Penn State’s punishment

The NCAA did not kill off completely Penn State’s football program, as was widely expected, but the sanctions for the child sexual abuse scandal and its coverup were pretty harsh:

NCAA President Mark Emmert made the announcement Monday morning that the program would be hit with a four-year postseason ban and a $60 million fine. He called the case “unprecedented.”

In addition, the school will be forced to cut 10 scholarships for this season and 20 scholarships for the following four years.

The move essentially bumps Penn State down to the scholarship levels of schools at the lower Football Championship Subdivision.

The school will be forced to vacate all wins from 1998-2011, a total of 112 victories, and serve five years of probation.

The loss of victories means Joe Paterno is no longer college football’s winningest coach. He was fired in November during the scandal after 409 wins at the school.

Because of the length of the punishment, all current Penn State players and incoming freshman will be free to transfer to another school without penalty.

Is this an example of completely justified outrage taking the place of justice?  Normally, guilty individuals are punished, and surely those who knew about Coach Jerry Sandusky’s sex with little boys and did nothing about it need to be called to account.  But the Penn State players, students, and alumni didn’t know what was going on.  Why are they being punished?  Or is there corporate guilt, in which every member of an institution has a share in its transgressions?

If part of the problem in the cover up was the cultural climate of football uber alles, the corporate guilt would extend far beyond Penn State, to big time football universities as a whole and to the NCAA itself.

Also, is the NCAA acting beyond its jurisdiction?  Penn State did not violate any of the rules that the NCAA is supposed to enforce (such as recruiting violations, paying players, and the like).   Isn’t child abuse a matter for the criminal justice system and civil courts to take care of, rather than a sports organization?

And what kind of punishment is it to forfeit 13 years worth of games that have already been played?  It isn’t as if an ineligible player contributed to illicit victories that might otherwise be losses if it were not for the infraction.  How does that punishment have to do with the crime?

Don’t get me wrong:  I am repulsed by what happened at Penn State and want it addressed in the strongest possible way.  I just don’t understand the  NCAA action.  What would be better?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • WebMonk

    The NCAA specifically talks about why they did their punishment the way they did. They felt there was a broad culture which supported the behavior of the criminal few. While there were just a few individuals with direct culpability, the NCAA felt the entire system was designed to support just that sort of behavior, and so they designed the punishment to apply to the entire organization.

  • WebMonk

    The NCAA specifically talks about why they did their punishment the way they did. They felt there was a broad culture which supported the behavior of the criminal few. While there were just a few individuals with direct culpability, the NCAA felt the entire system was designed to support just that sort of behavior, and so they designed the punishment to apply to the entire organization.

  • SKPeterson

    This falls under the rubric of “lack of institutional control” in which the Athletic Department, and especially the football program, was aided and abetted in ignoring (and thereby furthering) criminal activity.

  • SKPeterson

    This falls under the rubric of “lack of institutional control” in which the Athletic Department, and especially the football program, was aided and abetted in ignoring (and thereby furthering) criminal activity.

  • Carl Vehse

    The punishments issued are an alternative to the NCAA not being allowed to dig up a corpse and throw it in jail.

  • Carl Vehse

    The punishments issued are an alternative to the NCAA not being allowed to dig up a corpse and throw it in jail.

  • formerly just steve

    Forfeiting games seems a little odd since it would appear to affect individual player statistics. Has anyone heard anything about that? I’m pretty surprised about that one. Having said that, causing pain to the whole organization should be enough to make everyone think twice before turning a blind eye to this kind of activity. It certainly sounds like a fairly widely known secret this Sandusky was inappropriate, at best.

  • formerly just steve

    Forfeiting games seems a little odd since it would appear to affect individual player statistics. Has anyone heard anything about that? I’m pretty surprised about that one. Having said that, causing pain to the whole organization should be enough to make everyone think twice before turning a blind eye to this kind of activity. It certainly sounds like a fairly widely known secret this Sandusky was inappropriate, at best.

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Couple obervations:

    I am sure this action will be challenged in court, for I do not think the NCAA’s bylaws grant the organization such sweeping punitive powers.

    But…I applaud this action, it is about time the NCAA start regulating all this out control college sports nonsense. The message sent here is powerful:

    You will not ever permit a silly, ultimately meaningless, game of throwing a ball around and running down a 100 yard field to become SO important that you sacrifice everything to maintain it.

    I say, “Amen!”

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Couple obervations:

    I am sure this action will be challenged in court, for I do not think the NCAA’s bylaws grant the organization such sweeping punitive powers.

    But…I applaud this action, it is about time the NCAA start regulating all this out control college sports nonsense. The message sent here is powerful:

    You will not ever permit a silly, ultimately meaningless, game of throwing a ball around and running down a 100 yard field to become SO important that you sacrifice everything to maintain it.

    I say, “Amen!”

  • The Jones

    This is a clear case where the NCAA “death penalty” should have been enforced. This completely cancels an NCAA football program for a period of years. It was only done once in football: to SMU for repeated recruiting violations and hidden monetary payments to recruits.

    While yes, criminal and civil courts will decide what happens to the individuals in this instance, the NCAA has the job of deciding what will happen to the academic organizations that are under its umbrella. While a $60 million dollar fine looks really tough, Penn State football brought in $91,000,000 in the 2007-2008 season. So to me, it doesn’t look all that tough.

    Eliminating wins and taking away titles as the winningest coach ever? I mean, okay, fine. But is it possible to say that something that happened actually didn’t happen? Is closing our eyes and projecting a different reality on history even possible? Will people now forget that Joe Paterno won 409 games? And if rewriting history is possible, is it a fit punishment? I don’t think so. I think it’s silly.

    The bowl games and scholarships (as well as the fine) is more in line with what I think should be done, but I think it should have gone up to the “death penalty” level. Penn State worshiped its football program, as many schools do. But in every case where individuals covered up child rape at Penn State, and did it to such an extent that it was institutional, there was a single motivation: Letting this stuff out or investigating it fully will _hurt the football program._

    “The United States will get nuked” is a justification that meets the level of not investigating child rape. (Although I can’t think of how this would actually play out in real life, so it’s just a hypothetical point.) “We must save our football program” is not. When you make that big of an idol out of something, you’ve got to tear it down.

    Did these “unprecidented” penalties do that? Sort of, but not really in my mind. The absence of the NCAA death penalty against Penn State leaves me with one question. “What exactly is bad enough to warrant the NCAA death penalty for a football program?”

    Looking through history for an answer, it seems that it is repeated recruiting violaitons. “Now THAT is a serious violation!” said the NCAA.

    The NCAA should punish recruiting violations, but it should also get it’s priorities in line. Some things are worse than cheating at football, and punishments should reflect that. I don’t think the NCAA’s actions here show that sufficiently. The problem isn’t that Penn State has $60,000,000 extra dollars. It’s not that they will play in too many bowl games in the next four years. It’s not that they have too many scholarships. The problem is that they worshiped their football program to the extent that child rape was not that big of a deal.

    When you’ve got an idol that big, you’ve got to destroy the idol. Kill it. The death penalty was the only way to go. They missed an opportunity that could have put some moral clarity into the situation.

  • The Jones

    This is a clear case where the NCAA “death penalty” should have been enforced. This completely cancels an NCAA football program for a period of years. It was only done once in football: to SMU for repeated recruiting violations and hidden monetary payments to recruits.

    While yes, criminal and civil courts will decide what happens to the individuals in this instance, the NCAA has the job of deciding what will happen to the academic organizations that are under its umbrella. While a $60 million dollar fine looks really tough, Penn State football brought in $91,000,000 in the 2007-2008 season. So to me, it doesn’t look all that tough.

    Eliminating wins and taking away titles as the winningest coach ever? I mean, okay, fine. But is it possible to say that something that happened actually didn’t happen? Is closing our eyes and projecting a different reality on history even possible? Will people now forget that Joe Paterno won 409 games? And if rewriting history is possible, is it a fit punishment? I don’t think so. I think it’s silly.

    The bowl games and scholarships (as well as the fine) is more in line with what I think should be done, but I think it should have gone up to the “death penalty” level. Penn State worshiped its football program, as many schools do. But in every case where individuals covered up child rape at Penn State, and did it to such an extent that it was institutional, there was a single motivation: Letting this stuff out or investigating it fully will _hurt the football program._

    “The United States will get nuked” is a justification that meets the level of not investigating child rape. (Although I can’t think of how this would actually play out in real life, so it’s just a hypothetical point.) “We must save our football program” is not. When you make that big of an idol out of something, you’ve got to tear it down.

    Did these “unprecidented” penalties do that? Sort of, but not really in my mind. The absence of the NCAA death penalty against Penn State leaves me with one question. “What exactly is bad enough to warrant the NCAA death penalty for a football program?”

    Looking through history for an answer, it seems that it is repeated recruiting violaitons. “Now THAT is a serious violation!” said the NCAA.

    The NCAA should punish recruiting violations, but it should also get it’s priorities in line. Some things are worse than cheating at football, and punishments should reflect that. I don’t think the NCAA’s actions here show that sufficiently. The problem isn’t that Penn State has $60,000,000 extra dollars. It’s not that they will play in too many bowl games in the next four years. It’s not that they have too many scholarships. The problem is that they worshiped their football program to the extent that child rape was not that big of a deal.

    When you’ve got an idol that big, you’ve got to destroy the idol. Kill it. The death penalty was the only way to go. They missed an opportunity that could have put some moral clarity into the situation.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 6

    Bravo

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 6

    Bravo

  • Pete

    “What would be better?”

    A return to college sports as college sports should be. The current model is a setup for such as happened at Penn State. The service academies and the Ivies do it the right way – actual scholar-athletes.

  • Pete

    “What would be better?”

    A return to college sports as college sports should be. The current model is a setup for such as happened at Penn State. The service academies and the Ivies do it the right way – actual scholar-athletes.

  • DonS

    To address Paul @ 5, there will be no court case. Penn State signed a consent decree agreeing to these sanctions, without appeal. If anyone else, such as an alumnus, tries to sue, that suit will be promptly dismissed.

    I think vacating wins is silly. You can’t erase history — these kinds of things smack of Stalinist efforts to do just that. The past should stand, with the knowledge that the institution will be punished in the future, harshly, for its past sins. Even more odd is the vacating of wins when no ineligible players were on the roster, which is usually the impetus for doing that. But the NCAA wanted to ensure that Paterno was no longer the winningest coach in NCAA history, so they did it, in what appears to be a fit of emotion.

    Reducing scholarships from 85 total to 65 total, for four years, plus a four year bowl ban, will destroy the storied Penn State program as well or better than the “death penalty” would have. No program can compete effectively in Division I football under these conditions. Because of the four year bowl ban, incoming freshmen as well as any player currently on the roster will know that they will never play in the postseason. Since those on the roster get a free pass to transfer without restriction to any other program, any player with talent will strongly consider doing so, and many will go. When these sanctions end, Penn State will be faced with the task of rebuilding from scratch.

    It is true that the NCAA has never penalized an institution for violations like these which do not impact competitiveness with respect to other institutions. Competitive fairness is their purview, not criminal prosecution. However, this is a unique and egregious circumstance, and I’m sure they felt they had to act, under the catch-all authority of “lack of institutional control” Bad facts make for dangerous precedent, and this is a classic example of that.

  • DonS

    To address Paul @ 5, there will be no court case. Penn State signed a consent decree agreeing to these sanctions, without appeal. If anyone else, such as an alumnus, tries to sue, that suit will be promptly dismissed.

    I think vacating wins is silly. You can’t erase history — these kinds of things smack of Stalinist efforts to do just that. The past should stand, with the knowledge that the institution will be punished in the future, harshly, for its past sins. Even more odd is the vacating of wins when no ineligible players were on the roster, which is usually the impetus for doing that. But the NCAA wanted to ensure that Paterno was no longer the winningest coach in NCAA history, so they did it, in what appears to be a fit of emotion.

    Reducing scholarships from 85 total to 65 total, for four years, plus a four year bowl ban, will destroy the storied Penn State program as well or better than the “death penalty” would have. No program can compete effectively in Division I football under these conditions. Because of the four year bowl ban, incoming freshmen as well as any player currently on the roster will know that they will never play in the postseason. Since those on the roster get a free pass to transfer without restriction to any other program, any player with talent will strongly consider doing so, and many will go. When these sanctions end, Penn State will be faced with the task of rebuilding from scratch.

    It is true that the NCAA has never penalized an institution for violations like these which do not impact competitiveness with respect to other institutions. Competitive fairness is their purview, not criminal prosecution. However, this is a unique and egregious circumstance, and I’m sure they felt they had to act, under the catch-all authority of “lack of institutional control” Bad facts make for dangerous precedent, and this is a classic example of that.

  • Carl Vehse

    The NCAA has punished Pediphilia State University (“Ped State”) more severely than with a temporary (?!) “death penalty.” Only a permanent dismantling of the football program (or the University itself) would have been worse.

    What the Freeh Report and the NCAA did was disembowel the Paterno legacy by vacating the 112 Ped State victories from 1998-2011. The winningest coach listed in the NCAA record book is now Florida State’s Bobby Bowden; it is unlikely there will even be an asterisk next to it. No longer will the name, Paterno, have any honor to it.

    Even the new Ped State President had the statue of Joe Paterno removed from in front of the stadium (maybe it will be placed in the team’s locker room shower).

  • Carl Vehse

    The NCAA has punished Pediphilia State University (“Ped State”) more severely than with a temporary (?!) “death penalty.” Only a permanent dismantling of the football program (or the University itself) would have been worse.

    What the Freeh Report and the NCAA did was disembowel the Paterno legacy by vacating the 112 Ped State victories from 1998-2011. The winningest coach listed in the NCAA record book is now Florida State’s Bobby Bowden; it is unlikely there will even be an asterisk next to it. No longer will the name, Paterno, have any honor to it.

    Even the new Ped State President had the statue of Joe Paterno removed from in front of the stadium (maybe it will be placed in the team’s locker room shower).

  • WebMonk

    Just for everyone’s reading pleasure, you can find the Freeh report here: http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

    The removal of the wins from their record is directly aimed at Paterno’s and the university’s roles in covering up the allegations. It isn’t an attempt to rewrite history, but rather to deny Paterno and Penn State any Hall of Fame glories.

    Penn State’s sports program has been hamstrung for this year and at least two more years, but after that they can start rebuilding – a process that could take anywhere from three or four years after the ban ends up to a decade or two. It’s a heavy punishment, but considering that some people are saying it’s too heavy while other people are saying it’s not heavy enough, I think it’s safe to say that there isn’t a possible punishment that would have satisfied everyone.

    Without knowing anything else, I would say that the punishment is in the generally right area if there are reasonable people on both sides saying it should have been more or less. Knowing more about it as I do, I would personally have made some different detailed decisions if I were crafting the punishment, but that’s just me and I know it.

    I’m not about to seriously criticize the punishment that was handed down – it seems to easily be within the purview of “reasonable people can reasonably agree with it”, even though I might differ some with some details.

  • WebMonk

    Just for everyone’s reading pleasure, you can find the Freeh report here: http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

    The removal of the wins from their record is directly aimed at Paterno’s and the university’s roles in covering up the allegations. It isn’t an attempt to rewrite history, but rather to deny Paterno and Penn State any Hall of Fame glories.

    Penn State’s sports program has been hamstrung for this year and at least two more years, but after that they can start rebuilding – a process that could take anywhere from three or four years after the ban ends up to a decade or two. It’s a heavy punishment, but considering that some people are saying it’s too heavy while other people are saying it’s not heavy enough, I think it’s safe to say that there isn’t a possible punishment that would have satisfied everyone.

    Without knowing anything else, I would say that the punishment is in the generally right area if there are reasonable people on both sides saying it should have been more or less. Knowing more about it as I do, I would personally have made some different detailed decisions if I were crafting the punishment, but that’s just me and I know it.

    I’m not about to seriously criticize the punishment that was handed down – it seems to easily be within the purview of “reasonable people can reasonably agree with it”, even though I might differ some with some details.

  • The Jones

    DonS,

    I do not believe that Penn State will be building from scratch. I think they will be building from 65 scholarships instead of 85 (as you described). It’s bad, but it’s not scratch. That’s 65 scholarhsips. SMU was scratch. They didn’t have a football program for 2 years. Now, that’s what I call “scratch.”

    While it may be possible that these penalties will be the effectively the same as “the death penalty” or even better, I am skeptical. It is always possible to give the death penalty AND fine the program, or give the death penalty AND reduce future scholarships. If they were looking for something equivalent to the death penalty, why not just use the death penalty? It’s not like that was out of bounds.

    It’s misplaced priorities. Yes, the NCAA is primarily set up for cheating in football. But when something this big comes up, if you’re going to do ANYTHING for punishment, you should make it at least reach over the level of SMU’s recruiting violations.

  • The Jones

    DonS,

    I do not believe that Penn State will be building from scratch. I think they will be building from 65 scholarships instead of 85 (as you described). It’s bad, but it’s not scratch. That’s 65 scholarhsips. SMU was scratch. They didn’t have a football program for 2 years. Now, that’s what I call “scratch.”

    While it may be possible that these penalties will be the effectively the same as “the death penalty” or even better, I am skeptical. It is always possible to give the death penalty AND fine the program, or give the death penalty AND reduce future scholarships. If they were looking for something equivalent to the death penalty, why not just use the death penalty? It’s not like that was out of bounds.

    It’s misplaced priorities. Yes, the NCAA is primarily set up for cheating in football. But when something this big comes up, if you’re going to do ANYTHING for punishment, you should make it at least reach over the level of SMU’s recruiting violations.

  • Grace

    Rev. Paul T. McCain @ 5

    I agree with everything you stated. Penn State got what they deserved. Covering up such horrific deeds, is and should be met with harsh punishment.

    One wonders how many individuals knew about this? The pain, anguish and shame these young people have endured can never be measured. Horrible memories of being of acts upon them — they will never forget.

  • Grace

    Rev. Paul T. McCain @ 5

    I agree with everything you stated. Penn State got what they deserved. Covering up such horrific deeds, is and should be met with harsh punishment.

    One wonders how many individuals knew about this? The pain, anguish and shame these young people have endured can never be measured. Horrible memories of being of acts upon them — they will never forget.

  • Grace

    13 should read:

    Horrible memories of acts upon these young people — they will never forget, NEVER!

  • Grace

    13 should read:

    Horrible memories of acts upon these young people — they will never forget, NEVER!

  • DonS

    The Jones @ 12: Let me say at the outset that I have no dog in this hunt. I don’t disagree with the sanctions — something drastic had to be done to address the corruption of a program that so valued winning and its reputation that it was willing to sacrifice young boys in pursuit of those values. I was just observing that the NCAA is setting a precedent of disciplining on issues other than competitive fairness which they should be very careful about extending beyond this egregious situation, and that these sanctions are, in many ways, as devastating to the program as the death penalty.

    I agree with you that it is not exactly like starting from scratch, simply because Penn State can maintain its program, including its infrastructure, administration, and coaching staff in place. They can put athletes in uniform, under scholarship, and have a team. I think the reason for not imposing the death penalty is exactly this — the death penalty is an undue hardship to the present athletes and staff and their ability to stay in school and earn a living, particularly since they had nothing to do with the reasons for the sanctions.

    On the other hand, in terms of the ability to build a winning program over the next five or so years, or more, these sanctions are just as bad as the death penalty, or maybe worse, because they will continue for four years. There is no way to effectively compete in the Big Ten and upper echelons of Division I football carrying 20 fewer scholarship players than every other team. Ten fewer scholarships (75 total) is difficult, but barely manageable, as we who follow U.S.C. are finding. Injuries take their toll, and you have depth issues even at that level. Stripping another ten scholarships away is devastating. Moreover, with a four year postseason bowl ban, and the right of all current Penn State players to transfer out without penalty, they will immediately lose most of their accomplished players. For the next two years, no players of any repute will enter the program, knowing they can never play in a bowl, or perhaps only play in their senior year.

    Yes, they will be playing. That is something. But they will most certainly be the doormats of the Big 10 for years to come.

  • DonS

    The Jones @ 12: Let me say at the outset that I have no dog in this hunt. I don’t disagree with the sanctions — something drastic had to be done to address the corruption of a program that so valued winning and its reputation that it was willing to sacrifice young boys in pursuit of those values. I was just observing that the NCAA is setting a precedent of disciplining on issues other than competitive fairness which they should be very careful about extending beyond this egregious situation, and that these sanctions are, in many ways, as devastating to the program as the death penalty.

    I agree with you that it is not exactly like starting from scratch, simply because Penn State can maintain its program, including its infrastructure, administration, and coaching staff in place. They can put athletes in uniform, under scholarship, and have a team. I think the reason for not imposing the death penalty is exactly this — the death penalty is an undue hardship to the present athletes and staff and their ability to stay in school and earn a living, particularly since they had nothing to do with the reasons for the sanctions.

    On the other hand, in terms of the ability to build a winning program over the next five or so years, or more, these sanctions are just as bad as the death penalty, or maybe worse, because they will continue for four years. There is no way to effectively compete in the Big Ten and upper echelons of Division I football carrying 20 fewer scholarship players than every other team. Ten fewer scholarships (75 total) is difficult, but barely manageable, as we who follow U.S.C. are finding. Injuries take their toll, and you have depth issues even at that level. Stripping another ten scholarships away is devastating. Moreover, with a four year postseason bowl ban, and the right of all current Penn State players to transfer out without penalty, they will immediately lose most of their accomplished players. For the next two years, no players of any repute will enter the program, knowing they can never play in a bowl, or perhaps only play in their senior year.

    Yes, they will be playing. That is something. But they will most certainly be the doormats of the Big 10 for years to come.

  • Dan Kempin

    So who gets this sixty million dollar fine, and how does it serve to redress the crime or prevent future instances? Seriously, who gets that money?

  • Dan Kempin

    So who gets this sixty million dollar fine, and how does it serve to redress the crime or prevent future instances? Seriously, who gets that money?

  • DonS

    Dan @ 16: This is what the ESPN article on the sanctions says about the fine:

    The NCAA said the $60 million was equivalent to the average annual revenue of the football program. The NCAA ordered Penn State to pay the penalty funds into an endowment for “external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university.”

  • DonS

    Dan @ 16: This is what the ESPN article on the sanctions says about the fine:

    The NCAA said the $60 million was equivalent to the average annual revenue of the football program. The NCAA ordered Penn State to pay the penalty funds into an endowment for “external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university.”

  • WebMonk

    Dan – a variety of child abuse prevention and children aid organizations.

  • WebMonk

    Dan – a variety of child abuse prevention and children aid organizations.

  • WebMonk

    Whoops, DonS beat me to it, and with more detail.

    *retreats with tail between legs*

  • WebMonk

    Whoops, DonS beat me to it, and with more detail.

    *retreats with tail between legs*

  • Spaulding

    Penn State also needs to be put on probation by the accrediting agency for that region. The look the other way problems in the name of victories wasn’t just in the athletic department. To really send a strong message out that that type of behavior won’t be tolerated not only by the NCAA but also by the accrediting agency. With the wording that if substantial changes aren’t made in the culture of the institution as a whole the accreditation is gone. To loose the accreditation would mean no federal financial aid for students, and that degrees from Penn State would be as useful as used toilet paper.

  • Spaulding

    Penn State also needs to be put on probation by the accrediting agency for that region. The look the other way problems in the name of victories wasn’t just in the athletic department. To really send a strong message out that that type of behavior won’t be tolerated not only by the NCAA but also by the accrediting agency. With the wording that if substantial changes aren’t made in the culture of the institution as a whole the accreditation is gone. To loose the accreditation would mean no federal financial aid for students, and that degrees from Penn State would be as useful as used toilet paper.

  • DonS

    Here is an article supporting my view that these sanctions will be far worse for the Penn State football program than the “death penalty” would have been: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–penn-state-sanctions-postseason-ban-mark-emmert-ncaa–60-million-scholarships-.html

  • DonS

    Here is an article supporting my view that these sanctions will be far worse for the Penn State football program than the “death penalty” would have been: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–penn-state-sanctions-postseason-ban-mark-emmert-ncaa–60-million-scholarships-.html

  • FoC’er

    This reminds me of how the kids react when teacher takes away recess from the whole class because a couple are trying to get away with something wrong. Everyone howls, “Not fair! Not fair!” So then, present is the idea of collective guilt. The PSU football program is the public face of all this so it’s going to feel the lash of the whip. Someone’s got to pay. I’m not arguing that justice is or isn’t going to be meted out fairly. One man’s justice is another man’s crime. Even so, there are identifiable leaders of PSU who knew what was going on and turned a blind eye, rationalizing it all away. So it goes with sins of commission and omission. Anybody wonder what the victims think about the penalties? Imagine they might have some perspective? Just sayin’

  • FoC’er

    This reminds me of how the kids react when teacher takes away recess from the whole class because a couple are trying to get away with something wrong. Everyone howls, “Not fair! Not fair!” So then, present is the idea of collective guilt. The PSU football program is the public face of all this so it’s going to feel the lash of the whip. Someone’s got to pay. I’m not arguing that justice is or isn’t going to be meted out fairly. One man’s justice is another man’s crime. Even so, there are identifiable leaders of PSU who knew what was going on and turned a blind eye, rationalizing it all away. So it goes with sins of commission and omission. Anybody wonder what the victims think about the penalties? Imagine they might have some perspective? Just sayin’

  • Helen K

    electrical storm kicked off my info…..just re-registering…sorry for the intrusion.

  • Helen K

    electrical storm kicked off my info…..just re-registering…sorry for the intrusion.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    The New York Times quotes NCAA president Mark Emmert as saying:

    “Football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people,” Emmert said.

    “Going forward, football will only be placed ahead of education,” he added, sotto voce.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    The New York Times quotes NCAA president Mark Emmert as saying:

    “Football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people,” Emmert said.

    “Going forward, football will only be placed ahead of education,” he added, sotto voce.

  • Grace

    tODD @24

    Going forward, football will only be placed ahead of education, he added, sotto voce.

    There is no ‘soft voice – your quote is only in your imagination, it doesn’t appear in the article!

  • Grace

    tODD @24

    Going forward, football will only be placed ahead of education, he added, sotto voce.

    There is no ‘soft voice – your quote is only in your imagination, it doesn’t appear in the article!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@25), can do a Google search for “sense of humor” real quick and tell me what you find?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@25), can do a Google search for “sense of humor” real quick and tell me what you find?

  • Grace

    tODD @ 26

    Grace (@25), can do a Google search for “sense of humor” real quick and tell me what you find?

    No google search needed – what I see is YOU playing with words, for attention, and calling it “humor” –

    There is no reason to have a “sense of humor” when others have been badly harmed by the acts of those in control, be it coaches, teachers, priests, pastors or anyone else. There is no “humor” connected with molestation.

    Those I have known, who were molested have suffered, it never goes away, it colors the life of the one who was abused. Having said that, I believe this situation that is now very public, being dealt the blow of 60 milliion dollars, and other punishment – has made a big impact on sexual abuse of children and young people, or anyone, who has suffered at the hands of a molester.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 26

    Grace (@25), can do a Google search for “sense of humor” real quick and tell me what you find?

    No google search needed – what I see is YOU playing with words, for attention, and calling it “humor” –

    There is no reason to have a “sense of humor” when others have been badly harmed by the acts of those in control, be it coaches, teachers, priests, pastors or anyone else. There is no “humor” connected with molestation.

    Those I have known, who were molested have suffered, it never goes away, it colors the life of the one who was abused. Having said that, I believe this situation that is now very public, being dealt the blow of 60 milliion dollars, and other punishment – has made a big impact on sexual abuse of children and young people, or anyone, who has suffered at the hands of a molester.

  • Dave

    The punishment hits people who aren’t guilty of anything and I don’t see how helps the victims. To me it is like a bank robbery and the thief is caught, but for punishment the bank is closed and the employees lose their jobs.

  • Dave

    The punishment hits people who aren’t guilty of anything and I don’t see how helps the victims. To me it is like a bank robbery and the thief is caught, but for punishment the bank is closed and the employees lose their jobs.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@27):

    There is no reason to have a “sense of humor”

    Then she added, sotto voce, “Or, at least, I’ve never seen any value in having one,” later noting that, ” :lol: :lol: :lol:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@27):

    There is no reason to have a “sense of humor”

    Then she added, sotto voce, “Or, at least, I’ve never seen any value in having one,” later noting that, ” :lol: :lol: :lol:

  • Grace

    Dave @28

    Your analogy doesn’t make sense. A bank robbery would not be ‘covered up. Molestation and sexual abuse is ALL to often ‘covered up.

    Teaching institutions in all other groups must understand THEY are RESPONSIBLE – if they aren’t, and cover up the crime of abuse, they, and their insititution will be punished.

  • Grace

    Dave @28

    Your analogy doesn’t make sense. A bank robbery would not be ‘covered up. Molestation and sexual abuse is ALL to often ‘covered up.

    Teaching institutions in all other groups must understand THEY are RESPONSIBLE – if they aren’t, and cover up the crime of abuse, they, and their insititution will be punished.

  • Grace

    POOR, POOR todd -

  • Grace

    POOR, POOR todd -

  • Donegal Misfortune

    Now the question is, how many people in the NCAA knew about it, and how are they going to police themselves.

  • Donegal Misfortune

    Now the question is, how many people in the NCAA knew about it, and how are they going to police themselves.

  • Michael B.

    @The Jones
    “The absence of the NCAA death penalty against Penn State leaves me with one question. “What exactly is bad enough to warrant the NCAA death penalty for a football program?”

    Good question. It looks like they will be asking the same question in Colorado if James Holmes doesn’t get the real death penalty.

  • Michael B.

    @The Jones
    “The absence of the NCAA death penalty against Penn State leaves me with one question. “What exactly is bad enough to warrant the NCAA death penalty for a football program?”

    Good question. It looks like they will be asking the same question in Colorado if James Holmes doesn’t get the real death penalty.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    #33: yes

    And yes, the innocents suffer…..that’s the way it always is, as long as we have corporate institutions. The corporate entity takes the fall for the evildoer.

    Moreover, institutional controls are only as good as those holding the controls, whether it’s a company, university, football team, or nation, really. And sometimes, God’s people are called to take a huge risk and let the world know that those in control are harboring a horrendous secret. Paterno and his coaches and the Penn State Staff. DOJ and BATFE officers who knew of Fast and Furious. Enron and Fannie Mae staffers.

    And like here, it can cost them a lot of what they hold dear. The payoff is in the next world, no?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    #33: yes

    And yes, the innocents suffer…..that’s the way it always is, as long as we have corporate institutions. The corporate entity takes the fall for the evildoer.

    Moreover, institutional controls are only as good as those holding the controls, whether it’s a company, university, football team, or nation, really. And sometimes, God’s people are called to take a huge risk and let the world know that those in control are harboring a horrendous secret. Paterno and his coaches and the Penn State Staff. DOJ and BATFE officers who knew of Fast and Furious. Enron and Fannie Mae staffers.

    And like here, it can cost them a lot of what they hold dear. The payoff is in the next world, no?

  • Dave

    Grace @30 The NCAA is not punishing the people who covered up anything. They are all gone. They are punishing the current athletes on the team who had nothing to do with the actions or the cover-up. They were 5 years old when the problem began.

  • Dave

    Grace @30 The NCAA is not punishing the people who covered up anything. They are all gone. They are punishing the current athletes on the team who had nothing to do with the actions or the cover-up. They were 5 years old when the problem began.

  • The Jones

    Michael B. @33,

    Batman has a rule against killing criminals. Luckily, the State of Colorado doesn’t.

    Dave @35,

    That’s the thing about sin. Whenever you do something bad, it affects lots of other people who were only tangentially connected. It’s a sad reality, but not one that should lead people to stop punishing bad behavior and institutional practices.

  • The Jones

    Michael B. @33,

    Batman has a rule against killing criminals. Luckily, the State of Colorado doesn’t.

    Dave @35,

    That’s the thing about sin. Whenever you do something bad, it affects lots of other people who were only tangentially connected. It’s a sad reality, but not one that should lead people to stop punishing bad behavior and institutional practices.

  • James Sarver

    The Jones @ #36,

    “That’s the thing about sin. Whenever you do something bad, it affects lots of other people who were only tangentially connected. It’s a sad reality, but not one that should lead people to stop punishing bad behavior and institutional practices.”

    One’s personal outrage, reasonable or not, does not justify the creation of more victims. It is not OK.

    Those who have a vocation to punish evil have a difficult task. They are required to dispense justice tempered with mercy. Not an easy thing in this fallen world.

    Those who do not have that vocation are not being helpful by having a public competition on who can show the greatest outrage, as measured by their exceesive reaction and indifference to those who may be harmed by it.

  • James Sarver

    The Jones @ #36,

    “That’s the thing about sin. Whenever you do something bad, it affects lots of other people who were only tangentially connected. It’s a sad reality, but not one that should lead people to stop punishing bad behavior and institutional practices.”

    One’s personal outrage, reasonable or not, does not justify the creation of more victims. It is not OK.

    Those who have a vocation to punish evil have a difficult task. They are required to dispense justice tempered with mercy. Not an easy thing in this fallen world.

    Those who do not have that vocation are not being helpful by having a public competition on who can show the greatest outrage, as measured by their exceesive reaction and indifference to those who may be harmed by it.

  • The Jones

    James @37,

    It was my goal to say that the institution, Penn. State University, is what should be punished by the NCAA, which associates with and regulates Penn. State through its sports programs. The crime of Penn. State was worshiping (my word) its football program to the point that allegations of child rape were covered up and not investigated. In my view, the “death penalty” punishment hits precisely who needs to be punished: Penn. State University and specifically its football program.

    I assume you are referring to the current Penn. State football players when you say that this course of action (the death penalty) creates more victims unnecessarily due to my personal outrage. The fact is, the penalty that was dispensed from the NCAA already hurts the players (they will never play in a bowl game, and some might loose their scholarships, etc.), which is why the last part of the ruling from the NCAA says that current players can find a new school with no hit to their eligibility. I don’t argue with that part. I don’t want to punish the players. I want to punish the institution, because it is the institution that is responsible for the cover-up and blind-eye (in addition to the individuals who are responsible for the individual acts themselves).

    My point in the post you reference is that when you punish the institution, you will hurt people who are connected with that institution. That is the consequence of wrongdoing, which is sad, but it is not a good reason to stop punishing wrongdoing. Children of criminals are hurt when their parents go to jail, but no one is arguing that we stop putting parents of innocent children in jail. Why would we try to say something like that for Penn State covering up child rape because it holds its football program above all else? All I am saying is punish the institution (Penn State football) with the appropriate penalty.

    The question remains: What must you do to earn the death penalty from the NCAA? Cover up child rape for the sake of your football program? No. Engage in recruiting violations for the sake of your football program? Yes. This pattern is what I’m saying is off-base. The NCAA had the opportunity for moral clarity. They bypassed that opportunity.

    I’m sorry if it looks like I’m indifferent or that I have an excessive reaction. I’m just trying to keep my head straight and respond to moral problems with the appropriate reaction.

  • The Jones

    James @37,

    It was my goal to say that the institution, Penn. State University, is what should be punished by the NCAA, which associates with and regulates Penn. State through its sports programs. The crime of Penn. State was worshiping (my word) its football program to the point that allegations of child rape were covered up and not investigated. In my view, the “death penalty” punishment hits precisely who needs to be punished: Penn. State University and specifically its football program.

    I assume you are referring to the current Penn. State football players when you say that this course of action (the death penalty) creates more victims unnecessarily due to my personal outrage. The fact is, the penalty that was dispensed from the NCAA already hurts the players (they will never play in a bowl game, and some might loose their scholarships, etc.), which is why the last part of the ruling from the NCAA says that current players can find a new school with no hit to their eligibility. I don’t argue with that part. I don’t want to punish the players. I want to punish the institution, because it is the institution that is responsible for the cover-up and blind-eye (in addition to the individuals who are responsible for the individual acts themselves).

    My point in the post you reference is that when you punish the institution, you will hurt people who are connected with that institution. That is the consequence of wrongdoing, which is sad, but it is not a good reason to stop punishing wrongdoing. Children of criminals are hurt when their parents go to jail, but no one is arguing that we stop putting parents of innocent children in jail. Why would we try to say something like that for Penn State covering up child rape because it holds its football program above all else? All I am saying is punish the institution (Penn State football) with the appropriate penalty.

    The question remains: What must you do to earn the death penalty from the NCAA? Cover up child rape for the sake of your football program? No. Engage in recruiting violations for the sake of your football program? Yes. This pattern is what I’m saying is off-base. The NCAA had the opportunity for moral clarity. They bypassed that opportunity.

    I’m sorry if it looks like I’m indifferent or that I have an excessive reaction. I’m just trying to keep my head straight and respond to moral problems with the appropriate reaction.

  • DonS

    The Jones @ 38: “What must you do to earn the death penalty from the NCAA?”

    Answer — I’m not sure the NCAA will ever issue the “death penalty” again. Why? The reason I stated yesterday @ 15: “the death penalty is an undue hardship to the present athletes and staff and their ability to stay in school and earn a living, particularly since they had nothing to do with the reasons for the sanctions. ”

    The death penalty irreparably hurts too many innocents, and from a point of view of damaging the competitiveness of a program, what the NCAA did yesterday is far more effective.

  • DonS

    The Jones @ 38: “What must you do to earn the death penalty from the NCAA?”

    Answer — I’m not sure the NCAA will ever issue the “death penalty” again. Why? The reason I stated yesterday @ 15: “the death penalty is an undue hardship to the present athletes and staff and their ability to stay in school and earn a living, particularly since they had nothing to do with the reasons for the sanctions. ”

    The death penalty irreparably hurts too many innocents, and from a point of view of damaging the competitiveness of a program, what the NCAA did yesterday is far more effective.

  • The Jones

    DonS,

    First, I seriously doubt that what the NCAA did yesterday is a more effective way to damage the competitiveness of the program. Look at the history of SMU: They won three Southwestern Conference titles: 1981, 1982, and 1984. In 1982, they played in the national championship and lost to (ironically) Penn State. They were a powerhouse before the death penalty, and after the penalty, the first time they even MADE it to a bowl game was in 2009. That’s 20 years from the end of the death penalty. I do not think that Penn State’s penalty was as severe.

    Second, the problem is not that Penn State won too many games. The problem is not that they have $60 million extra dollars. The problem is not that they will have too many bowl game appearances in the next four years. The problem is not that they have too many scholarships. The problem is that Penn State deified its football program to the point where they covered up and did not investigate child rape. The problem was the program itself which worshiped itself. Therefore, I say: kill the program. That was the missed opportunity.

    Finally, the correct goal of the NCAA should not be to hurt the competitiveness of the Penn State program. I don’t care about past wins or their future bowl game appearances. I care about Penn State worshiping its football program to the extent that it rises above all other things, even investigating child rape. (And my concern is for any other school, too. Trust me, I’m from Louisiana. I know this is not a Penn State only problem. It is just the place where it went the furthest.)

  • The Jones

    DonS,

    First, I seriously doubt that what the NCAA did yesterday is a more effective way to damage the competitiveness of the program. Look at the history of SMU: They won three Southwestern Conference titles: 1981, 1982, and 1984. In 1982, they played in the national championship and lost to (ironically) Penn State. They were a powerhouse before the death penalty, and after the penalty, the first time they even MADE it to a bowl game was in 2009. That’s 20 years from the end of the death penalty. I do not think that Penn State’s penalty was as severe.

    Second, the problem is not that Penn State won too many games. The problem is not that they have $60 million extra dollars. The problem is not that they will have too many bowl game appearances in the next four years. The problem is not that they have too many scholarships. The problem is that Penn State deified its football program to the point where they covered up and did not investigate child rape. The problem was the program itself which worshiped itself. Therefore, I say: kill the program. That was the missed opportunity.

    Finally, the correct goal of the NCAA should not be to hurt the competitiveness of the Penn State program. I don’t care about past wins or their future bowl game appearances. I care about Penn State worshiping its football program to the extent that it rises above all other things, even investigating child rape. (And my concern is for any other school, too. Trust me, I’m from Louisiana. I know this is not a Penn State only problem. It is just the place where it went the furthest.)

  • The Jones

    Another thing: The death penalty doesn’t hurt far too many innocents. Covering up child rape hurts far too many innocents. I am arguing that the NCAA death penalty is deserved punishment for the institutional cover-up of child rape for the sake of a football program.

  • The Jones

    Another thing: The death penalty doesn’t hurt far too many innocents. Covering up child rape hurts far too many innocents. I am arguing that the NCAA death penalty is deserved punishment for the institutional cover-up of child rape for the sake of a football program.

  • DonS

    The Jones @ 40: SMU’s football ban was for only one year. The reason why SMU went off the map in football for so long was their internal decisions to de-emphasize it in the wake of what happened. They changed their recruiting and scholarship standards, and otherwise intentionally stopped competing at the same level. There are plenty of articles detailing this change of emphasis. Read them and you will understand it wasn’t the death penalty that brought about the change in competitiveness at SMU.

    As I detailed yesterday, and as the article I linked detailed even further, these sanctions will most definitely kill the competitiveness of the program. There is no doubt about that. They will accomplish the goals of forcing PSU adminstration, board leadership, and boosters to entirely re-evaluate what they’ve been about all of these years. And that is the goal. The program, though still existing, is effectively killed.

    Obviously, the child rape is the greater harm to a great number of innocents. But, when deciding how to respond to that harm, knowing that those directly responsible are already out of the university and being punished in other ways, what you think about is how to change the culture going forward so this doesn’t happen again. What is the best way to do that without unduly harming more innocents? The wisdom of the NCAA was that they could accomplish the same task of changing the culture of the program with these sanctions as they could have by entirely suspending it. The bonus of not suspending the program was to allow innocent student athletes to remain in school and continue competing in football if they wanted to (or transferring out without penalty if that were their desire), and also keep all or most of the administrative staff on the job, rather than throwing them into the unemployment lines. I don’t think that was a bad choice or a missed opportunity.

  • DonS

    The Jones @ 40: SMU’s football ban was for only one year. The reason why SMU went off the map in football for so long was their internal decisions to de-emphasize it in the wake of what happened. They changed their recruiting and scholarship standards, and otherwise intentionally stopped competing at the same level. There are plenty of articles detailing this change of emphasis. Read them and you will understand it wasn’t the death penalty that brought about the change in competitiveness at SMU.

    As I detailed yesterday, and as the article I linked detailed even further, these sanctions will most definitely kill the competitiveness of the program. There is no doubt about that. They will accomplish the goals of forcing PSU adminstration, board leadership, and boosters to entirely re-evaluate what they’ve been about all of these years. And that is the goal. The program, though still existing, is effectively killed.

    Obviously, the child rape is the greater harm to a great number of innocents. But, when deciding how to respond to that harm, knowing that those directly responsible are already out of the university and being punished in other ways, what you think about is how to change the culture going forward so this doesn’t happen again. What is the best way to do that without unduly harming more innocents? The wisdom of the NCAA was that they could accomplish the same task of changing the culture of the program with these sanctions as they could have by entirely suspending it. The bonus of not suspending the program was to allow innocent student athletes to remain in school and continue competing in football if they wanted to (or transferring out without penalty if that were their desire), and also keep all or most of the administrative staff on the job, rather than throwing them into the unemployment lines. I don’t think that was a bad choice or a missed opportunity.

  • Grace

    Dave @ 35

    My post @ 30 stands – your bank analogy is ridiculous.

  • Grace

    Dave @ 35

    My post @ 30 stands – your bank analogy is ridiculous.

  • James Sarver

    The Jones @ #38,

    I should have been more clear. I was criticizing the NCAA and general public reaction rather than you specifically, though your position is a good example. The NCAA does not have a vocation to punish evil. God have mercy on us if it ever does. The NCAA arguably does have a vocation to protect and edify student althletes, a vocation at which it has failed miserably and in this case has willfully contradicted in order to make a point.

    “Children of criminals are hurt when their parents go to jail, but no one is arguing that we stop putting parents of innocent children in jail. ”

    True. The government has the vocation to do this. If the father, for example, is jailed the institution of the family suffers. Despite having a vocation for this, the government does not mandate that the institution of the family spend 15% less on the children, or nullify their academic achievements because their evil father helped with homework, or automatically disqualify them from participation in competitions, or invite the children to find new families at their own expense if they find this regime not to their liking (as if this made it all OK).

    By your reasoning if this were to happen we should all just chalk up this excess as collateral damage and go home feeling good about ourselves.

    No thanks.

  • James Sarver

    The Jones @ #38,

    I should have been more clear. I was criticizing the NCAA and general public reaction rather than you specifically, though your position is a good example. The NCAA does not have a vocation to punish evil. God have mercy on us if it ever does. The NCAA arguably does have a vocation to protect and edify student althletes, a vocation at which it has failed miserably and in this case has willfully contradicted in order to make a point.

    “Children of criminals are hurt when their parents go to jail, but no one is arguing that we stop putting parents of innocent children in jail. ”

    True. The government has the vocation to do this. If the father, for example, is jailed the institution of the family suffers. Despite having a vocation for this, the government does not mandate that the institution of the family spend 15% less on the children, or nullify their academic achievements because their evil father helped with homework, or automatically disqualify them from participation in competitions, or invite the children to find new families at their own expense if they find this regime not to their liking (as if this made it all OK).

    By your reasoning if this were to happen we should all just chalk up this excess as collateral damage and go home feeling good about ourselves.

    No thanks.

  • Michael B.

    @The Jones

    “I am arguing that the NCAA death penalty is deserved punishment for the institutional cover-up of child rape for the sake of a football program.”

    I agree. However I should give a disclaimer that I don’t believe football has a place at college in the first place: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382292376194220.html

  • Michael B.

    @The Jones

    “I am arguing that the NCAA death penalty is deserved punishment for the institutional cover-up of child rape for the sake of a football program.”

    I agree. However I should give a disclaimer that I don’t believe football has a place at college in the first place: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382292376194220.html

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Too harsh? Yes. And those who don’t like football should not allow that to taint their opinion on this. I personally think the four year postseason ban along with some stiffer scholarship penalties would have been sufficient.

    I do not like punishments that shrug off the inclusion of innocent parties as “just collateral.” The “Kill ‘em all and let God sort them out” mentality shows a lack of discretion.

    Was JoePa guilty? Absolutely. Same with any and every administrative level person who covered this Sandusky thing up. String them up and throw the book at them for their abominable actions. But that huge fine and those stiff penalties do far more to affect people who had nothing to do with this. It’s more akin to a Stalinist purge (in principle) than it is a judicial sentence passed with wisdom. It would be like the police blowing an apartment building up just for the sake of getting a few crooks in one of the apartments.

    Now, if you can show me where the overwhelming majority of students and staff believe the late JoePa had no guilt whatsoever in this situation, I’ll go right along with punishing the university. But no such thing has ever been proven. Yes, people initially defended JoePa when these allegations started coming out: who wouldn’t defend a friend, relative, or prominent person at first? Don’t we believe in “innocent until proven guilty” in this country? But when the evidence started coming out, I think a good number of Penn State students and alumni started distancing themselves from the “JoePa, right or wrong!” crowd.

    I have no problem with punishing the guilty, and that certainly needed to happen in this case. But I have a BIG problem with people who say “So what?” when punishments affect so many who had nothing to do with the crime. That’s not wisdom; that’s terrible leadership, and I question whether or not such people should retain their positions of authority.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Too harsh? Yes. And those who don’t like football should not allow that to taint their opinion on this. I personally think the four year postseason ban along with some stiffer scholarship penalties would have been sufficient.

    I do not like punishments that shrug off the inclusion of innocent parties as “just collateral.” The “Kill ‘em all and let God sort them out” mentality shows a lack of discretion.

    Was JoePa guilty? Absolutely. Same with any and every administrative level person who covered this Sandusky thing up. String them up and throw the book at them for their abominable actions. But that huge fine and those stiff penalties do far more to affect people who had nothing to do with this. It’s more akin to a Stalinist purge (in principle) than it is a judicial sentence passed with wisdom. It would be like the police blowing an apartment building up just for the sake of getting a few crooks in one of the apartments.

    Now, if you can show me where the overwhelming majority of students and staff believe the late JoePa had no guilt whatsoever in this situation, I’ll go right along with punishing the university. But no such thing has ever been proven. Yes, people initially defended JoePa when these allegations started coming out: who wouldn’t defend a friend, relative, or prominent person at first? Don’t we believe in “innocent until proven guilty” in this country? But when the evidence started coming out, I think a good number of Penn State students and alumni started distancing themselves from the “JoePa, right or wrong!” crowd.

    I have no problem with punishing the guilty, and that certainly needed to happen in this case. But I have a BIG problem with people who say “So what?” when punishments affect so many who had nothing to do with the crime. That’s not wisdom; that’s terrible leadership, and I question whether or not such people should retain their positions of authority.

  • http://mozillafirefax nellie mull

    not fair to the penn state football team. They were not the guilty ones yet have to suffer for problems unrelated to them. This stinks and something needs to be done to correct it.

  • http://mozillafirefax nellie mull

    not fair to the penn state football team. They were not the guilty ones yet have to suffer for problems unrelated to them. This stinks and something needs to be done to correct it.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X