Issues with the NCAA punishment: not doing a full investigation and putting too much power in 1 person.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:29 PM
  #28
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,254
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
I disagree with all of it. Sandusky had his day in court and it is over. For the NCAA to come in and punish the students,coaches,faculty, and the city for the hanous nature of his crimes is unjust.
You realize the sanction isn't for the acts of Sandusky, it's for the way the coach and school handled it.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:46 PM
  #29
Ozamataz Buckshank
Registered User
 
Ozamataz Buckshank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 3,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
I disagree with all of it. Sandusky had his day in court and it is over. For the NCAA to come in and punish the students,coaches,faculty, and the city for the hanous nature of his crimes is unjust.
It was a systematic coverup of horrible crimes by the most powerful people in the university. Once the football program has become that important to a school, something needs to be done. Football doesn't come before integrity.

Ozamataz Buckshank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:53 PM
  #30
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkmastergeneral View Post
It was a systematic coverup of horrible crimes by the most powerful people in the university. Once the football program has become that important to a school, something needs to be done. Football doesn't come before integrity.
This is based on the premise that the cover-up was done to protect the football program, as opposed to protect the university. The former simply makes no sense--logically, neither does the latter. Settting aside the moral implications of the decisions, anyone who did a cost-benefit analysis of this decision and opted to try to cover up the Sandusky stuff rather than lead the pitchfork parade wasn't very bright. This was bound to come out eventually, and the university put itself in an untenable decision.

That said, I just don't get the narrative about doing this to protect the football program. It was never about that. Sandusky was no longer employed by the university at the time of most of these accusations, and the one significant exception (1998) was investigated by the police.

Maintaining that this was all done in an elaborate attempt to conceal the truth for the sake of the football program is to resort to dated cliches about the cultural (as well as financial) power of football that has no rational basis in fact. The university in general, and the athletic program, had far more to lose than to gain by protecting Sandusky.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:57 PM
  #31
PensPlz
Registered User
 
PensPlz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 2,924
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to PensPlz
I wouldn't care one bit if a school loses their football program because of their corrupt and perverted staff. Maybe they can shift their focus from football to.... academics? /shrug

PensPlz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:05 PM
  #32
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensPlz View Post
I wouldn't care one bit if a school loses their football program because of their corrupt and perverted staff. Maybe they can shift their focus from football to.... academics? /shrug
Another silly, cliched comment. Football and academics are hardly mutually exclusive--and it isn't like academic resources are being channeled to the football program.

Football has done more for the academic and research profile at Penn State than perhaps any other major university institution. Fair questions can be asked about the implications of that reliance, but to suggest that somehow eliminating the football program would lead to automatic improvement in research rankings, etc., seems a bit, well, thin.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:15 PM
  #33
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,984
vCash: 500
This is going to destroy a football program, a collegiate institution, the pocketbooks of all the kids/parents paying tuition, all the other athletic programs associated with PSU including their new D-1 hockey program, and the finances of an entire region of Pennsylvania, State College.

The NCAA definitely has FAR too much power.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:19 PM
  #34
Ozamataz Buckshank
Registered User
 
Ozamataz Buckshank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 3,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
This is going to destroy a football program, a collegiate institution, the pocketbooks of all the kids/parents paying tuition, all the other athletic programs associated with PSU including their new D-1 hockey program, and the finances of an entire region of Pennsylvania, State College.

The NCAA definitely has FAR too much power.
Yea, we should feel horrible for the university that has close to a 2 billion dollar endowment.

Ozamataz Buckshank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:23 PM
  #35
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,910
vCash: 500
Fact is this, PA ST. Broke federal laws. They might not only lose the football program, big money maker, but also federal funding period for a year. (hugs money maker) that 2 billion endowment could be gone in a year.

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:28 PM
  #36
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatCat999 View Post
Fact is this, PA ST. Broke federal laws. They might not only lose the football program, big money maker, but also federal funding period for a year. (hugs money maker) that 2 billion endowment could be gone in a year.
I believe that the "fact" is that a handful of employees of Penn St. broke various state and federal laws.

No one questions that those individuals should be punished to the severest extent allowed under those laws.

The question is what punishment, if any, should be doled out to the non-complicit members of the university and surrounding community.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:29 PM
  #37
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,870
vCash: 500
I don't think the football program is going to be touched. I think what the NCAA is going to do is go after all of those who helped in covering up the atrocities of Jerry Sandusky. I think university officials are going to be fired, everything Joe Pa ever did will be taken off the "official" books, and that the NCAA is going to bring in their own people to run the program at Penn State in exchange for not letting the football program go down the drain. It's going to be a completely different environment there and you can bet that it's going to be one that will be under very close scrutiny.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:32 PM
  #38
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
I don't think the football program is going to be touched. I think what the NCAA is going to do is go after all of those who helped in covering up the atrocities of Jerry Sandusky. I think university officials are going to be fired, everything Joe Pa ever did will be taken off the "official" books, and that the NCAA is going to bring in their own people to run the program at Penn State in exchange for not letting the football program go down the drain. It's going to be a completely different environment there and you can bet that it's going to be one that will be under very close scrutiny.
They have no authority (or manpower) to do that.

They can't fire anyone at Penn St., and they certainly can't hire themselves.

They really only have three options:

1) Do nothing, and allow the criminal process to take care of the offenders.

2) Kill the program--for some amount of time, with long-term effects--though according to the NCAA's own by-laws, this option is reserved for "repeat offenders."

3) Levy a combination of scholarship, postseason, and television-related sanctions.

They won't do the first. They probably won't do the second, despite their chest-thumping. So it is the third be default...and now we wait and see how stiff the penalties are.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:37 PM
  #39
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,254
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
This is going to destroy a football program, a collegiate institution, the pocketbooks of all the kids/parents paying tuition, all the other athletic programs associated with PSU including their new D-1 hockey program, and the finances of an entire region of Pennsylvania, State College.

The NCAA definitely has FAR too much power.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly should the NCAA be allowed to do in this situation in your mind?

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:43 PM
  #40
PensPlz
Registered User
 
PensPlz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 2,924
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to PensPlz
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
Another silly, cliched comment. Football and academics are hardly mutually exclusive--and it isn't like academic resources are being channeled to the football program.

Football has done more for the academic and research profile at Penn State than perhaps any other major university institution. Fair questions can be asked about the implications of that reliance, but to suggest that somehow eliminating the football program would lead to automatic improvement in research rankings, etc., seems a bit, well, thin.
Not suggesting it would be an easy or even realistic change for Penn State, but when your institution of education and parts of the establishment are harboring and covering-up for criminals for the sake of the football program... something -has- to change, and if for nothing else, then to site-precedence so this can be deterred from happening again. When you put all your eggs in one basket, and that basket ends up ****** children... well, you backed the wrong pony. Oh the cliches!

PensPlz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:53 PM
  #41
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Just out of curiosity, what exactly should the NCAA be allowed to do in this situation in your mind?
There is a former NCAA President on record questioning whether the Association has any business at all intervening in matters that are purely criminal and not related to athletic competition. I think that's a reasonable question, particularly given the NCAA's... "mixed"... record on past matters.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:57 PM
  #42
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,254
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
There is a former NCAA President on record questioning whether the Association has any business at all intervening in matters that are purely criminal and not related to athletic competition. I think that's a reasonable question, particularly given the NCAA's... "mixed"... record on past matters.
I think it is fair to say that this is related to athletic competition. The actual acts of Sandusky are not. The subsequent cover up is. Want to talk about a competitive advantage...I think keeping this a secret for over a decade give PSU a competitive advantage.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:58 PM
  #43
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensPlz View Post
Not suggesting it would be an easy or even realistic change for Penn State, but when your institution of education and parts of the establishment are harboring and covering-up for criminals for the sake of the football program... something -has- to change, and if for nothing else, then to site-precedence so this can be deterred from happening again. When you put all your eggs in one basket, and that basket ends up ****** children... well, you backed the wrong pony. Oh the cliches!
Again, this has yet to be proven--or even close to proven.

It is important to keep in mind that the Freeh report is ultimately one man's opinion--informed by deep research, to be sure, and striking in many of its conclusions, but still, one man's work--and that many of its conclusions conflict with those drawn by the AG's office and law enforcement institutions.

For the NCAA to take that report and use it as the basis to issue a penalty, without doing its own investigation, and without letting the existing legal processes run its course, seems questionable at best.

You don't need to defend Sandusky, Paterno, or any one else here to hold concerns about the NCAA's handling of the case.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:06 PM
  #44
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I think it is fair to say that this is related to athletic competition. The actual acts of Sandusky are not. The subsequent cover up is. Want to talk about a competitive advantage...I think keeping this a secret for over a decade give PSU a competitive advantage.
I think that's a stretch, but honestly, this whole thing makes no sense to me--and I'm not even talking about Sandusky's heinous actions.

If all of the officials had acted "properly" in the aftermath of the 1998 case, it is, from Penn State's perspective, a several-week story that raises questions about how Sandusky lived the life he did without being noticed for so long, but which ultimately shifts the focus from the institution to the man himself.

I've yet to see any compelling argument, let alone evidence, of a decision to cover-up the facts of the case in 1998 that motived by institutional and financial concerns. It just makes no sense. There are other, more plausible ways to read the case--that the officials believed law enforcement was handling it, that they did not believe the accusations, et., but it just made no sense to cover up the events at the time to protect the football program.

What came later does "make sense" as a cover-up--they realized the scope of how bad the situation was years earlier, and believed that they could not do anything other than cover-up their previous knowledge. (Thus, Paterno denied knowing about 1998). But at that point, he was a former employee of the university--the "cover-up" was less to protect the institution than the individuals who had known about prior accusations but not acted.

I'm just not buying that preserving the strength (and financial benefits) of the football program was the primary motivation involved for Schultz, Curley, and others, who, it seems to me, were motived by their own need to keep themselves out of jail, or, at minimum, from being fired.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:11 PM
  #45
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
I think that's a stretch, but honestly, this whole thing makes no sense to me--and I'm not even talking about Sandusky's heinous actions.

If all of the officials had acted "properly" in the aftermath of the 1998 case, it is, from Penn State's perspective, a several-week story that raises questions about how Sandusky lived the life he did without being noticed for so long, but which ultimately shifts the focus from the institution to the man himself.

I've yet to see any compelling argument, let alone evidence, of a decision to cover-up the facts of the case in 1998 that motived by institutional and financial concerns. It just makes no sense. There are other, more plausible ways to read the case--that the officials believed law enforcement was handling it, that they did not believe the accusations, et., but it just made no sense to cover up the events at the time to protect the football program.

What came later does "make sense" as a cover-up--they realized the scope of how bad the situation was years earlier, and believed that they could not do anything other than cover-up their previous knowledge. (Thus, Paterno denied knowing about 1998). But at that point, he was a former employee of the university--the "cover-up" was less to protect the institution than the individuals who had known about prior accusations but not acted.

I'm just not buying that preserving the strength (and financial benefits) of the football program was the primary motivation involved for Schultz, Curley, and others, who, it seems to me, were motived by their own need to keep themselves out of jail, or, at minimum, from being fired.
This makes far more sense to me, and brings more emphasis on the point that the NCAA is getting over-involved in a case that is theoretically "out of their jurisdiction."

This is a criminal matter that involves members of the NCAA community but does not directly involve the NCAA organization.

I am a former NCAA member from playing college football. Had I stolen a gatorade from a 7-11 and drank it on the sidelines, would it be an NCAA matter?

I understand that charges are much greater and that the NCAA has a right to be involved in such a high profile case regarding one of their more esteemed programs, but realistically how much power are they allowed to toss around?

If the courts want to sanction the University and its employees for criminal activity, then fine. The NCAA should be not stepping in to this magnitude.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:16 PM
  #46
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,254
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
I think that's a stretch, but honestly, this whole thing makes no sense to me--and I'm not even talking about Sandusky's heinous actions.

If all of the officials had acted "properly" in the aftermath of the 1998 case, it is, from Penn State's perspective, a several-week story that raises questions about how Sandusky lived the life he did without being noticed for so long, but which ultimately shifts the focus from the institution to the man himself.

I've yet to see any compelling argument, let alone evidence, of a decision to cover-up the facts of the case in 1998 that motived by institutional and financial concerns. It just makes no sense. There are other, more plausible ways to read the case--that the officials believed law enforcement was handling it, that they did not believe the accusations, et., but it just made no sense to cover up the events at the time to protect the football program.

What came later does "make sense" as a cover-up--they realized the scope of how bad the situation was years earlier, and believed that they could not do anything other than cover-up their previous knowledge. (Thus, Paterno denied knowing about 1998). But at that point, he was a former employee of the university--the "cover-up" was less to protect the institution than the individuals who had known about prior accusations but not acted.

I'm just not buying that preserving the strength (and financial benefits) of the football program was the primary motivation involved for Schultz, Curley, and others, who, it seems to me, were motived by their own need to keep themselves out of jail, or, at minimum, from being fired.
Interesting take. PSU grad? Seriously though, the reasons behind the cover up are irrelevant. They covered them up. Freeh's report is enough. This is not a court of law. The NCAA (or any other private organization) does not need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If they think the evidence shows something, they can act on it.

I also like at the end of your post how you tslk about Dchultz and Curley and "whoever else" was involved but you don't mention Joe Pa.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:20 PM
  #47
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Interesting take. PSU grad? Seriously though, the reasons behind the cover up are irrelevant. They covered them up. Freeh's report is enough. This is not a court of law. The NCAA (or any other private organization) does not need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If they think the evidence shows something, they can act on it.
It's not whether or not the NCAA has the ability to come up with their own conclusions about the guilt of various parties, it is whether or not the NCAA has the right to get involved to such an extent when they are in fact not a court of law.

No NCAA regulations were violated from my limited understanding of this case, nor was the University's athletic programs getting an unfair advantage.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:24 PM
  #48
JVR21
G
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 7,855
vCash: 500
Not a fan of the death penalty. Why punish the hundreds of thousands of penn state students, alumni, and faculty who were not involved? Why punish the innocent student athletes who have worked all their lived to become PSU football players? Why not simply punish the few enablers?


Last edited by JVR21: 07-22-2012 at 03:25 PM.
JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:29 PM
  #49
4thline4life
The Mased God
 
4thline4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: n philly
Posts: 2,209
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
It's not whether or not the NCAA has the ability to come up with their own conclusions about the guilt of various parties, it is whether or not the NCAA has the right to get involved to such an extent when they are in fact not a court of law.

No NCAA regulations were violated from my limited understanding of this case, nor was the University's athletic programs getting an unfair advantage.
Thank you. No regulations were violated, the ncaa should have no power to do anything in this case. It had nothing to do with the spirit of competition. The guilty parties should be held accountable through a court as they are criminal charges. This isn't an ncaa issue, and them making it one is them just wanting to be in the spotlight, nothing more.

4thline4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:29 PM
  #50
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Interesting take. PSU grad? Seriously though, the reasons behind the cover up are irrelevant. They covered them up. Freeh's report is enough. This is not a court of law. The NCAA (or any other private organization) does not need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If they think the evidence shows something, they can act on it.

I also like at the end of your post how you tslk about Dchultz and Curley and "whoever else" was involved but you don't mention Joe Pa.
I'm not a PSU grad--a long-time PA resident, but I went out of state for my education.

I included Paterno in my analysis of the events themselves, but excluded him from the end simply because, unlike Curley or Schultz (but like Spanier), Paterno was cleared of any legal wrong-doing.

Counter-factual: What if the Freeh report (or a similar document) had cleared everyone of everything? Would that be justification for inaction? It isn't a court of law--but given the option of deferring to the courts, why not?

It just seems a bit more prudent to me for the NCAA to perhaps wait and see how things play out with Schultz and Curley's trials--which should more definitively address who knew what, when. They always have the option of coming back and imposing penalties after all of the facts are established in a proper manner.

You're spot on on the legal analysis, of course--though the NCAA couldn't normally act in violation of its own by-laws, it would seem that the general grant of authority given in this case would insulate the Association from any litigation (which would be a massive PR problem for Penn St. anyway).

The issue here is precedent--that the NCAA has not, in the past, generally concerned itself with "purely" criminal matters, even when they involve athletic departments. There are some exceptions--but even they are generally mixed or over-lapping issues--Baylor obscuring a murder investigation, revealing widespread drug-use and under-the-table payments to men's basketball, yielded a ban on out-of-conference games and a lengthy probation, etc. By most accounts, if that 2003 investigation had not turned up "traditional" violations, the NCAA would not have acted against the institution, even though the head basketball coach interfered with a murder investigation.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.