What Crap (think about our men's basketball program)...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21915...&hpt=hp_t2

(09-08-2014 03:24 PM)RangerRocket Wrote:  What Crap (think about our men's basketball program)...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21915...&hpt=hp_t2

First thing that came to mind. But you have to understand, supposedly gambling us much, much worse sports offense than covering up rape and molestation, apparently.

My other thought, after last week's B10 performance the NCAA is worried not enough bowl eligible B10 dollars. It's a money move.

so penn state had federal attention and got off probation earlier than USC?


wtf

Wow. I wonder if they will reverse our losses to OSU and Syracuse due to the corrupt officiating?

Obviously the NCAA can do whatever the heck they want at any time.

(09-08-2014 06:12 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  My other thought, after last week's B10 performance the NCAA is worried not enough bowl eligible B10 dollars. It's a money move.

When you are talking about college football (or basketball), one way or another it is always all about money so your thoughts are certainly warranted. I haven't followed this unfortunate mess that closely so I don't know exactly what is happening but it is fun to speculate. Because this decision seemed to come so suddenly out of the blue, I suspect it has more to do with of some recently negotiated legal agreement to settle some pending lawsuit out of court.

From the very outset, I held a (minority) viewpoint that the Sandusky case, including the cover up was strictly a legal matter that had little to do with the football program at Penn State per se other than that was where Sandusky was employed within the University. It had nothing to do with cheating, paying players, academics, rules violations, etc. that the NCAA oversees to ensure "a level playing field" and therefore IMO it was primarily outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA's mission---sure there was a lack of institutional control but Sandusky could have just as easily been in the University's study abroad program as in it football program----it was NOT football specific.

Of course with all that moral outrage out there at the time (with some of it misdirected IMHO) I am sure that the NCAA felt they couldn't just stand by on the sidelines and do nothing; besides in addition to gaining favorable publicity there was great potential for assessing and collecting fines ($$$$$$$) as well.

However, Sandusky has been in prison for while now and the media hysteria has subsided and has moved on the the next outrage, and as the subsequent civil cases wind their way thru the court system, the NCAA is no longer buoyed by emotional public opinion but is now facing legal problems in an objective non-emotional legal system and they just want to make those problems go away.

T-Town - I am of the same unpopular opinion.

The Penn State scandal had nothing to do with performance in the classroom, on the field, having an unfair advantage, or any of the other things that the NCAA uses as an excuse to stick it to players that had nothing to do with the original problem. It is a legal matter that is now resolved. The NCAA shouldn't have been involved in the first place. Sandusky was no longer a coach when the alleged incidents occurred. An elderly JoePa may or may not have reported this properly. JoePa's dead and Sandusky is a dead man walking. I don't see why we'd want to keep sticking it to their kids for something a guy who was no longer a part of the program did.

At the time of the "known" offenses by Sandusky, he was not an employee of Penn State or Joe Pa. Sandusky rented and used the Penn State facilities for his football camp. Other than that, there was no affiliation to Penn State.

Joe Pa got blamed even though he had control of the situation. He was not the man in charge. The AD was, and he told him everything he knew. The AD dropped the ball, and the media went after the icon.

Poor Joe, they tore him down to make themselves feel better.

Terry, he may have rented those facilities for his camps, but he was employed as a coach for many years while Joe Pa and others at PSU covered up knowledge that he had these offenses. They all didn't happen after he left the program. Thats why PSU was punished. the same as when Tressel covered up the sale of players memoribilia for the players own profit. It's the cover up more than the crime in both cases.

The penalty was justified. Everyone from the President down through the coaching staff knew what was going on. The NCAA sent a message to all of college sports that overlooking the law and brushing heinous offenses under the rug, for the sake of the program, cannot be tolerated. Now that NCAA is officially run by the power conferences, I guess the penalty disappears.

(09-09-2014 10:36 AM)utrocks84 Wrote:  Terry, he may have rented those facilities for his camps, but he was employed as a coach for many years while Joe Pa and others at PSU covered up knowledge that he had these offenses. They all didn't happen after he left the program. Thats why PSU was punished. the same as when Tressel covered up the sale of players memoribilia for the players own profit. It's the cover up more than the crime in both cases.

No one has actually actually proved that Joe Pa covered up anything up. They all considered him guilty by association. As it seems you have. More people went after him than Sandusky.

From my viewpoint, it's not that he covered anything up, it's that he did nothing. Someone told him that they directly witnessed one of Joe's former employees assaulting a young boy, in his facility. He didn't call the police. He didn't call child services. He didn't try to find out if the boy was ok. He did nothing, except oh ... I told my boss. And then he never followed up to see if they did anything. Apparently he must have just forgot about the whole thing. This from the person who was in all reports essentially the most powerful person on campus, and he was clueless on how to help a child in desperate need.

I don't know many ordinary people who in that same situation wouldn't have called the police or child services or done something ... anything ... to see these allegations investigated and the person responsible dealt with. But when the most powerful person at the university doesn't do that, and essentially just passes a note up the chain, that says something. It sure appears that the University and maybe the football program was more important to him than the well being of the child.

That was the issue with Joe, in my opinion. The coverup seemed to happen at the administrative offices. But if he had just said something - anything - to somebody ... they wouldn't have been able to cover it up. Joe might have even come out looking like a hero. But sadly, he didn't.

(09-09-2014 05:20 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  From my viewpoint, it's not that he covered anything up, it's that he did nothing. Someone told him that they directly witnessed one of Joe's former employees assaulting a young boy, in his facility. He didn't call the police. He didn't call child services. He didn't try to find out if the boy was ok. He did nothing, except oh ... I told my boss. And then he never followed up to see if they did anything. Apparently he must have just forgot about the whole thing. This from the person who was in all reports essentially the most powerful person on campus, and he was clueless on how to help a child in desperate need.

I don't know many ordinary people who in that same situation wouldn't have called the police or child services or done something ... anything ... to see these allegations investigated and the person responsible dealt with. But when the most powerful person at the university doesn't do that, and essentially just passes a note up the chain, that says something. It sure appears that the University and maybe the football program was more important to him than the well being of the child.

That was the issue with Joe, in my opinion. The coverup seemed to happen at the administrative offices. But if he had just said something - anything - to somebody ... they wouldn't have been able to cover it up. Joe might have even come out looking like a hero. But sadly, he didn't.

He did what anyone working in a bureaucracy does----they report it to their immediate superior and let the superior deal with it. Bureaucracies punish those who do not follow the strict bureaucratic protocols that include always following the rules (no exceptions) and always following the chain of command (at least going UP the chain) with no end runs or short cuts or independent actions---to do otherwise suggest that you are not "a team player".

(09-09-2014 08:14 AM)T-Town Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 06:12 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  My other thought, after last week's B10 performance the NCAA is worried not enough bowl eligible B10 dollars. It's a money move.

When you are talking about college football (or basketball), one way or another it is always all about money so your thoughts are certainly warranted. I haven't followed this unfortunate mess that closely so I don't know exactly what is happening but it is fun to speculate. Because this decision seemed to come so suddenly out of the blue, I suspect it has more to do with of some recently negotiated legal agreement to settle some pending lawsuit out of court.

From the very outset, I held a (minority) viewpoint that the Sandusky case, including the cover up was strictly a legal matter that had little to do with the football program at Penn State per se other than that was where Sandusky was employed within the University. It had nothing to do with cheating, paying players, academics, rules violations, etc. that the NCAA oversees to ensure "a level playing field" and therefore IMO it was primarily outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA's mission---sure there was a lack of institutional control but Sandusky could have just as easily been in the University's study abroad program as in it football program----it was NOT football specific.

Of course with all that moral outrage out there at the time (with some of it misdirected IMHO) I am sure that the NCAA felt they couldn't just stand by on the sidelines and do nothing; besides in addition to gaining favorable publicity there was great potential for assessing and collecting fines ($$$$$$$) as well.

However, Sandusky has been in prison for while now and the media hysteria has subsided and has moved on the the next outrage, and as the subsequent civil cases wind their way thru the court system, the NCAA is no longer buoyed by emotional public opinion but is now facing legal problems in an objective non-emotional legal system and they just want to make those problems go away.

agree completely. I read the entire Freeh (sp?) report and it did not offer much in the way of additional information that had not already been reported upon. There were failures in a number of areas - but my position is that the responsibility lies in the senior most officials at PSU - and very little can be pinned on Paterno. Sure he could have done more in hindsight - he admitted to that. But I am also sure he never suspected that Sandusky was molesting, let alone raping, kids he brought to the campus. It is also no clear how much of that actually occurred on the Penn State campus. Not acting more decisively is more an issue of incompetence to follow normal procedures that I believe it had to do with an intentional cover-up. No one could be that stupid - to believe they could cover it up without fear that they could not control the actions of the person involved.

There is probably a lot that is still not revealed, but we will see how the Paterno family lawsuit ends up. I have a feeling they have more than a few people by the gonads right now.

(09-09-2014 06:51 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 05:20 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  From my viewpoint, it's not that he covered anything up, it's that he did nothing. Someone told him that they directly witnessed one of Joe's former employees assaulting a young boy, in his facility. He didn't call the police. He didn't call child services. He didn't try to find out if the boy was ok. He did nothing, except oh ... I told my boss. And then he never followed up to see if they did anything. Apparently he must have just forgot about the whole thing. This from the person who was in all reports essentially the most powerful person on campus, and he was clueless on how to help a child in desperate need.

I don't know many ordinary people who in that same situation wouldn't have called the police or child services or done something ... anything ... to see these allegations investigated and the person responsible dealt with. But when the most powerful person at the university doesn't do that, and essentially just passes a note up the chain, that says something. It sure appears that the University and maybe the football program was more important to him than the well being of the child.

That was the issue with Joe, in my opinion. The coverup seemed to happen at the administrative offices. But if he had just said something - anything - to somebody ... they wouldn't have been able to cover it up. Joe might have even come out looking like a hero. But sadly, he didn't.

He did what anyone working in a bureaucracy does----they report it to their immediate superior and let the superior deal with it. Bureaucracies punish those who do not follow the strict bureaucratic protocols that include always following the rules (no exceptions) and always following the chain of command (at least going UP the chain) with no end runs or short cuts or independent actions---to do otherwise suggest that you are not "a team player".

unfortunately - that is very true. It is also why most people are reluctant to ever use a "whistleblower" hotline. I can tell you that they are not confidential - not in the least. That has been my experience in 2 separate companies. The persons responsible for the follow ups had big mouths and were looking for ways to ingratiate themselves to those that had been reported upon.

How about all the "fine" money that Penn State paid. It was money from alums, students, tax payers, alums of Pitt, alums of Temple, Slippery Rock,.....etc. Basically the NCAA fined the State of Pennsylvania.