Penn State is ******. I don't see the president of the NCAA saying that if he expected PSU to get a slap on the wrist.
Penn State University - The Freeh Report
- Thread starter CLONECONES
- Start date
The problem is the NCAA can't make up a rule in order to penalize PSU no matter how much it makes sense too. If it's not on the books it may be difficult and certainly subject to a trip to court.
Edited with the understanding that the NCAA seems to do whatever they want and may be protected somehow...I'm not a lawyer.
Edited with the understanding that the NCAA seems to do whatever they want and may be protected somehow...I'm not a lawyer.
The problem is the NCAA can't make up a rule in order to penalize PSU no matter how much it makes sense too. If it's not on the books it may be difficult and certainly subject to a trip to court.
Edited with the understanding that the NCAA seems to do whatever they want and may be protected somehow...I'm not a lawyer.
I think that a lot of schools are worried about what the NCAA does here because it could open up a door to punishment that the member insititutions don't want the NCAA involved in. I am sure they want to see PSU punished but at the same time they don't want NCAA finding new ways to punish schools.
If the NCAA can punish Penn State citing broad language like the NCAA letter to PSU does, then it opens the door for them to step in when they don't think a school is doing enough to punish their players for criminal violations, or like in the Marquette situation, or a situation like Everson Satterfield.
I think the NCAA will think long and hard about what they are going to do and how they are going to explain it according to the rules that are in place.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
If the current rules don't allow for a death penalty ala SMU (and I don't know either way), could the NCAA suspend Penn State's membership in the organization?
Just an off the wall idea that just occurred to me. Maybe it's something, maybe not.
Just an off the wall idea that just occurred to me. Maybe it's something, maybe not.
I would think the minimum would start with something comparable to the Baylor basketball murder coverup/corruption punishments.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,364
- 29,957
- 113
that situation doesn't really apply. In the Baylor situation, 1) there were clear NCAA violations. and 2) it involved athletes.
Dave Bliss was paying his players and lying to NCAA investigators about it. The PSU situation involves no players at all.
Baylor is just not an analogous situation to PSU.
"This is completely different than an impermissible benefits scandal like happened at SMU, or anything else we've dealt with," Emmert said. "This is as systemic a cultural problem as it is a football problem. There have been people that said this wasn't a football scandal.
"Well it was more than a football scandal, much more than a football scandal. It was that but much more. And we'll have to figure out exactly what the right penalties are. I don't know that past precedent makes particularly good sense in this case, because it's really an unprecedented problem."
If you're saying what the NCAA prez is, I agree with you.
There's no analogous situation that I (or the NCAA prez) knows of. Baylor is the closest I can think of because of the murder element.
If you're saying because it doesn't involve athletes it has nothing to do with the NCAA I don't agree and the NCAA prez doesn't seem to agree. An NCAA football program had a long term culture that enabled atrocities. It's a Penn State football and NCAA issue in addition to all the obvious law suits and criminal cases.
I see a death penalty of some kind in PSU's future ----- PSU conspired to cover-up child rape in order to protect their football team's image, fundraising, recruiting and winning. That's clearly an NCAA issue.
Check this out: State College, PA - Penn State Football: NCAA President Emmert Doesn?t Rule Out Death Penalty in PBS Interview
Check this out: State College, PA - Penn State Football: NCAA President Emmert Doesn?t Rule Out Death Penalty in PBS Interview
I think the NCAA can basically do anything to PSU that it wants to. The issue will be whether PSU challanges any penalites in civil court.
As the NCAA president says above, there is a systemic cultural problem at PSU, and that problem is that football has been elevated to god status, and PSU is apparently willing to cover up criminal activity in order to protect the god.
Kill the culture by killing the god. The NCAA needs to find a way to levy the death penalty against PSU football. Let PSU fight it in court.
If the NCAA is not willing to take any substantial action against PSU (whether or not it holds up in the courts), then it just provides further evidence that the NCAA is really a money-driven organization, and is doing nothing to warrant its non-profit status.
One of the saddest parts of this whole thing is if they had just done the right thing at the very beginning it wouldn't have been that big a deal - not to mention many fewer lives impacted. A little short term embarrassment but pretty quickly forgotten. Now? For many years this will be the first thing a lot of people think of when they hear Penn State. Look at Kent State. It has been over 40 years and some people still immediately think of the shootings when they hear the name of the school. And that wasn't even their fault.
Update to clarify. When I say it wouldn't have been a big deal, I mean to the image of Penn State. The crimes themselves are, and were, a big deal.
Last edited:
C
CyBer
Guest
I agree, in fact if they would have done the right thing in the beginning then Pederno would have been even more of a hero to them.
Sadly for some reason he still is.
It really amazes me how much I read about this and the people that comment on it just don't seem to get it. Every PSU sypmathiser is going on about how this had nothing to do with Football, It's a law thing, you can't punish the athletes now for something done so long ago, not an NCAA thing, etc. In the end, it's just as you stated it above. They were worried about what would happen to Penn St. Football. That's precicely why all of this went down as it did. And to all of those who don't understand it, they had to fire the president and the football coach who were currently there. I would understand the sympathisers if PSU had cleared house 10 years ago, but that isn't the case, this was an ongoing and current cover up. They are an NCAA member institution, that makes it an NCAA matter. Children were being raped at PSU and none of those kids were there to see the Math department. It was all about the football.
This is something that makes me think that there is even more going on with all of this that has yet to be discovered. Sandusky was just an assistant coach. Maybe he was a top assistant, and maybe he and JoePa were best buds, but I don't see why the football program couldn't move on without him. He would be completely replaceable for a program with the prestige and resources of Penn State.
There were allegations run up the chain a couple times spanning several years, and they failed to do anything each time. Why don't you turn it over to the police and release Sandusky from the program, issue a statement condemning his actions and saying how this is totally at odds with the values and principles of the program and blah blah blah. You do that and you reaffirm the image of your sacred football program as being one that does it the right way, and you get out ahead of the issue, JoePa protects his legacy, and so on. He is easily replaced, you go on winning games, and a year later hardly anybody even remembers that this happened.
A lot of smart people were involved in keeping this hush hush. From the facts as we know them today, I just don't see what their motivation would be in doing that. It really makes me think that something even bigger was going on that could have come up in an investigation, or that Sandusky had some dirt on Paterno or something else along those lines. Weren't there some rumors earlier in this ordeal that Sandusky wasn't just using his charity to find his own victims, but to also make contacts between kids a high level PSU donors? That is the kind of missing piece that would fill in the gap for me between the known issues with Sandusky and the handling of the allegations by the university.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
aero--I think their program (on the field) was build on running the ball and defense. Sandusky was supposed to be "THE GUY" in terms of coaching defense, so he was probably considered indispensable to the growth of the program as soon as he built "Linebacker U."
There were rumors early on of that connection with Sandusky funneling kids to donors. Nothing more has come out about that so far. Hopefully, that was just a crazy rumor.
There were rumors early on of that connection with Sandusky funneling kids to donors. Nothing more has come out about that so far. Hopefully, that was just a crazy rumor.
How much coaching did Pederno even do in the last 10 years? I wouldnt be suprised if Joe was the head coach in name only.
Sandusky wasn't even there the last 10 years though. He retired in 1999, shortly after the initial 98 allegation. Yet Penn State continued to allow him access to facilities up until 2011, and also brushed the 2002 allegations under the rug. So that doesn't really support the idea that he was viewed as irreplaceable as a defensive coach, or as the future head coach in waiting.
It seems to me like he was somewhat pushed out due to the initial allegations. But then why turn around and protect the guy again when McQuery reports the 2002 incident? At that point, Sandusky has nothing to do with putting a quality football program on the field. If the theory is they covered it up to protect the football program, of what value was Sandusky to the program 3 years after retirement?
When the first alegations came out he was an indispensible coach to them and closely connected to JoePa. They pushed it all aside.
In 1998 they couldn't ignore it and had him "retire".
In 2002 they had to cover it up because they covered it up in 1998. Also, JoePa was getting heat at that time for some poor seasons and he wasn't ready to retire. If they took their chances and outed Sandusky in 2002 it might have led them to be forced to make JoePa retire.
The only way they could have expeosed him and limited their damage was to out him after the first alegations. Instead they started the vicious cycle of cover ups.
But isn't that what the BOT wanted? They wanted JoePa gone, they tried to force him out in '04. I think a part of this was Sandusky was one of their own, he had been at Penn St since the 60's and Paterno and the rest of the guys wanted to try to protect him as a person, not just the football program.
