So what does the future hold for PSU?

[Van]

Football coaches and administrators conspiring to withhold violations in order to protect the football program surely does provide Penn St with a competitive advantage on the football field.

Yet you believe that KNOWINGLY allowing sports agents access to your players and turning a blind eye while said agents are lining the player's pockets, and not at least taking a casual peek when a player shows up in a new decked-out ride doesn't provide a competitive advantage in recruiting ("No, we won't look into your finances, even when things are fishy, don't worry about it, just keep hanging out with those agents")?

Not sure what world you live in, but as part of the NCAA's sanctions USC was never found guilty of having done any such thing, and in fact the agent was looking to steal one of USC's players, not entice him to come to USC or remain at USC. You know, as in the kinds of things that might provide USC with a competitive advantage. Again not knowing what world you live in, but in most sane peoples' eyes the prospect of losing a Reggie Bush would be rightly construed as a major competitive disadvantage, one which USC would surely want no part of. Reggie may have enjoyed the idea, but USC surely didn't.

Maybe you might want to take another run at this when you have more in your pocket than basic hubris.

[Van]

LOIC.

Thus illustrating by analogy why the SCOTUS has to look at the jurisprudence as well as the letter of the Constitution.

There may be a violation of NCAA rules, but I have yet to see it. And again, I don't know the rules, so perhaps someone who does know them can point it out to me. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Using your SCOTUS example as the template, they tend to work off of SCOTUS ruling precedents, do they not?

Well, the NCAA established the absolute power of LOIC ambiguity in the very recent USC case, setting a precedent they could surely refer to again in bringing charges against the Penn St coaching staff and administration. If LOIC can be used against USC despite the NCAA's admission that no coaches or administrators were involved in facillitating or hiding anything that occured between Reggie, his in-laws and that rogue agent, then surely it can be applied to the Nth degree against Penn St, whose coaches and administration committed the actual violation. They are the 'institution' referred to in 'Lack of Institutional Control,' and there can be no argument that they as an institution demonstrated the most incredible lack of control the NCAA has ever witnessed.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Because in Penn St's case they have the easy fallback you're arguing, which is that the justice system can mete out all the punishment needed.

But you've stated multiples times how PSU has *CLEARLY* committed major violations -- so considering that, why wouldn't the NCAA crack down on them? If these violations are as clear-cut and blatant as you claim, then no, they wouldn't have an easy fallback.

They have the option of simply pussing out and doing nothing, same as the Penn St coaches and administrators did, and they'll likely prove to be just as loathsome by again choosing the path of least resistance.

Why didn't they choose that same path with USC then? Especially since USC really didn't even do anything wrong, according to you? Your logic still makes no sense.

How could it not be? LOIC can be applied as arbitrarily as they wish. The NCAA has proven that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt. They do NOT require a specific set of guidelines already be in effect before those guidelines are deemed broken. No, they can convene and interpret their findings any way they want and then act accordingly. They are free to set their own precedents each and every time, changing them on a whim.

I guessed this to be the case at one point too. From what I've read and heard, I don't believe that's how the NCAA operates at all. I heard a radio interview last week with a former member of the NCAA's infractions department, and he said he didn't believe the NCAA would take action because PSU didn't break major violations IN ACCORDANCE TO HOW THE NCAA DEFINES THEM, and that they most certainly would not redefine their jurisdiction and/or set new precedents for matters that stemmed from criminal action.

Bullshit. I provided the precise infraction Penn St committed on a rampant scale: LOIC. Now it's your turn. Tell me how Penn St is not guilty of LOIC.

LOIC is a general tag for a collection of specific major violations exclusively related to "fair play" matters. I'm asking you to link those specific violations. You act like these guys convene over a cup of coffee and go, "Okay, so what are we gonna hit these guys with? LOIC? Everyone good with that? Cool, let's hit the links." No, they've got a book thicker than War & Peac full of chapters, points, sub points, sub sub points, etc., that get down to the nitty gritty.

Simply saying that they committed LOIC, from your point of view, is completely useless. Put up or shut up.

[Van]

Because in Penn St's case they have the easy fallback you're arguing, which is that the justice system can mete out all the punishment needed.

But you've stated multiples times how PSU has *CLEARLY* committed major violations -- so considering that, why wouldn't the NCAA crack down on them?

For the same reason the Penn St coaches and administrators did nothing despite knowing they were harboring a child predator: because they can. Given the choice between taking action or passing the buck, it's easier to pass the buck.

If these violations are as clear-cut and blatant as you claim, then no, they wouldn't have an easy fallback.

Sure they would/will, because of people like you who think that letting the judicial system punish the individuals involved is sufficient, as if the football program and its overinflated importance to the Penn St administration wasn't the key factor in why any of this was allowed to happen.

They have the option of simply pussing out and doing nothing, same as the Penn St coaches and administrators did, and they'll likely prove to be just as loathsome by again choosing the path of least resistance.

Why didn't they choose that same path with USC then? Especially since USC really didn't even do anything wrong, according to you? Your logic still makes no sense.

Because they didn't have the judicial system punishments and the death of the main protagonist to fall back on.

Please try to follow along, Mgo. These obvious distinctions are not difficult to discern.

How could it not be? LOIC can be applied as arbitrarily as they wish. The NCAA has proven that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt. They do NOT require a specific set of guidelines already be in effect before those guidelines are deemed broken. No, they can convene and interpret their findings any way they want and then act accordingly. They are free to set their own precedents each and every time, changing them on a whim.

I guessed this to be the case at one point too. From what I've read and heard, I don't believe that's how the NCAA operates at all. I heard a radio interview last week with a former member of the NCAA's compliance department, and he said he didn't believe the NCAA would take action because PSU didn't break major violations IN ACCORDANCE TO HOW THE NCAA DEFINES THEM, and that they most certainly would not redefine their jurisdiction and/or set new precedents for matters that stemmed from criminal action.

The NCAA hasn't a clue from one day to the next as to how they define and enforce their own rules. They are all over the map, and no one can dispute this. All it takes is for one key member to be replaced by another and the whole agenda can change. Hell, all it may take is for one member to wake up on the wrong side of the bed and their whole agenda can change.

Hammering USC the way they did while letting OSU off with nothing but a slap on the wrist despite having committed far worse transgressions is proof of this, and their treatment of Cal Tech only offers further proof.

LOIC is a general tag for a collection of specific major violations exclusively related to "fair play" matters.

Link?

That may be your interpretion of LOIC, but that definition sure isn't written in NCAA stone.

I'm asking you to link those specific violations.

I already did: LOIC, which THEY define however they wish, subject to NO oversight. 'LOIC' does not have a set definition. They apply it as needed, however and whenever they wish.

You act like these guys convene over a cup of coffee and go, "Okay, so what are we gonna hit these guys with? LOIC? Everyone good with that? Cool, let's hit the links."

They easily could do exactly that, yes. No one could stop them, and they would be entirely correct to do so.

That's why they won't do it. They're the NCAA.

No, they've got a book thicker than War & Peac full of chapters, points, sub points, sub sub points, etc., that get down to the nitty gritty.

Not where LOIC is concerned, they don't. They hit USC with LOIC based on no specific set of violations committed by USC. They spoke of vague "culture" issues, and little of substance beyond the Reggie Bush incident. They then completely ignored whatever criteria they used in the USC decision when they were presented with Jim Tressel's actions amid the whole OSU scandal. Again, you had the head coach committing the main violation there, and still the NCAA somehow found it within their infinite wisdom not to construe what he did as a LOIC.

There is no rhyme or reason as to how they apply that particular dictum. It's their wild card, their blank piece in a Scrabble game that they can pull out or withhold as needed.

Simply saying that they committed LOIC, from your point of view, is completely useless. Put up or shut up.

I already have. In spades. It's your turn to tell me how an institution (coaches and the highest members of the university's administration) that behaved wildly out of control was not guilty of a lack of institutional control.

[Van]

Hell, let's just get to it then...

PRINCIPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
AS PREPARED BY THE NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS

http://compliance.pac-12.org/thetools/instctl.pdf

There it is, such as it is. Looking it over, well...

In a situation in which adequate institutional procedures exist, at least on paper, a practical, common-sense approach is appropriate in determining whether they are adequately monitored and enforced by a person in "control." Obviously, general institutional control is exercised by the chief executive officer of a member institution. However, it is rare that the chief executive officer will make decisions specifically affecting the operations of the institution's athletics program.

The "common sense" to which they refer? Clearly Penn St had institutional procedures in place forbidding what went on there, including the cover-up. Even better, in their case the chief executive office was in on the decision to go with the cover-up, as was the head football coach.

LOIC.

ACTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.

1. A person with compliance responsibilities fails to establish a proper system for
compliance or fails to monitor the operations of a compliance system
appropriately.

Penn St is absolutely guilty of this. All their compliance monitoring was cast aside in lieu of maintaining the cover-up.

LOIC.

2. A person with compliance responsibilities does not take steps to alter the
system of compliance when there are indications the system is not working.

If a system of control is in place, a single deviation by a member of the athletics staff or a representative of the institution's athletics interests will not be considered a lack of institutional control. However, if there are a number of violations, even if they all are minor, indicating that the compliance system is not operating effectively, the person(s) responsible cannot ignore the situation, but must take steps to correct the compliance system.

Certainly more than one compliance-responsible person was aware of what was going on, and just as certainly none of them took steps to correct the situation. In fact, they made a conscious decision to do exactly the opposite: they decided to remain silent and let the violations continue.

LOIC.

5. The institution fails to make clear, by its words and its actions, that those
personnel who willfully violate NCAA rules, or who are grossly negligent in
applying those rules, will be disciplined and made subject to discharge.

Any operating compliance system may be thwarted by an individual who acts secretly in violation of the rules or who fails to ascertain whether a questionable action is or is not permissible. If an institution does not make clear that individual violations of NCAA rules will result in disciplinary action against the involved individual, and if it does not actually discipline those who are found to have violated such rules, it has opened the door to permitting further violations. In such a case, future violations of an individual nature will constitute failures of institutional control.

None of the parties involved with compliance responsibilities were disciplined by the Penn St administration. In fact, Sandusky himself was allowed the continued use of Penn St facilities for a dozen more years while the main compliance officers went about their merry way as head coach of the football team and president of the university.

LOIC.

6. The institution fails to make clear that any individual involved in its
intercollegiate athletics program has a duty to report any perceived violations of
NCAA rules and can do so without fear of reprisals of any kind.

Compliance is everyone's obligation. Loyalty to one's coworkers, student-athletes, or
athletics boosters cannot take precedence over loyalty to the institution and its
commitment to comply with NCAA rules. There is a lack of institutional control if individuals are afraid to report violations because they have reason to fear that if they make such a report there will be negative consequences.

Jesus fuck but are they guilty of this one.

LOIC.

7. A director of athletics or any other individual with compliance responsibilities
fails to investigate or direct an investigation of a possible significant violation of
NCAA rules or fails to report a violation properly.

When a director of athletics or any other individual with compliance responsibilities has
been informed of, or learns that there exists a possible significant violation of NCAA rules, and then fails to ensure that the matter is properly investigated, there is a lack of institutional control. Similarly, if an actual violation of NCAA rules comes to the attention of the director of athletics or a person with compliance responsibilities and there is a failure to report the violation through appropriate institutional channels to a conference to which the institution belongs and to the NCAA, such failure constitutes a lack of institutional control.

Uh...hello? Anybody home? They couldn't be more guilty of this definition of 'LOIC' if they tried.

8. A head coach fails to create and maintain an atmosphere for compliance within
the program the coach supervises or fails to monitor the activities of assistant
coaches regarding compliance.

Bwaaaahahahahahaaaa!

Uhhh, yeah, I'd say Joe Pa was more than just a tad guilty there. My god.

Fuck it, you can read the entire thing for yourself but it's abundantly clear that Penn St more than meets and exceeds any "common sense" (the NCAA's wording, not mine) definition of 'LOIC.'

There is nothing left to debate. Even by the NCAA's broadest definitions, much less their specific ones, the Penn St football program was fairly swimming in a LOIC.

[PSUFAN]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/us/tripon ... index.html

Yeah the way things were run down in little boy valley didnt lead to a competitive edge at all...

It would be hard to make the case that PSU gained a competitive advantage in any of this.

[PSUFAN]

How about shutting the entire fucking school for 5 years? Everything. I'm not kidding, either.

Because that does absolutely nothing to punish the people that need to be punished. Because that says that the PSU community is defined solely by Paterno and by football - an assertion that is patently false. Because ALL of us need to put our focus on the right things in this - to counter abuse, and to dissuade the Cult of Personality - not on convenient targets.

You want to dissuade the cult of personality? Then stop playing games in front of 100,000 people. For fucks sake man, big time college sports is ALL ABOUT the cult of personality. It is nothing less than church for Saturday afternoon backsliders and heathens. The pro game is the same way, but at least they're not corrupting what is supposed to be an institution of higher learning in the process.

You clearly misunderstand my reference. I refer to CoP as it relates to Paterno, not the football program in general. CoP doesn't mean that your games are well attended in big stadiums.

[Van]

Gaining a competitive edge on the football field is not a listed requirement of LOIC, according to the NCAA's own meandering document. Nonetheless, the cover-up did provide them with a competitive edge because the voluntary releasing of the scandal info would've resulted in the loss of a coach or two, possibly including Joe Pa himself, and definitely a recruit here and there who would've been swayed away from PSU by the staunch negative recruiting tactics of rival recruiters.

Admittedly, the damage likely would have been minimal, which is why it's so fucking unfathomable that they felt the need to engage in the cover-up in the first place. And hell, losing Joe Pa would've only helped your football program since the guy overstayed his effective expiration date by at least a decade. I'm sure he helped in terms of fundraising and all that just by still being there, but purely on the football field you would've been better off without him.

He very likely would've retained his job anyway had the scandal been handled properly, so none of what they did makes any sense.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I don't know if the problem at Penn State wasn't LOIC so much as too much institutional control in the hands of one person: Paterno.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Also, Juice was a convicted wife beater. So he didn't have as far to fall.

Plus, OJ wasn't really known for anything more than just a really good football player. Perhaps he was considered a classy guy and generally liked and respected.

OJ was able to parlay a general "nice guy" image into a somewhat successful post-football career as a TV pitchman for Hertz Rent-a-Car (you might be a little young to remember him running through airports in the 80's), a supporting role in The Naked Gun movie series, and periodic stints as a commentator for the NFL. Prior to the killings, he actually made the transition from jock to ex-jock much more easily and painlessly than many other athletes did.

Paterno, on the other hand, beyond the coaching icon, was supposed to be this great pillar of integrity. He did things the "right way." "Success with Honor" I believe was his program's motto. This shit is why I'm a skeptic of basically...everything.

What I've been thinking a lot about in the aftermath of the Freeh Report, when it comes to JoePa, was Orwell's 1984 and the character of Julia in particular. At one point, she says something to the effect of, "Obey the little rules and you can get away with breaking the big rules." That's JoePa in a nutshell.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The case for the death penalty by Slate.

I'm not convinced. The wrongdoing was limited to a few people, albeit high ranking ones. PSU has more punishment ahead -- how much money do you think the child victims are going to get -- but the death penalty would hurt too many who were not a part of the criminal acts and had no idea of the wrongdoing.

How about a year or two ban, as opposed to anything permanent?

Isn't that what the death penalty is? SMU's program did not get shut down permanently (although an argument could be made that it was hurt almost irreparably).

I'd be inclined to give Penn State the death penalty. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that Penn State, unlike SMU, received no advance warning.

[R-Jack]

He very likely would've retained his job anyway had the scandal been handled properly, so none of what they did makes any sense.

I don't think so. If things were handled with any amount of decency in 2001, then the cover ups of 1998 would be brought out. You have to remember in 2001, Penn St was not a winning team. It would've been easy to say the old man has lost it and been let go.

JoPa knew this scandal was a career ender. Why do you think he initiated the conversation of his retirement package right after he spoke to the grand jury last year? Paterno and TPTB collectively made decisions based on money and legacy instead of the safety of children. They effectively harbored a pedophile and sanctioned his rapes through non-action because they wanted to avoid the loss of revenue that this scandal would cause. As far as I'm concerned, the little boys shit is on all their dicks.

BTW........does anyone really believe that nothing happened on campus before 1998 or Paterno didn't know he was a rampant pedophile after 40 of working together?

Fuck LOIC or "gaining a competitive advantage". This is a program that generated a shitload of revenue over the years of this cover up. This football program is at the level it's at because they swept child rape in their own facilities under the fucking rug. Nobody in Happy Valley obviously wants to understand that. The fact that (for now) more money has been spent guarding the statue of that dick-nosed scumbag than has gone to any of Sandusky's victims tells you about the priorities there. The fact that the BOT have decided to leave the statue up hoping that "time heals all wound"............I'm not sure if that speaks to the sickest form of myopia or a weird strain of Stockholm Syndrome.

Sticking your head in the sand and saying everyone involved is dead and gone is garbage. It's only an excuse for people there to hold onto something they hold dear. The foundation for that thing they hold dear was based on the most disgusting series of lies, deceit and endangerment. Those lies, deceit and endangerment were all in the name of revenue, success and prestige. That revenue, success and prestige are the things are the reasons why people hold the program so dear.

You are probably expecting me to say to shut the program down or give them the death penalty. Nah. All I want is the all money from the impending civil suits to come from the football program. Let's see how many boosters line up to donate when they know the money is going to the sins of the last generation? What's the mood in Bottoms Up Valley going to be when their facilities fall into disrepair because every dime is allocated to the lives ruined by Sandusky, JoePa and the POB? How vociferously will the fans cheer when their success means they can pay off child rape? How effective will recruiting be when coaches sit in a family's living room and have to tell that kid's parents how much they want their son to come to Penn State and help them pay for those little boys butts?

There is no need to sanction the program. If they do the right thing, the program will die on its own. The buildings will crumble over time and the only thing left standing will be a statue of Joe fucking Paterno.

[Van]

R-Jack, you're still allowing for a cover-up in the initial years. I'm saying that had it had been handled correctly right from the start, in '98, then no one other than Sandusky suffers any fallout. After having covered it up for a few years though, sure, that's a different story.

Terry, call it a Death Penalty or call it a two-year suspension of the program, I don't care, but whatever you call it Penn St has certainly earned it. They flaunted LOIC like nobody's business and because of that they continued to rake in football monies for another fourteen years while kids were being systemically raped.

[Goober McTuber]

kids were being systemically raped.

Is that really the word you are looking for?

[Van]

Yes. I even italicized it for effect.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Terry, call it a Death Penalty or call it a two-year suspension of the program, I don't care, but whatever you call it Penn St has certainly earned it. They flaunted LOIC like nobody's business and because of that they continued to rake in football monies for another fourteen years while kids were being systemically raped.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the fly in the ointment could be TV revenues. ND and Penn State are the two biggest draws in the northeast. That may give Penn State enough leverage to avoid the death penalty.

Btw, I'm also hearing the B1G is considering expelling Penn State over this.

I'm also hearing that Sandusky victims from the 70's and 80's are starting to come forward. I don't know what took them so long. Perhaps those cases couldn't be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired, so prosecutors weren't interested.

[Screw_Michigan]

Btw, I'm also hearing the B1G is considering expelling Penn State over this.

Yeah, right.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Btw, I'm also hearing the B1G is considering expelling Penn State over this.

Yeah, right.

If Delany did the right thing, that would surprise me too.

Of course, he's probably waiting for advisement from his bosses at tOSU and Michigan. I'm guessing he doesn't use the bathroom unless they okay it first.

[Goober McTuber]

Btw, I'm also hearing the B1G is considering expelling Penn State over this.

Be honest, Terry. The only place you "heard" that was on some random message board or from some third-rate blogger.

[M2]

From what I've read and heard, I don't believe that's how the NCAA operates at all. I heard a radio interview last week with a former member of the NCAA's infractions department, and he said he didn't believe the NCAA would take action because PSU didn't break major violations IN ACCORDANCE TO HOW THE NCAA DEFINES THEM, and that they most certainly would not redefine their jurisdiction and/or set new precedents for matters that stemmed from criminal action.

Hmmmmm....


Looks like radio guy (former member of the NCAA infractions department) doesn't know his ass from a hole in the wall.



NCAA President Mark Emmert put Penn State President Rodney Erickson on notice in November 2011 that the NCAA was investigating a charge of Penn State's lack of institutional control with regard to the charges brought against Jerry Sandusky.


LINK

[Terry in Crapchester]

Btw, I'm also hearing the B1G is considering expelling Penn State over this.

Be honest, Terry. The only place you "heard" that was on some random message board or from some third-rate blogger.

It's amazing how often those sources are more accurate than ESPN. Sayin'.

[Goober McTuber]

Btw, I'm also hearing the B1G is considering expelling Penn State over this.

Be honest, Terry. The only place you "heard" that was on some random message board or from some third-rate blogger.

It's amazing how often those sources are more accurate than ESPN. Sayin'.

Get back to us when you hear something from someone credible. You know, like a Big 10 suit.

You wouldn't believe what I'm hearing about naive white guys who marry overbearing black women.

[Dinsdale]

Active members agree to maintain high standards of personal honor, eligibility and fair play

Kind of a catch-all one, there.

[Screw_Michigan]

So, Mr. Rush to the Buffet Stand, what could POSSIBLY be deeper and darker than kiddy diddling to the point where Sandusky would be able to get over on Paterno? Please cite specific examples, too. Take your time.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Jaysus, Van. So much to respond to. I'm just going summarize my main points and leave it at that.

1. Yes, if the NCAA went after USC, one would have to reasonably conclude they would be willing to go after PSU. The NCAA does not need "fall-backs" to avoid doling out punishment. According to you, they already do things (or don't do things) simply because they can, and taking your path-of-lease-resistance claim to its fullest extent, they could have easily just ignored what happened at USC, in favor of continuing to go after the littlest fish in the pond, like Cal Tech. It's not that I can't follow your "distinctions," it's that I don't believe they have any basis in fact.

2. Yes, LOIC is a general punishment tag that the NCAA applies, which usually consists of multiple "major violations" as cited by specific bylaws. Your C&P of LOIC and the letter M2 posted proves just that. Granted, some of the language within those bylaws can be hazy, but it's not as if they have no set of scripted laws that they operate by and with no rhyme or reason, which seems to be your take. I can assure you they applied specific laws when examining USC's punishment. Don't assume they haven't just because they haven't been presented to the media.

3. At this point, I don't think the NCAA is going to bring sanctions to PSU, but I'm certainly not ruling it out. There just hasn't been any precedent set for anything like this. The NCAA's business in regards to ethics and compliance has always been about blatant "fair play" matters (academics, recruiting, play for pay, etc). A cover up stemming exclusively from criminal activity has never been something the NCAA has addressed, so I question why it would be now. And while it's true the cover up sought to keep things running as they were, it didn't intend to gain a competitive advantage over other other programs. I've heard the argument that they somehow acquired a competitive edge by simply trying to maintain their status quo, but logically, that doesn't make sense to me. However, I certainly admit to the possibility the NCAA could go outside of their normal realm of operating and bring sanctions to PSU due to the severity of what took place.

4. From a personal standpoint, I hope the institution doesn't receive the Death Penalty. I'm not a big fan of widespread institutional punishment as it is, especially not when everybody knowingly involved has since been terminated...or dead...or in prison. Punishing innocents to "send a message" has never made any sense to me, and I don't believe it's an effective deterrent in any event, for reasons I have already laid out multiple times. Besides, PSU, already has, and will continue to face, quite a bit of punishment from this, including millions in civil lawsuits. I think it was James Carville who recently said that lives have been ruined. The answer is not to ruin more lives. Essentially I agree.

[M Club]

So, Mr. Rush to the Buffet Stand, what could POSSIBLY be deeper and darker than kiddy diddling to the point where Sandusky would be able to get over on Paterno? Please cite specific examples, too. Take your time.

he's from the deep south, where no one bothers going to the dentist because a bunch of happy teeth living together in a single mouth is some sort of pinko conspiracy. tubby and occam do not play cards together.

[Van]

Jsc, since you seem to have missed it or are just plain ignoring the very thing you requested, I provided a link to the NCAA's multitude of rules and definitions concerning LOIC...

http://compliance.pac-12.org/thetools/instctl.pdf

From that same link I also cut and pasted the crystal clear provisions enabling them to punish Penn St. The NCAA has a clear path to hit Penn St with LOIC regarding at least a half-dozen irrefutable major violations.

[Van]

Shit, 'Spray, you know good and well there are parents all over the state of Alabama who would gladly send their chilluns off to be bludgeon-fucked at the fifty-yard line by Nick Saban if it meant that'd earn them a spot on the Crimson Tide roster.

[PSUFAN]

Punishing innocents to "send a message" has never made any sense to me

The reasons for it are perfectly clear to me. People want to feel good about themselves and act like they're doing something - so they go after what's easy for them to accomplish, specifically, punishing innocents.

The more difficult thing happens to be the right thing - namely, taking an active role to counter abuse and support victims and services. It's far easier to call for a football punishment than to do the right thing, so there you have it.

Also, fans of programs that habitually break NCAA rules are rubbing their hands here because it takes the focus and scrutiny off of their violations...makes them seem inconsequential by comparison.

Unsurprisingly, the Sandusky Affair is cause for people to feed their basest instincts.

[PSUFAN]

I'd be inclined to give Penn State the death penalty

'

Terry, are you also in favor of shutting down Catholic Churches in the wake of that abuse scandal? If not, then why not?

[Van]

PSUFan, that's a steaming load of sanctimonious horseshit, and you know it. Or at least you would, if someone else were to spew it regarding their own program's situation.

First off, no innocents need be punished. If the NCAA were to impose a Death Penalty-type sanction on the PSU football program, every single player would be released of his obligation to Penn St and would be given eligibility amnesty to transfer to another school. All scholarships would be honored. It's not as if the current crop of players would be hung out to dry.

Secondly, don't act like this is an either/or deal. Penn St can be punished as they rightly deserve and there would be nothing preventing them or anyone else from still choosing to take an active role in countering abuse and supporting victims and services. They don't need a football program to do that.

Lastly, no one in their right mind feels their school's violations "seem" inconsequential in comparison to what went down at Penn St. They absolutely are inconsequential in comparison to what went down at Penn St. The entire sum of violations ever brought to the attention of the NCAA are inconsequential in comparison to what went down at Penn St.

Maybe you ought to quit trying to rationalize much of the nation's reaction to what your university's administration did as a shadenfreude-based assemblage of pitchfork-wielding townsfolk who are just looking to burn someone at the stake out of sheer spite. Utter nonsense. Because it was the face of the university as well as all its key administrators who took part in perpetrating the cover up, Penn St earned every bit of condemnation they're receiving right now. They prioritized their football program over the prevention of child rape. For that, no punishment the NCAA could levy against them would be too harsh.

[Van]

I'd be inclined to give Penn State the death penalty

'
Terry, are you also in favor of shutting down Catholic Churches in the wake of that abuse scandal? If not, then why not?

Excellent point, and if it could ever be proven that the pope was actively sheltering known pedarasts among his clergy then yes, the Catholic Church ought to be disbanded...however such a thing might be accomplished. How does one go about shutting down a worldwide religion, and what would be the organization in charge of doing it?

[M Club]

At least we don't have coaches down here fucking kids like you yankees do. :wink:

Must not count down there as long as it's your niece or nephew.

[Screw_Michigan]

The reasons for it are perfectly clear to me. People want to feel good about themselves and act like they're doing something - so they go after what's easy for them to accomplish, specifically, punishing innocents.

Oh please. When you are allowed to collect a bare minimum of $7 million 10 Saturdays per fall, any other punishment just doesn't have the same impact.

Why is it so hard for you to understand you go after the money because the money enabled a criminal conspiracy over a period of 14 years...and likely longer?

[PSUFAN]

I'd be inclined to give Penn State the death penalty

'
Terry, are you also in favor of shutting down Catholic Churches in the wake of that abuse scandal? If not, then why not?

Excellent point, and if it could ever be proven that the pope was actively sheltering known pedarasts among his clergy then yes, the Catholic Church ought to be disbanded...however such a thing might be accomplished. How does one go about shutting down a worldwide religion, and what would be the organization in charge of doing it?

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt numerous times in our courts of law that the Catholic Church organization sheltered, protected, and hid abusers.

Similar proof is assembling (Sandusky's crimes are proven in a court and he has been convicted, and possibly, hopefully, the same will be true of his enablers) that the Penn State organization sheltered, protected, and hid abusers in virtually the same manner.

BOTH situations are intolerable, for exactly the same reasons. There is no functional distinction to make between the two situations. Tell me, please, who should be punished, and why? Should punishment and atonement fall to the Catholic public and to the Penn State public? How, exactly, are they complicit?

Terry, let's hear how you could argue to shut PSU football down and then NOT argue for Catholic Churches to be closed with exactly the same vehemence. Let's hope that your argument against shutting Catholic Churches is not that it would be more difficult, as Van is arguing. Is it somehow more honorable to exempt an organization from scrutiny and righteous indignation...because it would be harder to go after them? I'll have to hear why, in detail.

[PSUFAN]

The reasons for it are perfectly clear to me. People want to feel good about themselves and act like they're doing something - so they go after what's easy for them to accomplish, specifically, punishing innocents.

Oh please. When you are allowed to collect a bare minimum of $7 million 10 Saturdays per fall, any other punishment just doesn't have the same impact.

Why is it so hard for you to understand you go after the money because the money enabled a criminal conspiracy over a period of 14 years...and likely longer?

Who goes after what money?

Please understand that PSU (admin, legal counsel, and Board of Trustees), the Paterno Family Estate, and probably others like the Second Mile will be dragged into courts by litigants seeking civil monetary damages for years to come.

I'm not sure how anyone can somehow conclude that there will not be a great multitude of punishment being sought against the enablers of Sandusky's crimes.

Meanwhile, the PSU community has engaged in record-breaking fundraising, and funds are going to support advocacy groups and services. PSU has just had their second best fundraising fiscal year ever. The University donated $1.5 million in bowl revenue to support advocacy and services. There are numerous efforts afloat to direct football-gained funds and funds raised by the community permanently towards such support. Only the most ill-informed onlooker could possibly conclude that the scandal has not elicited an unprecedented, tremendous reaction of grief, remorse, and then determination to counter abuse.

You guys want to kill this off? If you're still focused solely on shutting football down - tell me, exactly how will PSU and the community generate funds for the tidal wave of civil judgments that are on the way?

Though it may pain you, though it doesn't suit your momentary righteous impetus, though it does nothing to ameliorate the perception of your own team's propensity for violation, it's time to take a minute and truly think this through.

[Left Seater]

My 2 cents on this even though none of you asked. I have held off while my thoughts evolved.

1) It is a dam shame that JoPa isn't here to face the music and give his side of things.

2) Reading the Fhree report, it is pretty apparent that the athletic department actively covered up as much of this as they could.

3) Many are arguing that the NCAA governs competitive advantage and this isn't a competitive advantage issue. Totally disagree. The athletic department had hundreds of reasons to keep this quiet including recruiting which is a competitive advantage.

4) If other programs have faced discipline for the cover up PSU'S should also.

5) PSU's penalty should be proportionate to other athletic department penalties regarding cover ups.

6) PSU fan, leave the catholic church child rape out of this discussion. The rape should be and will be handled in the court system. More PSU administration should face a Grand Jury. Granted both were guilty of child rape, but churches don't have a governing body like the NCAA. If they did then we could talk and compare. Further as a State institution PSU has limited liability when it comes to civil judgements. The second mile doesn't and neither do individuals, but second mile can close and individuals can claim homestead and bankruptcy.

7) Most of the time innocent athletes are punished for the action of others, mostly adults. Same here, so we should toss PSU Fan's claim of this just hurts innocent players. True, but if we entertain this arguement there will be no NCAA enforcement.

PSU should start doing things to help their image and handing out their own punishment is a good start.

9) The NCAA penalties should come quickly.

[PSUFAN]

My question about and specific comparison of the Catholic Church abuse scandal is directed to Terry, and is perfectly valid, in my view. I feel the very same issues attend on both scandals and our perceptions of punishment possibilities. I await his reply, and that of anyone else who is equal to the discussion.

Has the NCAA punished schools for coverups in the past? I suppose I will have to do some research and reading.

But most importantly, Lefty - PSU has done a lot to "improve their image"...you'll have to excuse them if they have focused on supporting victim services and sending advocacy organizations money, but those are after all unquestionably the most direct ways to help. I regard their efforts at this point as well-directed. Any of their focus diverted from this towards handling the football side of this would seem totally inappropriate, in my view. They have much bigger fish to fry.

[Left Seater]

There are many similarities in those child rape cases, but again there isn't a governing body for Churches. Who is the NCAA in the Catholic Church child rape? Without that we are talking sunglasses and lawn chairs.

Plenty of schools have been punished for the cover up and others have faced no punishment for being upfront with the NCAA.

I understand they have done a bunch, but at the same time this has all been done after the fact, once they were caught. Also, I was keeping this in the sports realm and where the NCAA comes into play.

[M Club]

The athletic department had hundreds of reasons to keep this quiet including recruiting which is a competitive advantage.

Never knew JoePed used "we don't rape kids" as part of his recruiting spiel.