(07-08-2013 05:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Not once have I defended Penn State. My criticism is with the NCAA's subjective involvement and overstepping it's bounds of authority in what was solely a PR move.
Doesn't matter, you don't go to court with someone else's investigation.
It's not a court of law, it's a private club. They had all the authority in the world to discipline a member who acted against and broke the clubs by-laws. THEY BROKE THE NCAA'S RULES ON ETHICS AND INTEGRITY.
Only if they conducted a full investigation. Again, relying on the work of someone else, which they have never done before in the case of any major allegations, is proof positive that the NCAA acted not in the manner intended, but solely as a PR move because of the hand wringing in the media.
Again, had this same situation happened at a lower division program the NCAA would not have acted, and I highly doubt that Montana gets even a fraction of the level of punishment that Penn State got.
Also, the NCAA enforcement arm is hardly anyone to judge anyone's "Ethics and integrity".
Okay whatever you say. By the way I have this bridge for sale if you are interested.
I'm glad you have an issue with a school being punished for covering child molestation to protect a FB program who clearly ran the school.
Oh and im also glad to see you are questioning the integrity of the former head of the FBI while then saying that the NCAA has no right to question the integrity of Penn St. Good job.
(07-08-2013 05:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Not once have I defended Penn State. My criticism is with the NCAA's subjective involvement and overstepping it's bounds of authority in what was solely a PR move.
Doesn't matter, you don't go to court with someone else's investigation.
It's not a court of law, it's a private club. They had all the authority in the world to discipline a member who acted against and broke the clubs by-laws. THEY BROKE THE NCAA'S RULES ON ETHICS AND INTEGRITY.
Only if they conducted a full investigation. Again, relying on the work of someone else, which they have never done before in the case of any major allegations, is proof positive that the NCAA acted not in the manner intended, but solely as a PR move because of the hand wringing in the media.
Again, had this same situation happened at a lower division program the NCAA would not have acted, and I highly doubt that Montana gets even a fraction of the level of punishment that Penn State got.
Also, the NCAA enforcement arm is hardly anyone to judge anyone's "Ethics and integrity".
Okay whatever you say. By the way I have this bridge for sale if you are interested.
I'm glad you have an issue with a school being punished for covering child molestation to protect a FB program who clearly ran the school.
Oh and im also glad to see you are questioning the integrity of the former head of the FBI while then saying that the NCAA has no right to question the integrity of Penn St. Good job.
Childish much?
If thats what you want to call someone who disagrees with you. Penn St signed off on the report and admitted to everything in it but the NCAA should still then go and interview the same people and ask the same questions and take another year to come to the same conclusion.
Once again, this isn't a court of law, it's a private club. The members of that club demanded that action be taken against Penn St. PSU agreed to and signed off on it's own report conducted by the former head of the FBI who had no connection to Penn St and agreed to go along with the suggestions he put into his report to prevent this from happening again.
You're using hypothetical schools that don't exist and did not have this happen on their campus and did not cover it up by their president as some sort of argument.
Private club which they are lucky to still be a member of.
(07-08-2013 05:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Not once have I defended Penn State. My criticism is with the NCAA's subjective involvement and overstepping it's bounds of authority in what was solely a PR move.
Doesn't matter, you don't go to court with someone else's investigation.
It's not a court of law, it's a private club. They had all the authority in the world to discipline a member who acted against and broke the clubs by-laws. THEY BROKE THE NCAA'S RULES ON ETHICS AND INTEGRITY.
Only if they conducted a full investigation. Again, relying on the work of someone else, which they have never done before in the case of any major allegations, is proof positive that the NCAA acted not in the manner intended, but solely as a PR move because of the hand wringing in the media.
Again, had this same situation happened at a lower division program the NCAA would not have acted, and I highly doubt that Montana gets even a fraction of the level of punishment that Penn State got.
Also, the NCAA enforcement arm is hardly anyone to judge anyone's "Ethics and integrity".
Yeah, the NCAA wrote themselves into this matter, and it was on them to explicitly justify its presence and nature of the actions they took, which they failed to do. Self-serving, self-important hypocrites.
They took this matter away from the real victims. I've wondered where a guy like Mauti would be had they done nothing to the school...a situation and career crafted because of a putz like Emmert.
If thats what you want to call someone who disagrees with you.
[/quote]
When you do it in a childish matter like putting words in people's mouth like you did.
Quote:Penn St signed off on the report and admitted to everything in it but the NCAA should still then go and interview the same people and ask the same questions and take another year to come to the same conclusion.
Yes. If the NCAA was determined to levy punishment in a way unprecedented in it's 102 years of existence at the time then it should have conducted it's own investigation instead of depending on the work of others.
Quote:Once again, this isn't a court of law, it's a private club. The members of that club demanded that action be taken against Penn St. PSU agreed to and signed off on it's own report conducted by the former head of the FBI who had no connection to Penn St and agreed to go along with the suggestions he put into his report to prevent this from happening again.
Being a private club does not exonerate one from following the established policy, procedures, bylaws and precedent when conducting your business.
BTW, I would also question to "private" nature of the NCAA considering how much taxpayer money goes into it's operation. There is a long line of "private clubs" that thought they could do what they wanted and history shows that is simply not the case.
I imagine this is a sore subject for you, being a fan of a minor school from the north east who has had to live your entire life in the shadow of schools like Penn State, but despite your attempts to spin this into me supporting Penn State my argument has not once defended anything coming out of State College. My entire argument from the first post I made in this thread is the fact that the NCAA overstepped it's bounds, and violated it's own policy, procedures, and bylaws in this case and that this (along with the Miami case) is a prime example that there needs to be a major overhaul of the entire structure of the NCAA, especially the investigative and punitive structures within the organization.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the first part. As for the second part, Penn State's athletic director, president, and chief of police had actively enabled and shielded Sandusky since 1998 (i.e. when Sandusky was still a coach), allowing the rape and abuse of several additional young boys, according to legally established facts. That's ignoring Paterno entirely, whose behavior falls somewhere between "should have done much more" and the roles of the other three, though legally he likely had not committed a crime.
As others have pointed out, the NCAA has no specific rules against this behavior. However, the NCAA has fairly wide discretionary powers, and Penn State officials committed abhorrent, indefensible acts. I think the vast majority of observers thought Penn State received less severe penalties than deserved. Had Penn State fought the NCAA sanctions, it could not have won, either legally or in public opinion. Corbett's suit was basically laughed out of court. I don't think a full death penalty was ever seriously on the table, but FCS level scholarships for the next decade would have been.
On a personal note, that week was my saddest time as a fan. I was a huge Paterno fan and really appreciated Penn State as a program that was able to win while graduating players and avoiding the sleaziness so often associated with top programs. Discovering the truth behind that facade was incredibly demoralizing.
(07-08-2013 10:12 PM)nuftw Wrote: There's sort of two points being conflated here.
A- The NCAA is inconsistent at best.
B- Penn State deserved its penalties.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the first part. As for the second part, Penn State's athletic director, president, and chief of police had actively enabled and shielded Sandusky since 1998 (i.e. when Sandusky was still a coach), allowing the rape and abuse of several additional young boys, according to legally established facts. That's ignoring Paterno entirely, whose behavior falls somewhere between "should have done much more" and the roles of the other three, though legally he likely had not committed a crime.
As others have pointed out, the NCAA has no specific rules against this behavior. However, the NCAA has fairly wide discretionary powers, and Penn State officials committed abhorrent, indefensible acts. I think the vast majority of observers thought Penn State received less severe penalties than deserved. Had Penn State fought the NCAA sanctions, it could not have won, either legally or in public opinion. Corbett's suit was basically laughed out of court. I don't think a full death penalty was ever seriously on the table, but FCS level scholarships for the next decade would have been.
On a personal note, that week was my saddest time as a fan. I was a huge Paterno fan and really appreciated Penn State as a program that was able to win while graduating players and avoiding the sleaziness so often associated with top programs. Discovering the truth behind that facade was incredibly demoralizing.
Have you been able to move past it and focus on what you once loved about the program?
(07-08-2013 10:12 PM)nuftw Wrote: Had Penn State fought the NCAA sanctions, it could not have won, either legally or in public opinion. Corbett's suit was basically laughed out of court.
Corbett's ill-thought out lawsuit was destined to fail because he went after the NCAA in anti-trust court. The judge who dismissed it said as much.
Quote:"In another forum the complaint's appeal to equity and common sense may win the day, but in the antitrust world these arguments fail to advance the ball," Kane said.
But it was very, very wise of the interim president to pretend that they did, and to pretend that this was purely an issue with the athletic department. By accepting NCAA punishment, he forestalled multiple other investigations, including investigations by the feds into PSU's eligibility to receive federal funding. Those other investigations could have endagered Penn State's ability to function as an insittution. Instead, they got off with a measly $60 million fine.
(07-08-2013 10:57 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: Sure, the NCAA didn't really have jurisdiction.
But it was very, very wise of the interim president to pretend that they did, and to pretend that this was purely an issue with the athletic department. By accepting NCAA punishment, he forestalled multiple other investigations, including investigations by the feds into PSU's eligibility to receive federal funding. Those other investigations could have endagered Penn State's ability to function as an insittution. Instead, they got off with a measly $60 million fine.
It also set a precedent for the NCAA to delve into all sorts of matters they normally wouldn't.
1.) Corbett is the former Attorney General for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Anyone who believes for even a second that he didn't know exactly how that case was going to end is fooling only themselves.
It was a brazen political stunt, pure and simple.
2.) The Paterno's have no standing against the NCAA. Who the hell are they? All the NCAA did was accept the findings of Penn State's own internal investigation.
The Paterno's are going to have to sue Penn State University itself. They are unwilling to do that for PR reasons and thus this will always be a source of tremendous frustration for anyone who insists on believing the fairy tale that Curley knew...and Spanier knew...and Shultz knew...but Paterno - who was more powerful than all of the rest combined - like Sergeant Shultz on Hogan's Heroes, he knew nussing.
Sounds perfectly believable to me. However, I also believe that Tyler Seguin's twitter account was hacked and that Manti Teo's girlfriend was real.
What kind of a flaming imbecile would be naive enough to actually believe that nonsense?
(07-08-2013 10:12 PM)nuftw Wrote: There's sort of two points being conflated here.
A- The NCAA is inconsistent at best.
B- Penn State deserved its penalties.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the first part. As for the second part, Penn State's athletic director, president, and chief of police had actively enabled and shielded Sandusky since 1998 (i.e. when Sandusky was still a coach), allowing the rape and abuse of several additional young boys, according to legally established facts. That's ignoring Paterno entirely, whose behavior falls somewhere between "should have done much more" and the roles of the other three, though legally he likely had not committed a crime.
As others have pointed out, the NCAA has no specific rules against this behavior. However, the NCAA has fairly wide discretionary powers, and Penn State officials committed abhorrent, indefensible acts. I think the vast majority of observers thought Penn State received less severe penalties than deserved. Had Penn State fought the NCAA sanctions, it could not have won, either legally or in public opinion. Corbett's suit was basically laughed out of court. I don't think a full death penalty was ever seriously on the table, but FCS level scholarships for the next decade would have been.
On a personal note, that week was my saddest time as a fan. I was a huge Paterno fan and really appreciated Penn State as a program that was able to win while graduating players and avoiding the sleaziness so often associated with top programs. Discovering the truth behind that facade was incredibly demoralizing.
I think this sums up things pretty well. I'm not sure that the NCAA had jurisdiction. Truthfully, I think a good argument could be made either way. However, what is inarguable - at least in my mind - is that once the NCAA decided that it did have jurisdiction to penalize Penn State, I have no idea how the Nittany Lions didn't get the Death Penalty?
Think about it for a second. How could a school be found guilty of committing what were inarguably the worst infractions in the history of sports at any level and not get the stiffest penalty ever doled out? That seems absurd to me. And it is really absurd to me that what they actually got were a relative slap on the wrist. That seems outrageous to me.
Finally, let me say that only at Penn State would the fans bemoan their "incompetent university president" and "all of the damage he did to the school itself" and not be talking about the man who authorities believe orchestrated or at the very least participated in the systematic cover up of serial child rape by a legendary former assistant coach. Nope, they're mad at the guy who actually copped to the crimes.
That is utterly BIZARRE on every conceivable level and frankly, it's despicable.
(07-08-2013 11:13 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: However, what is inarguable - at least in my mind - is that once the NCAA decided that it did have jurisdiction to penalize Penn State, I have no idea how the Nittany Lions didn't get the Death Penalty?
Think about it for a second. How could a school be found guilty of committing what were inarguably the worst infractions in the history of sports at any level and not get the stiffest penalty ever doled out? That seems absurd to me. And it is really absurd to me that what they actually got were a relative slap on the wrist. That seems outrageous to me.
Well, why stop at football? The dude with the most dirt was the AD...why didn't they go after PSU's entire athletic department, rather than picking at just its football program? The whole darn athletic program stood to benefit from the silence, not just football.
Again, that's based on how the NCAA chose to adopt and interpret a report that wasn't meant for athletic self-assessment.
In a way, as another poster pointed out, it makes the decision to "lay down and take it" come off as brilliant. This could have gone so much further than football, regardless whether the NCAA successfully defended or justified its involvement than just saying "this applies under 'other.'"
(07-08-2013 10:12 PM)nuftw Wrote: There's sort of two points being conflated here.
A- The NCAA is inconsistent at best.
B- Penn State deserved its penalties.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the first part. As for the second part, Penn State's athletic director, president, and chief of police had actively enabled and shielded Sandusky since 1998 (i.e. when Sandusky was still a coach), allowing the rape and abuse of several additional young boys, according to legally established facts. That's ignoring Paterno entirely, whose behavior falls somewhere between "should have done much more" and the roles of the other three, though legally he likely had not committed a crime.
As others have pointed out, the NCAA has no specific rules against this behavior. However, the NCAA has fairly wide discretionary powers, and Penn State officials committed abhorrent, indefensible acts. I think the vast majority of observers thought Penn State received less severe penalties than deserved. Had Penn State fought the NCAA sanctions, it could not have won, either legally or in public opinion. Corbett's suit was basically laughed out of court. I don't think a full death penalty was ever seriously on the table, but FCS level scholarships for the next decade would have been.
On a personal note, that week was my saddest time as a fan. I was a huge Paterno fan and really appreciated Penn State as a program that was able to win while graduating players and avoiding the sleaziness so often associated with top programs. Discovering the truth behind that facade was incredibly demoralizing.
I think this sums up things pretty well. I'm not sure that the NCAA had jurisdiction. Truthfully, I think a good argument could be made either way. However, what is inarguable - at least in my mind - is that once the NCAA decided that it did have jurisdiction to penalize Penn State, I have no idea how the Nittany Lions didn't get the Death Penalty?
Think about it for a second. How could a school be found guilty of committing what were inarguably the worst infractions in the history of sports at any level and not get the stiffest penalty ever doled out? That seems absurd to me. And it is really absurd to me that what they actually got were a relative slap on the wrist. That seems outrageous to me.
What do you think should have happened to the program?
(07-08-2013 11:13 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: However, what is inarguable - at least in my mind - is that once the NCAA decided that it did have jurisdiction to penalize Penn State, I have no idea how the Nittany Lions didn't get the Death Penalty?
Think about it for a second. How could a school be found guilty of committing what were inarguably the worst infractions in the history of sports at any level and not get the stiffest penalty ever doled out? That seems absurd to me. And it is really absurd to me that what they actually got were a relative slap on the wrist. That seems outrageous to me.
Well, why stop at football? The dude with the most dirt was the AD...why didn't they go after PSU's entire athletic department, rather than picking at just its football program? The whole darn athletic program stood to benefit from the silence, not just football.
Again, that's based on how the NCAA chose to adopt and interpret a report that wasn't meant for athletic self-assessment.
In a way, as another poster pointed out, it makes the decision to "lay down and take it" come off as brilliant. This could have gone so much further than football, regardless whether the NCAA successfully defended or justified its involvement than just saying "this applies under 'other.'"
Because they didn't cover it up to protect Volleyball or Soccer. The cover up was to protect the FB program, and the program got so big that it was calling the shots to the President, VP and AD. The FB program was all powerful at the school, thats why the cover up took place. They needed to smash that program and let other schools know that you should not cover up crimes to protect the FB program.
/
Penn State Fundraising is Recovering
![[Image: Nebraska_Penn_St_Football_0abec.jpg]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/11/12/Sports/Images/Nebraska_Penn_St_Football_0abec.jpg)
![[Image: 1,width=280,height=280,appearanceId=4.png]](http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/v1/compositions/16869848/views/1,width=280,height=280,appearanceId=4.png)
![[Image: 2,width=280,height=280,appearanceId=4.png]](http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/v1/compositions/16869848/views/2,width=280,height=280,appearanceId=4.png)
