Updates About Penn State Scandal UPDATED 6/12: PSU has spent $45.9M on scandal

Donate To GopherHole
People get hysterical and irrational when heinous crimes are committed against the defenseless, particularly young children. And that emotion is perfectly understandable, not to mention commendable. Nonetheless, a rational look at this case (based on what we currently know) yields no other sensible opinion than that which holds that the on-field competitiveness of Penn St. has been completely unaffected, that no coaches or recruits gained any sort of competitive advantage, and that the NCAA has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Those culpable in the commission and resultant cover-up of these horrific offenses have been and will continue to be bearing the full weight of law enforcement and legal punishment for the remainder of their lives. If further investigation yields evidence that the athletic department, and in particular the football program, gained some sort of tangible benefit from sheltering a pederast, the NCAA can and should act. As of now, it is so far removed from the issue that it's somewhat offensive to the victims and their families to even be discussing such a relatively trivial matter.
 

dpodoll68 said:
People get hysterical and irrational when heinous crimes are committed against the defenseless, particularly young children. And that emotion is perfectly understandable, not to mention commendable. Nonetheless, a rational look at this case (based on what we currently know) yields no other sensible opinion than that which holds that the on-field competitiveness of Penn St. has been completely unaffected, that no coaches or recruits gained any sort of competitive advantage, and that the NCAA has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Those culpable in the commission and resultant cover-up of these horrific offenses have been and will continue to be bearing the full weight of law enforcement and legal punishment for the remainder of their lives. If further investigation yields evidence that the athletic department, and in particular the football program, gained some sort of tangible benefit from sheltering a pederast, the NCAA can and should act. As of now, it is so far removed from the issue that it's somewhat offensive to the victims and their families to even be discussing such a relatively trivial matter.
Click to expand...

Ok, based on that argument then you are saying that Jerry Sandusky's 30 year coaching record at Penn St led to no competitive advantages on the field.

His 30 years in no way had influence over:
1) Donors to the Penn St. athletic department.
2) The recruitment of players during his tenure.
or 3) the actual coaching of players on the field.

The charges levied against him started in 1994, the same year Penn St. went undefeated. Is is completely false to say that Jerry Sandusky's employment as Defensive Coordinator did not give Penn State a competitive advantage during the 1994 season, or the national title seasons of 1982 or 1986.

I understand what you are trying to say, but your argument is dead wrong.
 

CrocShots said:
The charges levied against him started in 1994, the same year Penn St. went undefeated. Is is completely false to say that Jerry Sandusky's employment as Defensive Coordinator did not give Penn State a competitive advantage during the 1994 season, or the national title seasons of 1982 or 1986.

I understand what you are trying to say, but your argument is dead wrong.
Click to expand...
And there is currently no evidence that Penn State covered up his actions while he was a coach in order to protect what him and the football program. The only instance of potential cover-up revealed thus far happened after he was no longer a coach. There are suggestions that the administrator in charge of the campus police may have heard other things, but at this point that is all that has been publicly revealed. Until something tangible is uncovered the NCAA has no basis from which to punish PSU. Like I said, I think they may very well wait until all the legal proceedings complete to see if more evidence comes forth. And if they do find some, then they should indeed punish PSU. But what you're asking for here is for PSU to face punishment based on no actual facts. Your connections all stem from things that might have happened or could have happened.
 

CrocShots said:
Ok, based on that argument then you are saying that Jerry Sandusky's 30 year coaching record at Penn St led to no competitive advantages on the field.

His 30 years in no way had influence over:
1) Donors to the Penn St. athletic department.
2) The recruitment of players during his tenure.
or 3) the actual coaching of players on the field.

The charges levied against him started in 1994, the same year Penn St. went undefeated. Is is completely false to say that Jerry Sandusky's employment as Defensive Coordinator did not give Penn State a competitive advantage during the 1994 season, or the national title seasons of 1982 or 1986.

I understand what you are trying to say, but your argument is dead wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a silly argument. You're talking about fully utilizing resources, while not breaking rules. The last time I checked, that's not illegal, nor against NCAA rules. Hiring (and maintaining employment of) pederasts is not against NCAA rules. There is an enormous difference between gaining a competitive advantage within the framework of the rules, and doing so outside the framework of the rules. What you're talking about is the former. Once again, find me an NCAA rule that Jerry Sandusky (or any other PSU player or coach) broke, and then we can talk. All you're discussing is moral outrage against Sandusky maintaining employment, which was, once again, not an NCAA violation.
 

I'm afraid some people don't feel the American Judicial System is capable of handing out enough 'real punishment'.:rolleyes:
 


Just so I'm clear, commission of any crime for the advancement or protection of a football program, so long as it is not against NCAA rules, should not result in any penalty against the football program, either self-imposed, by the parent conference or by the NCAA.

If that is your point AU, DPO, & 19 we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.
 

badgergopher said:
Just so I'm clear, commission of any crime for the advancement or protection of a football program, so long as it is not against NCAA rules, should not result in any penalty against the football program, either self-imposed, by the parent conference or by the NCAA.

If that is your point AU, DPO, & 19 we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
No, that is not my point. My point is that right now there is no evidence of the bolded above. So what you're asking for is punishment for an offense that (as of now) has not been shown to exist. You're making assumptions about what happened and demanding that something be done based on those assumptions. If there was a coverup to protect the football program and it could be proven, then I suspect the NCAA would be able to find a way to punish PSU under their rules (as they should). If that happened, the folks behind the coverup would likely be open to criminal charges and certainly would be in line for civil lawsuits. This isn't a hard concept.
 

GoAUpher said:
No, that is not my point. My point is that right now there is no evidence of the bolded above. So what you're asking for is punishment for an offense that (as of now) has not been shown to exist. You're making assumptions about what happened and demanding that something be done based on those assumptions. If there was a coverup to protect the football program and it could be proven, then I suspect the NCAA would be able to find a way to punish PSU under their rules (as they should). If that happened, the folks behind the coverup would likely be open to criminal charges and certainly would be in line for civil lawsuits. This isn't a hard concept.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it went unreported if not to protect the reputation of the program and university?
 

Long list of enablers

badgergopher said:
Why do you think it went unreported if not to protect the reputation of the program and university?
Click to expand...

Ok, we've got issues with non-reporting by the program and university, the one person that is forgotten in all this is Mrs. Sandusky. While I feel having her husband in prison for the rest of his life is a terrible thing for a wife to endure, she could have stopped this years before.

She also benefitted monetarily by turning a blind eye to his behavior. By turning this over to the proper authorities, she could have prevented much of this from happening, but she likely did not want to derail the money train. Wives know just about everything about their spouse and I think it's surprising that this issue hasn't come up before. Tucking a long list of boys into bed (many times) and who knows what else is at best creepy.

Mrs. Sandusky was not responsible for these terrible crimes (and neither is the university), but turning a blind eye to this was beneficial to her, the same way the university is being accused of this now. There are a lot of people that could have stopped what happened and Mrs. Sandusky is clearly one of them.
 



Count me among the dpo crowd on this one. If a direct link cannot be made to Sandusky's action and the Penn State program, there's more smoke than fire here.

I also agree with Rescooter's point regarding the list of enablers (regardless of the penalty aspect). I don't want to dump on ol' Mase here, but when he was on with Barreiro yesterday, he once again went out of his way to defend Paterno (or at least express in extreme wonderment who JoePa could have possibly done more regarding the situation). I never cared much for Paterno (and I certainly didn't wish him dead), but I cannot envision a scenario in which he couldn't have done more to address this head-on, especially after McQueary's report to him on what he caught Sandusky doing.

Read Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: Report on the Banality of Evil that dealt with the Eichmann trial after WWII. There never seems to be a whole lot of volunteers to jump off the gravy train regardless of how heinous the acts being perpetrated.
 

badgergopher said:
Why do you think it went unreported if not to protect the reputation of the program and university?
Click to expand...
First, you're assuming that there was a coverup of actions while Sandusky was still a coach. And even if you do assume that, you are also assuming the reason behind the cover up (the seemingly logical assumption to be sure, but still an assumption based on another assumption). That's why you wait for facts to be uncovered instead of demanding that players and coaches not associated with the acts be punished based solely on assumptions.

It's not that hard. If there is proof, then they get punished. If there is not, they don't. It's not like the NCAA even needs good proof to make their penalties stick (they've sanctioned teams/schools based on weak evidence before). But in this case they've got no evidence.

If you're suggesting that the NCAA act based on what it knows now, then you're saying the NCAA should step in because it looks like the admins covered for a private citizen. Sure, he's a private citizen with ties to the program but A) he was no longer someone under the NCAA's control/oversight, B) the crimes did not involve anyone else under the NCAA's purview, and C) the crimes themselves did not include actions covered by the NCAA's purview. And in the end, any punishment the NCAA can dish out STILL isn't as painful as what PSU is already going to face through civil penalties (and what the admins charged with perjury would face if convicted).

You're suggesting that a governing body without jurisdiction do something just because "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE" even though something (i.e. criminal and civil proceedings) is already being done.
 

dpodoll68 said:
That's a silly argument. You're talking about fully utilizing resources, while not breaking rules. The last time I checked, that's not illegal, nor against NCAA rules. Hiring (and maintaining employment of) pederasts is not against NCAA rules. There is an enormous difference between gaining a competitive advantage within the framework of the rules, and doing so outside the framework of the rules. What you're talking about is the former. Once again, find me an NCAA rule that Jerry Sandusky (or any other PSU player or coach) broke, and then we can talk. All you're discussing is moral outrage against Sandusky maintaining employment, which was, once again, not an NCAA violation.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct that they have to find a specific rule that was violated before the NCAA could punish Penn State. And as much as we may not like it, there may not be a rule.

I guess I'd be surprised if a person spent enough time going through the rule book that there isn't some very generic statement about ethics or following state and federal laws that a lawyer couldn't twist to apply to this case and say that Penn State as an institution broke the rules.

But the NCAA will have to be very careful how it treads, because if they set a standard they will have to follow it. If they find proof that there is a history of cover-ups of player incidents, coaching incidents, etc., that may give them an angle to punish the school for specific violations. Or just keep digging until they find any violation and use that as an excuse to punish Penn State without specifically punishing them for the Sandusky issue.

Another option is if this will lead to a set of new code of conduct rules, and if the NCAA would "request" Penn State to self-punish based off those rules. It probably is in Penn State's best interest if they worked with the NCAA for an appropriate self-imposed punishment, even if they don't have to, just for PR. People want a pound of flesh, and if they don't get one, right or wrong, it may hurt Penn State long term.
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
But the NCAA will have to be very careful how it treads, because if they set a standard they will have to follow it.
Click to expand...
Actually, the NCAA is not bound by any precedents when it hands out punishments. That's why you can get punishments like USC's (where the evidence of LOIC was pretty circumstantial) get hammered while OSU (where there was clear proof of a cover-up by the head coach) can get off much easier.
 



Another important factor to consider is that, by definition, the NCAA cannot hand out a "death penalty"-type punishment unless the offending program is a habitual and repeat offender. Penn St. is squeaky clean in the NCAA's eyes and always has been. They are a program the NCAA would hold up as a benchmark for compliance.

If Penn St. wants to self-impose penalties, I have no problem with that. I have an enormous problem with the NCAA directly or coercively meting out punishments where they have no jurisdiction or evidence (based on current information).
 

There is certainly an opening for the NCAA to investigate any potential rule violations.

The following is contained in released grand jury documents:
In 1998, while Sandusky was still the defensive coordinator, university police conducted an investigation after the mother of a young boy reported that he had showered naked with her son and gave him bear hugs while doing so. The investigation ended with Sandusky admitting what he did was wrong, with the resulting penalty being the police told him to stop showering with boys. No charges were filed. At least one university official was aware of this investigation.

My take: It is plausible that if these same charges had been levied against a graduate assistant, he would have been fired. However, since Sandusky was a highly successful defensive coordinator, he may have been allowed to coach for another year, and also allowed to be very close to the program for more than a decade afterwards. It is conceivable that to avoid embarrassment and to continue attracting top recruits, PSU obstructed the investigation and influenced the outcome. the NCAA certainly has used less evidence to open investigations into other schools.

This is clearly football and athletic department related. Even though Sandusky's actions may not directly violate an NCAA rule, any institutional cover up does. There may even be B1G violations as well. However, Sandusky was last employed by PSU 13 years ago and there may be a time limit on NCAA and B1G violations.
 

WAGopher said:
There is certainly an opening for the NCAA to investigate any potential rule violations.
Click to expand...
No one is saying don't investigate. The pushback is on the idea that there would be punishment without there being any proven violations.

WAGopher said:
It is conceivable that to avoid embarrassment and to continue attracting top recruits, PSU obstructed the investigation and influenced the outcome. the NCAA certainly has used less evidence to open investigations into other schools.
Click to expand...
So...this claim is supported by nothing in your post. You just put a conspiracy theory out there and treated it like a reasonable possibility without anything to back it up. Look, if the university did anything wrong it needs to be held responsible. But until that is shown all of this demanding punishment via the NCAA while lacking proof is getting old.

WAGopher said:
This is clearly football and athletic department related.
Click to expand...
No, this clearly has the POTENTIAL to be football and athletic department related in the context of the NCAA. Until further evidence comes to light, that's where it lies.

WAGopher said:
Even though Sandusky's actions may not directly violate an NCAA rule, any institutional cover up does.
Click to expand...
No, only if the cover up directly breaks an NCAA rule. People in the administration (Curley, etc) clearly displayed a "lack of institutional control" in a wider sense and they face criminal charges for it while the school faces massive civil lawsuits. But thus far, they haven't been shown to have done it in a way that involves NCAA rules.

WAGopher said:
There may even be B1G violations as well.
Click to expand...
Care to specify?
 

GoAUpher said:
First, you're assuming that there was a coverup of actions while Sandusky was still a coach. And even if you do assume that, you are also assuming the reason behind the cover up (the seemingly logical assumption to be sure, but still an assumption based on another assumption). That's why you wait for facts to be uncovered instead of demanding that players and coaches not associated with the acts be punished based solely on assumptions.

It's not that hard. If there is proof, then they get punished. If there is not, they don't. It's not like the NCAA even needs good proof to make their penalties stick (they've sanctioned teams/schools based on weak evidence before). But in this case they've got no evidence.

If you're suggesting that the NCAA act based on what it knows now, then you're saying the NCAA should step in because it looks like the admins covered for a private citizen. Sure, he's a private citizen with ties to the program but A) he was no longer someone under the NCAA's control/oversight, B) the crimes did not involve anyone else under the NCAA's purview, and C) the crimes themselves did not include actions covered by the NCAA's purview. And in the end, any punishment the NCAA can dish out STILL isn't as painful as what PSU is already going to face through civil penalties (and what the admins charged with perjury would face if convicted).

You're suggesting that a governing body without jurisdiction do something just because "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE" even though something (i.e. criminal and civil proceedings) is already being done.
Click to expand...

I've stated that the NCAA should not act now, and should instead wait for the Freeh report to come out. The NCAA won't do any better with one of their 12 investigators than the former FBI director will do.

Regarding your first point above, I don't think it matters whether Sandusky was retired, what matters is that a heinous crime was covered up to protect the football program's reputation. The ONLY other plausible reason that someone would cover up such a crime is out of some twisted sense of loyalty. That might explain the actions of Paterno and Curley but can't possibly explain the actions of their superiors.

As I said, I think they will self impose and in this case, I think the NCAA and B10 will take the unusual step of informally agreeing in principle with the penalty in advance to avoid the pain and further distraction of an investigation.
 

GoAUpher said:
No one is saying don't investigate. The pushback is on the idea that there would be punishment without there being any proven violations.

So...this claim is supported by nothing in your post. You just put a conspiracy theory out there and treated it like a reasonable possibility without anything to back it up. Look, if the university did anything wrong it needs to be held responsible. But until that is shown all of this demanding punishment via the NCAA while lacking proof is getting old.

No, this clearly has the POTENTIAL to be football and athletic department related in the context of the NCAA. Until further evidence comes to light, that's where it lies.

No, only if the cover up directly breaks an NCAA rule. People in the administration (Curley, etc) clearly displayed a "lack of institutional control" in a wider sense and they face criminal charges for it while the school faces massive civil lawsuits. But thus far, they haven't been shown to have done it in a way that involves NCAA rules.

Care to specify?
Click to expand...

Okay. You agree with me that there could be an investigation.

My claim is supported by the facts of the grand jury investigation. Those facts leave questions with one possibility being a coverup. It may or may not have happened, but that is what investigations are for.

It is clearly football related. It is unclear if the NCAA or B1G has any jurisdiction, but that is what investigations are for.

I think we're mostly in agreement. The intent of my post was to highlight that Sandusky committed crimes and was investigated for them while he was still the defensive coordinator. And considering that the investigation occurred while Sandusky was having sex with boys, it brings into question why it did not reveal what was really happening.
 

WAGopher said:
Okay. You agree with me that there could be an investigation.

My claim is supported by the facts of the grand jury investigation. Those facts leave questions with one possibility being a coverup. It may or may not have happened, but that is what investigations are for.

It is clearly football related. It is unclear if the NCAA or B1G has any jurisdiction, but that is what investigations are for.

I think we're mostly in agreement. The intent of my post was to highlight that Sandusky committed crimes and was investigated for them while he was still the defensive coordinator. And considering that the investigation occurred while Sandusky was having sex with boys, it brings into question why it did not reveal what was really happening.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and it will be the $X million question, because Penn State is likely going to be ponying up $X million in the string of civil suits they will be faced with.
 

50PoundHead said:
I agree with this and it will be the $X million question, because Penn State is likely going to be ponying up $X million in the string of civil suits they will be faced with.
Click to expand...

Let's start a thread about Kim Kardashian! Seriously, is this the level this forum should be at? The PSU story is nothing but tragedy..for everyone, including all NCAA football fans. We have nothing to gain by reveling in this sordid story of misbehavior by a rival. Leave it alone and think about the victims...and hope that that the Gophers represent everything that is right about college athletics moving forward. Go Gophers!
 

GoAUpher said:
It's not about can/will. It's about should they do something if no evidence of NCAA rules violations are uncovered. If the NCAA does anything here with no rules being broken then they're simply making it up as they go along. It's not like the NCAA has a lot of credibility all the time anyhow, but this would take the cake. If the NCAA goes down the road of punishing PSU without any rules being violated then they better start punishing every school/dept that has a coach with a DUI, etc.

In the meantime, neither interview you quote make it clear that the NCAA will do something eventually. It makes it clear that they will do something IF NCAA rules were broken. All Emmert says in the first interview is A) NCAA rules don't really address this situation (i.e. we might not have any standing to pursue action) and B) they do exist and we have a strong interest in making sure that the school didn't break them. Nowhere in there does he suggest the NCAA will do anything.
Then from your quotation of Lemming's interview:

In other words, "we're looking into it."

I agree, this could take a long time because the NCAA may choose to wait until all the legal maneuvering is complete (since this will allow them to benefit from legal discovery that they don't have the power to perform in many cases).
Click to expand...


Nonesense.
 

I haven't been on the website for a few days and just read three pages of this.

My only question for those who believe it isn't a football related issue:
It involved a coach, locker room, road trips to games that were funded by the school.
 

TrapperDoo said:
Let's start a thread about Kim Kardashian! Seriously, is this the level this forum should be at? The PSU story is nothing but tragedy..for everyone, including all NCAA football fans. We have nothing to gain by reveling in this sordid story of misbehavior by a rival. Leave it alone and think about the victims...and hope that that the Gophers represent everything that is right about college athletics moving forward. Go Gophers!
Click to expand...

Huh?!? Who is rejoicing here? This is an absolute tragedy littered with heinous acts by an individual and an institution that appeared to go out of its way to protect him. There is nothing in my comment that would indicate otherwise. Penn State is going to be liable for a considerable amount of remuneration to the victims of the terrible acts perpetrated by Sandusky and not curbed by Paterno, Curley, Spanier, and others. That is all I was saying.
 


MNfootballfan said:
My only question for those who believe it isn't a football related issue:
It involved a coach, locker room, road trips to games that were funded by the school.
Click to expand...

The only situation where there is any evidence of a cover up (which is sort of impropriety that is needed for any NCAA rules to be broken) involved a FORMER coach, a locker room (physical facility/location isn't called out in any NCAA rule), and road trips for the kids that were funded by the Second Mile (a private charity). In other words, until more evidence is unearthed there are no NCAA rules broken. Football related issue in the context of the NCAA requires those rules to be broken.
 

GoAUpher said:
Well, that's a very detailed and well thought out response. How did you ever cram so much factual information into such a small space? (rolls eyes)
Click to expand...

I thought I would gently yank your chain. Wanted to keep it short. Ba da bing.
 

GoAUpher said:
Well, that's a very detailed and well thought out response. How did you ever cram so much factual information into such a small space? (rolls eyes)
Click to expand...

A picture :rolleyes: is worth two words. :)
 



I hope those who rioted and defended Joe and the school finally realize how stupid they looked.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom