Gene Wojo from ESPN's article on sanction reduction.

I think child abuse is terrible AND I'm also a PSU fan, bitcruncher.

The decision was made by the NCAA. The NCAA can't unmake it, or what ever semblance of power and respect they once had is gone forever...

Penn State fans, and everyone else with an opinion that disagrees with the NCAA, should accept that - or stew in silence...

Frankly though, all the improvement at Penn State came far too late. The 2 decades of abuse that happened before hand aren't eliminated because of PSU's contrition...

(09-10-2013 02:21 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Gene Wojo from ESPN's article on sanction reduction.

I think child abuse is terrible AND I'm also a PSU fan, bitcruncher.

I don't see the NCAA reducing penalties. The NCAA is risk averse and I don't see how they win in the public by reducing penalties. Look at that other post where people are mindlessly slamming me (including bitcruncher) when I basically agreed with them except that I didn't think Paterno did anything he could be indicted for (and I also didn't think he was part of some vast conspiracy since 1998 that involved everyone up to the governor-but not all of them slamming me were that crazy). People didn't even read my posts. People won't read the NCAA's press release. They will just be mad that they let those child abuse Nazis off the hook.

And until they have completely purged the board of trustees, I don't think reform is complete. Last I heard, most of the trustees were still on the board. Accountability shouldn't stop at Spanier. The board hired Spanier. The board was the ultimate authority while these things were going on. Pointing fingers at Spanier and Paterno while ignoring their own responsibility to monitor doesn't cut it. Rather than angry, they should be embarrassed it happened on their watch and resign.

Wojo is wrong. The NCAA didn't go far enough. The program should have been shut down for 2 years like SMU. Barring that, it should have been banished from the airwaves - a TV ban to match the bowl ban.

(09-10-2013 02:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The decision was made by the NCAA. The NCAA can't unmake it, or what ever semblance of power and respect they once had is gone forever...

Penn State fans, and everyone else with an opinion that disagrees with the NCAA, should accept that - or stew in silence...

Frankly though, all the improvement at Penn State came far too late. The 2 decades of abuse that happened before hand aren't eliminated because of PSU's contrition...

Sure the NCAA can re-make it. It says so EXPLICILTY in the consent decree: "This consent decree may be modified or clarified at any time by mutual written consent of both parties."

If the NCAA does reduce the penalties to some degree (not saying they will), it will be couched as being part of the effort to rehabilitate Penn State's reputation.

These penalties were never meant to be exclusively punitive. That was obvious from Day One. They were meant to be punitive with an effort to rehabilitating Penn State's reputation in later years.

Whether fans like you have decided that "Penn State must wear the scarlet letter forever", or are open to a mentality of "they paid a penalty, rightfully so, and now they've worked to get themselves in a better place" --- that choice is yours.

(09-10-2013 03:57 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 02:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The decision was made by the NCAA. The NCAA can't unmake it, or what ever semblance of power and respect they once had is gone forever...

Penn State fans, and everyone else with an opinion that disagrees with the NCAA, should accept that - or stew in silence...

Frankly though, all the improvement at Penn State came far too late. The 2 decades of abuse that happened before hand aren't eliminated because of PSU's contrition...

Sure the NCAA can re-make it. It says so EXPLICILTY in the consent decree: "This consent decree may be modified or clarified at any time by mutual written consent of both parties."

If the NCAA does reduce the penalties to some degree (not saying they will), it will be couched as being part of the effort to rehabilitate Penn State's reputation.

These penalties were never meant to be exclusively punitive. That was obvious from Day One. They were meant to be punitive with an effort to rehabilitating Penn State's reputation in later years.

Whether fans like you have decided that "Penn State must wear the scarlet letter forever", or are open to a mentality of "they paid a penalty, rightfully so, and now they've worked to get themselves in a better place" --- that choice is yours.

Bitcruncher and I said the same thing. Changing the penalties hurts the NCAA in the general public's eye. So they won't do it.

(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Wojo is wrong. The NCAA didn't go far enough. The program should have been shut down for 2 years like SMU. Barring that, it should have been banished from the airwaves - a TV ban to match the bowl ban.

You may disagree with Wojo --- but disagreeing by saying you thought the penalties should have been different isn't a valid argument.


The debate as to what the penalties should be ended on 23-July-2012. That has long been decided.


The debate now is whether there should be a "parole hearing", and if so, whether "parole" should be given.


To disagree, you need to argue either (1) PSU shouldn't be eligible for "parole", or (2) PSU should be eligible, but doesn't deserve it as of the moment.

(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Wojo is wrong. The NCAA didn't go far enough. The program should have been shut down for 2 years like SMU. Barring that, it should have been banished from the airwaves - a TV ban to match the bowl ban.

Yes, when the NCAA announced the penalties, Penn State fans should have breathed a sigh of relief. They got a relative slap on the wrist compared to what was merited.

(09-10-2013 04:10 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Wojo is wrong. The NCAA didn't go far enough. The program should have been shut down for 2 years like SMU. Barring that, it should have been banished from the airwaves - a TV ban to match the bowl ban.

You may disagree with Wojo --- but disagreeing by saying you thought the penalties should have been different isn't a valid argument.


The debate as to what the penalties should be ended on 23-July-2012. That has long been decided.


The debate now is whether there should be a "parole hearing", and if so, whether "parole" should be given.


To disagree, you need to argue either (1) PSU shouldn't be eligible for "parole", or (2) PSU should be eligible, but doesn't deserve it as of the moment.

You seem to be making distinctions without a difference: If a criminal is sentenced to 5 years and is eligible for a parole hearing after 3 years, and I think they should have originally been sentenced to 10 years without parole, then obviously I think they should be denied parole at that 3 year hearing.

(09-10-2013 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 03:57 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 02:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The decision was made by the NCAA. The NCAA can't unmake it, or what ever semblance of power and respect they once had is gone forever...

Penn State fans, and everyone else with an opinion that disagrees with the NCAA, should accept that - or stew in silence...

Frankly though, all the improvement at Penn State came far too late. The 2 decades of abuse that happened before hand aren't eliminated because of PSU's contrition...

Sure the NCAA can re-make it. It says so EXPLICILTY in the consent decree: "This consent decree may be modified or clarified at any time by mutual written consent of both parties."

If the NCAA does reduce the penalties to some degree (not saying they will), it will be couched as being part of the effort to rehabilitate Penn State's reputation.

These penalties were never meant to be exclusively punitive. That was obvious from Day One. They were meant to be punitive with an effort to rehabilitating Penn State's reputation in later years.

Whether fans like you have decided that "Penn State must wear the scarlet letter forever", or are open to a mentality of "they paid a penalty, rightfully so, and now they've worked to get themselves in a better place" --- that choice is yours.

Bitcruncher and I said the same thing. Changing the penalties hurts the NCAA in the general public's eye. So they won't do it.

But here's a question: why did the NCAA and Penn State agree to the Mitchell Reports, and their public release in the first place? I noticed this right away on "judgment day", 23-July-2012. While that was clearly a "day of judgment," the first steps towards a rehabilitation of Penn State were also clearly put into place these days.

The NCAA's "Q rating" stinks these days as is and I'm not sure they can get hurt too much further in the general public's eyes. This may even be an opportunity to strengthen their opinion (if they do it carefully).

It's all PR anyway and just watch (if it happens) how the NCAA phrases things, when they do it, and what the reductions will be.

(1) how they phrase it --- they'll couch it in terms of "Penn State realizing the mistakes they made previously, being contrite, and working faithfully to be better."

(2) timing --- they'll announce it on the Friday right before Easter or the Friday right before Memorial Day.

(3) the reductions themselves --- no doubt the most public penalties remain. Anything lessened would be ones that only the die-hards pay attention to.

Something like keep the $60MM fine, keep the Bowl ban til 2015, keep Paterno's victories vacated, but lessen the scholarship reductions to something like 75/20 as opposed to 65/15, and only valid through 2015.

(09-10-2013 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 04:10 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Wojo is wrong. The NCAA didn't go far enough. The program should have been shut down for 2 years like SMU. Barring that, it should have been banished from the airwaves - a TV ban to match the bowl ban.

You may disagree with Wojo --- but disagreeing by saying you thought the penalties should have been different isn't a valid argument.


The debate as to what the penalties should be ended on 23-July-2012. That has long been decided.


The debate now is whether there should be a "parole hearing", and if so, whether "parole" should be given.


To disagree, you need to argue either (1) PSU shouldn't be eligible for "parole", or (2) PSU should be eligible, but doesn't deserve it as of the moment.

You seem to be making distinctions without a difference: If a criminal is sentenced to 5 years and is eligible for a parole hearing after 3 years, and I think they should have originally been sentenced to 10 years without parole, then obviously I think they should be denied parole at that 3 year hearing.

Any parole board member who thinks that way is simply not doing his job.

By the time a criminal reaches his parole hearing, he should be judged based on the sentence he actually received, not based on what sentence some individual thinks he should have been received.

Again, that time is passed, that debate is over.

I don't see any way the PR is positive.

It was done promptly because they felt that they had to do something, whether because of outside pressure or their own feelings. I don't see how any of that has changed.

And I thought the NCAA overstepped their boundaries and that PSU should be punished by lawsuits and the feds, not the NCAA.

If the NCAA wants to improve their image, they could enforce their own rules instead of ignoring those violations while stretching their rules to include federal crimes.

Penn State made a deal to accept the penalties in lieu of a prolonged investigation (i.e. continued bad press) and the chance of having the program shut down. They signed a consent decree waiving all rights to appeal.

They have no right to parole. Wojo is the main source of this parole talk, and he's been talking about it for months. Parole doesn't exist in this case. It's a figment of Wojo's imagination.

Has the NCAA ever "paroled" anyone? I don't recall a case. They find them guilty and set the penalty and then stick with it.

How do you determine the "culture" has been changed? Not off a checklist. The NCAA found PSU guilty of "football" violations. They want a long time penalty to change the "culture." Reducing that either makes them look weak and indecisive or like weasels who changed their mind but don't want to admit they were wrong.

You can never predict what the NCAA will do (one of its problems). But reducing penalties hurts them.

Let us see how long this thread lasts.

(09-10-2013 04:28 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 04:10 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Wojo is wrong. The NCAA didn't go far enough. The program should have been shut down for 2 years like SMU. Barring that, it should have been banished from the airwaves - a TV ban to match the bowl ban.

You may disagree with Wojo --- but disagreeing by saying you thought the penalties should have been different isn't a valid argument.


The debate as to what the penalties should be ended on 23-July-2012. That has long been decided.


The debate now is whether there should be a "parole hearing", and if so, whether "parole" should be given.


To disagree, you need to argue either (1) PSU shouldn't be eligible for "parole", or (2) PSU should be eligible, but doesn't deserve it as of the moment.

You seem to be making distinctions without a difference: If a criminal is sentenced to 5 years and is eligible for a parole hearing after 3 years, and I think they should have originally been sentenced to 10 years without parole, then obviously I think they should be denied parole at that 3 year hearing.

Any parole board member who thinks that way is simply not doing his job.

By the time a criminal reaches his parole hearing, he should be judged based on the sentence he actually received, not based on what sentence some individual thinks he should have been received.

Again, that time is passed, that debate is over.

Just be glad I'm not in charge of the Dept. of Education. I'd have had people crawling all over the campus in no time flat, and at the first hint of any impropriety on the part of Penn State their accreditation would have been revoked immediately, and everyone in State College, PA would have been looking for work or another school to attend...

The school failed to protect children under their care for over 2 decades. A couple of years of contrition won't change that, or improve those kids lives. Their lives have been forever warped by a pervert that Penn State allowed to roam on campus for decades. IMO the school should be demolished, and the ground salted so that nothing ever grows there again - especially perverts or their ideas...

(09-10-2013 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Penn State made a deal to accept the penalties in lieu of a prolonged investigation (i.e. continued bad press) and the chance of having the program shut down. They signed a consent decree waiving all rights to appeal.

They have no right to parole. Wojo is the main source of this parole talk, and he's been talking about it for months. Parole doesn't exist in this case. It's a figment of Wojo's imagination.

Last time I'll say this to avoid repeating myself --- but there's an "appeal mechanism" of sorts explicitly stated right in the consent decree. The line "This consent decree may be modified or clarified at any time by mutual written consent of both parties."

(09-10-2013 05:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 04:28 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 04:10 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Wojo is wrong. The NCAA didn't go far enough. The program should have been shut down for 2 years like SMU. Barring that, it should have been banished from the airwaves - a TV ban to match the bowl ban.

You may disagree with Wojo --- but disagreeing by saying you thought the penalties should have been different isn't a valid argument.


The debate as to what the penalties should be ended on 23-July-2012. That has long been decided.


The debate now is whether there should be a "parole hearing", and if so, whether "parole" should be given.


To disagree, you need to argue either (1) PSU shouldn't be eligible for "parole", or (2) PSU should be eligible, but doesn't deserve it as of the moment.

You seem to be making distinctions without a difference: If a criminal is sentenced to 5 years and is eligible for a parole hearing after 3 years, and I think they should have originally been sentenced to 10 years without parole, then obviously I think they should be denied parole at that 3 year hearing.

Any parole board member who thinks that way is simply not doing his job.

By the time a criminal reaches his parole hearing, he should be judged based on the sentence he actually received, not based on what sentence some individual thinks he should have been received.

Again, that time is passed, that debate is over.

Just be glad I'm not in charge of the Dept. of Education. I'd have had people crawling all over the campus in no time flat, and at the first hint of any impropriety on the part of Penn State their accreditation would have been revoked immediately, and everyone in State College, PA would have been looking for work or another school to attend...

The school failed to protect children under their care for over 2 decades. A couple of years of contrition won't change that, or improve those kids lives. Their lives have been forever warped by a pervert that Penn State allowed to roam on campus for decades. IMO the school should be demolished, and the ground salted so that nothing ever grows there again - especially perverts or their ideas...

Obviously, you are a fan of the "Old Testament God", ha ha.

All vengeance, no belief in ANY sense of rehabilitation or redemption for anybody associated in anyway with Penn State University.

Fair enough. No chance of me changing your mind, so I'll stop trying.

I just think that everyone around here has lost sight of the picture here - especially a lot of sports fans, including everyone at Penn State...

There were numerous KIDS, whose lives were ruined by a homosexual pedophile that Penn State gave free reign on campus for decades. These kids lives were forever warped, and their potential diminished, if not completely snuffed out. There's no way you can make up for that, or erase that memory from those kid's heads. You can't reduce their mental problems. So why should Penn State fans have their problems eased...

I have little sympathy for Penn State, or Penn State fans. How long these activities were going on is still open to question too, since I seriously doubt that everyone has come forward. But what sticks out to me is that when this came to light, everyone in State College, PA jumped up to defend JoePa and company, while the kids who were molested by a Penn State employee were harassed, in the hope that they'd shut up and go away. Nobody up there thought about the kids that were molested. All they considered was the damage to the football program, which they've been trying to mitigate ever since. There were a couple of lawsuits, and now this...

IMO any discussion of easing up on Penn State is premature. They should have to suffer as long as the youngest person who was molested on the campus lives. Since that stands no chance of happening, they need to stick with the penalties they accepted. Trying to get out of a negotiated settlement shows a distinct lack of character. Although at Penn State that's nothing new...

(09-10-2013 04:28 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  You seem to be making distinctions without a difference: If a criminal is sentenced to 5 years and is eligible for a parole hearing after 3 years, and I think they should have originally been sentenced to 10 years without parole, then obviously I think they should be denied parole at that 3 year hearing.

Quote:Any parole board member who thinks that way is simply not doing his job.

By the time a criminal reaches his parole hearing, he should be judged based on the sentence he actually received, not based on what sentence some individual thinks he should have been received.

Again, that time is passed, that debate is over.

No. He should be judged on his overall suitability to be returned to society, which of course involves consideration of what his crime was and what the parole board member believes is a suitable punishment for it.