The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Do you think they will bring his legacy down if they turn out to be true?

I don't know specifically what you're talking about, in regards to specific content of emails.  But, I think he legacy is already tarnished based on what's come to light -- perhaps unjustifiably.  But if he knew he was employing a serial child molester and didn't do anything other than report it up the ladder, then that's enough to tarnish his image.

The entire Penn State University is tarnished. If my child wanted to go there at this point I would refuse to offer money for it.

Apparently Penn State is almost as bad as the Catholic church, when it comes to covering up child abuse. 

The only thing they're worse at covering is the point spread /rimshot

Unjustifiably? If it shown he knew along with higher ups and they decided to protect the program and the school over the victims, then it is justified.

The NCAA should terminate Penn state football. Permanently.

I'd love to see the emails and what they say.  I have a hard time believing that JoePa could have done much more BUT report the incident to his superiors.  The more information we get out of this the better, and if it turns out that Paterno was complicit in covering it up, then he deserves to have his legacy shit upon.

I think the NCAA should stay out of it.

In my opinion, the NCAA's place is to adjudicate competitive violations; illegal scholarships, inappropriate recruiting, paying players, point shaving, etc.  Criminal violations should be left up to the government.

Suppose Bobby Bowden had been embezzling from some local charities.  Should the NCAA punish the FSU football program?

Technically speaking, this can be cited as Lack Of Institutional Control, but I agree with Spider.  This is a legal issue, not an issue of NCAA violations.  Let the criminal and civil courts decide this one.

You can make a case that boys were abused because the program was put ahead of the safety of the victums. That isn't a lack of institutional control. Its institutional wrongdoing.

Actually, based on the emails, Landshark is correct.

Joe Pa was telling his superiors what to do (let's handle this situation this way, not that way).  From an NCAA point of view, it's very much grounds for lack of institutional control.  The football coach should not be ruling the roost, so to speak.  Should the NCAA get involved, these will be the grounds they do it on.

I said "perhaps unjustifiably", because I don't know what JoePa knew and what he didn't.  If he had a report of something generic like "inappropriate conduct" and he passed it up the ladder, where they found no wrongdoing, that's one thing.  If he specifically knew that Sandusky was anally raping boys in the shower, that's another.  I don't really know enough to speculate.

A consulting firm is going to release a new report this week on how the Penn State culture may have played a part in this.  According to the news article, this report is going to be "very tough on Joe Paterno"

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8136890/penn-state-abuse-report-expected-very-tough-joe-paterno-according-sources

The consulting group hired by the Board of Trustees, the same Board of Trustees that fired Paterno to shift the blame away from themselves and the University (which fired Paterno when they had very very limited information), is now going to issue a report blaiming a dead man that can't defend himself, and which will support the Board, that hired them.  What a surprise.  Joe Paterno Never personally used email, so none of the emails are authored by him.  What a surprise it will be when those additional individuals charged with crimes all blame the dead man.  In all of this Paterno is the only one that stood up said he wished he had done more.

The report by Louis Freeh was released today.  Totally slammed Joe Paterno as well as the former AD and university President.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/nation/2012-07-12-penn-state-freeh-report.pdf

Death penalty for the program? Was this worse than what SMU did?

This was a hell of a lot worse and a lot of people took to the airwaves today calling for the same thing.  But from what I heard on the radio from some experts, the NCAA is probably not going to get involved.  The people involved in these heinous actions will face civil and criminal repercussions through our justice system, as they should.  However, NCAA shutting down the program would hurt no one but the players and the student body, none of which had anything to do with these heinous actions.

I disagree. The money that football brings in to that college is one of the big underlying reasons it was covered up. I'm not saying they should kill it, although I'm not opposed to it either, but if they are trying to hold accountable the very reasons that it was covered then money will be at the top of the list. The 60 or so individual players who won't get to play each year for PSU and the student body not having someone to root for is pretty minimal fallout IMO. 

I said before that the only good thing to come from this will be that it will make it easier for the next person/group to come forward and report incidents or people earlier. If the cost of not coming forward is losing your football program (or whatever else is important) no matter who you are then it almost forces people to be more forthright and come forward.

Regardless of who is or isn't still there how would you like to go down in history as the person who cost PSU their storied program because you covered for someone in your program?

This is miles worse than what happened at SMU.  Everybody bitched because SMU bought their players this that and the other thing.  All that was about was money. 

This is miles worse than getting caught with a younger woman on your motorcycle who isn't your wife *cough* bobbypetrinoassholeoftheplane t *cough*

This is far worse than going to a strip club or whatever got the guy at Alabama fired.

The PSU scandal is not about money (at least not at the heart of it).  This is about a series of criminal acts far worse than taking money or selling things in exchange for favors.  This is about raping innocent boys and then turning around and covering it up.  I could care less what the University has to say or what reports they come out with now that the only other people who know what happened internally are in jail (Sandusky) or dead (Paterno). 

If the NCAA had any balls they'd give Penn State the death penalty.

I have a question:

Is fixing games worse than killing another person?

Because there are players in the NFL who have been convicted of killing another human being, yet if those same players had instead been found to throw just one game, they would be immediately banned for life.

You need to separate competitive violations from societal violations.  Is raping a woman worse than a ref fixing a game, from the standpoint of human decency and society as a whole?  Yes.  But a ref fixing a game could potentially destroy the entire league.  So let's keep things in perspective.

The NCAA does not need to be concerned with enforcing the laws of the land.  We have a criminal justice system for that.  The NCAA needs to be concerned about protecting the integrity of the sport, and Sandusky's criminal actions had no direct impact whatsoever on that.

SMU's actions directly impacted the integrity of college football as a sport for amateur student-athletes, and essentially turned the NCAA into a pay-for-play highest-bidder-wins pro league.  The crimes that Sandusky committed did not have any such impact on the sport.

^^^ Agree

But the cover-up to protect the program shows a lack of institutional control that taints the university, the program, the sport, and the NCAA. Is it more important to protect a sport or people?

The "lack of institutitional control" didn't actually cause any problems with the sport.  Could it have?  Sure, but there is no evidence to that effect.

What it did cause problems with was people following the law.  The PSU brass swept this under the rug, but it is no more an NCAA concern than if a really popular or well-respected professor convinced the brass to sweep a similar situation under the rug.

I guess the question boils down to how much oversight you expect and how much responsiblity the controling board has to maintain not only the intergrity of the sport but the image of the sport.

To draw a comparison to the NFL:

The punishments in Bountygate, Jets tripping incident, etc, went to the intergrity of the sport.  And is similiar to the SMU incident.

OTOH, the punishments handed out b/c of Big Ben's bathroom rape, Pacman, Stalworth's DUI, M. Vick, etc, went to the image of the sport. And are similiar to the Penn incident.

If you think that Godell should be limiting himself to just the first group and not bothering with those players whose conduct is "off-field" then you probably think that the NCCA has no place punishing Penn.

However, if think that the NFL has a place in protecting image of the sport as being one that expects its employees to obey societies' laws, then you support the NCCA cracking down on Penn.
If you

The difference is that the NFL's relationship to players is (roughly) that of an employer, while the NCAA's relationship is (roughly) that of a regulatory body.

While the NFL does have a clear business interest in preventing players from making the league look bad, the NCAA cannot really claim the same mantle; the NFL is a corporation in the business of making profit, while the NCAA is (ostensibly) an objective regulatory body there to protect the integrity of the sport.  So while the NFL has wide latitude (collectively bargained, mind you) to punish any employee that engages in any kind of conduct that reflects poorly on the league, the NCAA really only has authority to do so if said conduct actually impacts the sport.

I get what you say as regrading the NCAA and players vs NFL and players.

And would say that there is some difference between the relationship between the NCAA and a college athlete vs. te NFL and a pro athlete.

However, I would say that difference shrinks to almost none when comparing the relationship between a college and the NCAA vs a team and the NFL or a NFL coach's relationship to the NFL vs a college coach's relationhip to the NCAA.

If Greg Williams had been raping little boys in the Saints lockerroom while, Sean Payton and George Loomis covered up for him do you think the Saints would be punished?

NCAA has a responiblity to protect its image, and it also has reponsiblity to protected the 11 year old boy balls.  Failing to do anything would certainly be irresponible on both counts.

Well, to be fair, you should replace "Gregg Williams" with "someone who is not employed by the Saints."  But to answer your question, if Sean Payton and George Loomis had both been fired by the Saints for their involvement, then no, I don't think the NFL would levy additional punishment against them.

If Jim Mora knew about Vick's dogfighting and tried to help cover it up, and the Falcons fired him for it, do you think the Falcons would have lost draft picks?

What?

Even after they had known about his issues with boys and had given him money for his "retirement"  they continued to allow him full access to the NCAA program thus allowing him to use it (the NCAA program) as a pedophlia dating tool. They knew about it as early as 1998 and allowed him access unitl 2011.

From the Freeh report ...

�


I will steal a quote from something I read earlier as I think it nails it ...

Sandusky's connection and access to the program -- to university football facilities, games, exclusive seating at Beaver Stadium, youth clinics, etc -- played an undeniable role in his predatory pedophilia. That affiliation with the program and its trappings “enabled him to attract his victims” and destroy the childhoods of so many young people.

If that isn't cause for suspending a college football program, nothing is, ever has been, or ever will be.

When you say that "they" knew about his issues and continued to allow him access to the program, you realize that "they" consists of people who have already been fired for this offense, right?

I mean, at the end of the day, any further blame to be placed is going to be much higher up than just the football program.  So if you want to say that Penn State needs to be punished for the lack of oversight by the Board of Trustees, why is it only the football program that needs to be shuttered?  Why not close down the entirety of Penn State athletics for a year?

Hell, when you get right down to it, the Board of Trustees is responsible for the entire university, not just the athletic program.  So if a punishment needs to be meted out to teach them a lesson, why not shut down the entire school for a year?

The involved parties have received substantial disciplinary action from the school.  These were people that were not only at the top level of the football program, but the athletic department itself.  If you really think the punishment needs to be escalated further, why are you restricting it only to the football program?  At this point, the remaining football staff is no less innocent than the baseball program or the physics department.

No offense Spider but that is a weak argument. It will be argued by lawyers because there is nothing else to argue but the fact you aren't getting paid to say it somehow comes across gross. It's as if you are condoning the activity and saying "Que Sera Sera".

The football program was knowingly used to seduce little boys for sex. What about that seems worthy of turning a blind eye?

The people who were involved with that have all been fired or jailed.

This isn't like SMU where an example needs to be made, lest other universities decide that it's in their best interest to start running an underground molestation ring.  There is zero risk of another athletic department looking at this scandal and thinking, "Gee, PSU got away with a slap on the wrist... maybe we should start illegally importing East European hookers."

There is punishment designed as corrective action, and then there is punishment theater, implemented solely as a show for the media.  Shutting down the PSU football program (and nothing else at PSU) is an example of the latter.

No but lack of punishment shows other large programs that there is no serious consequences for hiding criminal activity taking part with your football program and its facilities. It is no a stretch to think he was molesting boys as a coach and used the program as a means to lure victims in. By letting it go you are encouraging other programs to hide anything negative.

I will say again:  there WERE serious consequences for hiding criminal activity.  Everyone involved was fired or jailed.

It seems to me that the Media is focusing on Paterno and the PSU Football Program because those are the most sensational targets that they can go after and get ratings.  I'm more interested in the supposed 1998 police investigation, what about that???  If something was done then, there wouldn't have been the incident McQuery (sp?) witnessed three years later.  And what about an investigation of the Second Mile Program??  That is where the children came from.  It seems there are many to blame for not ending this sooner.

Like I said in another thread, the sensational stories that spread the most gossip help sell more newspapers and/or magazines

True, nobody is going to setup a molestation ring if PSU gets off scot free.  But if PSU doesn't get punished, there won't be much motivation for other college presidents to take monitoring their athletic departments. 

I don't see PSU as some sort of rouge isolated aboration, but merely a symptom of the overall college sports mentality regarding covering up criminal activity and bad behavior.

College athlete rapes another student -- cover it up.  College athlete cheats on a test, give him and A and make sure that teachers know that if they don't pass all athletes they will be unemployed.  College coach rapes a boy -- cover it up.

It is high time colleges are sent a clear and unequival message -- clean up your athletic department or you won't have an athletic department. 

PSU gets a 10 years suspension you can bet colleges will be more proactive in preventing future molestation.   

PSU is the posterboy for lack of institutional control. It is the queen mother, all-time, best example ever of college sports gone wrong.


Your face is like 2 inches from a big tree but guess what... you're standing in the middle of a ginormous fucking forest. LOL

If the NCAA doesn't hammer them then the only message sent is to cover-up, lie, obfuscate & cheat better.

...except that this wasn't a PSU coach.  This was a former PSU coach.  That means something.

When it's one of your coaches or players that actually committing crimes, your program stands to benefit from the coverup.  But Jerry Sandusky was no longer involved with the program.  If the McQueary incident was handled properly, there is no dirt on PSU at all; they would have been "just as surprised and sickened as the rest of America, and immediately took action upon finding out about this disturbing child predator."

You could accomplish the same thing by shutting down the business college, and it would be just as misguided.

If the Board of Directors were derelict in their duty, why is it just the football program that gets punished?

So you think that being fired and/or facing jail time is not a deterrent, but a 1-year cancellation of the football program would be?

How do you know he wasn't doing this when he was on the staff?  According to some allegations, he pulled similar stunts like this AS AN ACTIVE STAFF MEMBER.

What difference does it make that he wasn't a coach? He held youth clinics, had free reign in the program and brought his guests to the high priority seating. He used the football program as "bait". It wouldn't matter if he was the gardner.

Oh, there was the incident in '98 when he was still employed by PSU.  But seeing as how the state itself chose not to prosecute, you can hardly punish PSU for that.

The PSU faculty-related-part of this scandal is not based on all the other stuff going on that was discovered by investigators; the PSU athletic department is not the CIA.  This scandal is based solely on the McQueary incident and the action taken (or lack thereof) by the AD brass.  And at the time of that incident, Sandusky was not a PSU employee, plain and simple.

No it isn't based solely on the McQueary incident.  It's based on all the boys he molested over that tome between the mid 80s and now, and the fact that it was covered up all that time.

He was not an employee of the program; therefore, PSU (as an institution) had nothing to gain by protecting him.

You issue out punishment to a program when illicit actions are taken that benefit that program.  Sandusky molesting kids obviously did not benefit PSU, and his arrest would not have hurt PSU (as he was not an employee).  The individual employees who decided to cover up the incident for their personal friend were fired; at least one is facing criminal charges.  The problem has been addressed.

What evidence is there that the PSU brass was covering up anything but the 2001 incident?  If this evidence all existed from the '80s, why did the state attorney decline to charge Sandusky in '98?

Do not confuse what Sandusky was convicted for with what Paterno and Curley conspired to hide.  The latter is a tiny subset of the former.

And again, I am still waiting to hear why, if it is the Board of Trustees that was derelict in their duty to manage the Athletic Department, why is it that only the football program should be shut down?  The Board of Trustees' responsibility goes far beyond the football team.

And that state attorney supposedly disappeared years later and his laptop was found in a river damaged beyond repair.  You know there's a lot more to this than what is being let on

1998 not 2001. But to the board of trustee's. The cash cow for PSU is the football program. To lose it even temporarily would cost the whole board their jobs and force future trustees to realize that the school is more than any one program.

So the football program should be shut down... because it makes the most money?  Put another way, if this was a former baseball coach instead, the NCAA should still make sure that football is shut down, because that's the cash cow?

This is the core of the argument.  I think that at this point, people are simply looking for some way to inflict damage on Penn State, whether its on the people who were the problem or not.

Again, to compare to SMU, there you had everyone all the way up and down the chain who was complicit: the players, the coaches, the brass, the boosters.  In this case, you are talking about 4 people who were involved (plus Sandusky).  I don't think you shut down the football program over the illicit actions of 4 people, when said actions did not provide any sort of benefit to the team or the university.  These were rogue agents acting in their own personal best interests, and I don't think (having made the choice to fire these wayward employees) PSU should be held accountable for their actions any more than the Falcons should have been held accountable for Vick's dogfighting.

You are either delusional or you just like to argue.

This is ALL ABOUT THE FOOTBALL PROGRAM. Football is king at college, and Jo Pa was God at Happy Valley. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.

To argue that this is only about Sanduskey and that because he wasn't *employed* by PSU during the majority of his reign of terror is beyond asinine.

Paterno was fired.  Everyone involved with accommodating Paterno's illicit request was fired.  Some of them are facing criminal charges.

Sounds like THE PROBLEM has been addressed.

I guess in your eyes the Catholic church has completely resolved the problem priest pediphiles as well?

Um, except the Catholic Church was and is still protecting the people involved in their coverups.  Every person that was made aware of Sandusky at PSU (and did nothing) was fired.

But let's take your analogy to its conclusion: should the Pope shut down the churches where those molesting priests held services?

So here's a rather disturbing tale:

Teen endured shame, fear and threats to launch Sandusky prosecution – USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-09/victim-1-sandusky-witness/56278226/1)

A short excerpt:

The public backlash, Gillum said, was almost immediate and jarring. Within weeks, the boy's mother reported to state investigators that she was confronted in a Lock Haven business by an unhappy local resident who had learned that her son had been linked to the allegations triggering Sandusky's removal as a volunteer.

The child's identity spread rapidly through the community, the psychologist said, making him and his mother the target of harassment — and ultimately threats of harm — by locals upset that Sandusky had been dismissed from the school.

Just saw on the news that the statue has been taken down and the NCAA is going to drop the hammer tomorrow

Anything but the death penalty is a travesty

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/penn-state-nittany-lions-not-facing-death-penalty-monday-ncaa-source-says

NCAA president Mark Emmert has decided to punish Penn State with severe penalties likely to include a significant loss of scholarships and loss of multiple bowls, a source close to the decision told ESPN's Joe Schad on Sunday morning.

But Penn State will not receive the so-called "death penalty" that would have suspended the program for at least one year, the source said.

The penalties, however, are considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable, the source said.

--

Another excerpt I found interesting (that basically said the same thing I've been saying from the beginning):

"This is unique and this kind of power has never been tested or tried," the former chair said. "It's unprecedented to have this extensive power. This has nothing to do with the purpose of the infractions process. Nevertheless, somehow (the NCAA president and executive board) have taken it on themselves to be a commissioner and to penalize a school for improper conduct."

NCAA presidents past and present have made a point of saying they are not akin to a commissioner in professional sports and don't have the power to penalize players, coaches or schools independently.

The former chair said the only "rule" that the NCAA could be holding onto here is a lack of institutional control.

"I would be surprised if they're treating this as simply a lack of institutional control under the rules," the former chair said. "Because then that would technically go through the committee."

The chair said that the NCAA is choosing to deal with a case that is outside the traditional rules or violations. He said this case does not fall within the basic fundamental purpose of NCAA regulations.

"The purpose of the NCAA is to keep a level playing field among schools and to make sure they use proper methods through scholarships and etcetera," the chair said. "This is not a case that would normally go through the process. It has nothing to do with a level playing field. It has nothing to do with whether Penn State gets advantages over other schools in recruiting or in the number of coaches or things that we normally deal with."

The former chair said as an example the NCAA didn't get involved in the murder of Yeardley Love, a women's lacrosse player at Virginia, by her former boyfriend, a male lacrosse player at Virginia.

Absolute power corrupts.

Of course it did.  The school had limited power to remove / do anything to the / a coach, even when it needed to.  This could have resulted in lack of progress on the field, thus limiting it's resources within the sport.

(emphasis added)

It seems like you're saying that it could have caused a problem, which is not the same thing as did.

^^I think it's fair to assume that if Joe Paterno could cover up a child molestation in the locker room, he could have also covered up lots of lesser offenses dealing directly with the football program. His reputation has been destroyed and since he was head of the football program, the football program's reputation has been destroyed as well. Maybe that's not fair, but that's how it is.

Everyone wants to put the cover-up blame on Paterno.  If that's the case then why did he go to the AD and President with the allegations reported to him by McQuerry???  If Paterno really wanted this cover up from the begining it could have stopped with him when McQuerry told him about the incident.  This is all about money, the football program is the fall guy becuase that is where the University generates its income, directly and indirectly.  I don't find Paterno blameless in this, but there is very little evidence of how much he knew, and what action(s) he took.  Now that he is dead we will never know.

Yes, but again, you don't deal out punishments based on what could have happened.  You deal them out based on what did happen.

There are many college coaches with enough power and influence that they could cover up football-related scandals, but unless they actually did so, you can't really punish a school for that.

And that's exactly what happened. The penalities put in place were because the Penn St. football program was negligent and then attempted to cover up their negligence for years.

Let me ask you this Spider, why do you think they attempted to cover this up anyhow? You think they just didn't care any of those kids were being molested or do you think it's possible that they covered it up because they didn't want the football program to suffer? This was ALL about the football program and the power the people within the football program possessed. They didn't get that power by accident, it was given to them because they were making the school a lot of money, prestige etc and they didn't want to screw that up, so damn the kids. I'm sorry but that's about the worst thing I think anyone can say about a college institution. They got what they deserved.

I haven't yet fully read the Freeh report, but it seems like his conclusion was that Paterno was not covering up Sandusky to protect his longtime friend, but to shield the football program from a scandal.  (There is a huge difference between the two.)

If it was the former, it is inappropriate to punish the school.
If it was the latter, then yes, it is appropriate (though I still don't precisely agree with the punishment they chose).

Joe Pa was allowed to remain as coach.  Joe Pa allowed his buddy to remain on campus, thus turning a blind eye to children being raped.

I'm not saying could.  I am saying did.  Children WERE raped.  Joe Pa could have stopped it.  He didn't.  The school could have removed Joe Pa as coach, they didn't.

I fully understand you enjoying taking a stance just to take one.  This is an instance where I am shocked by your stance.  Part of me is hoping you're going on and on because this is just what you do...

Bad joke ...

I heard they were going to allow Paterno's statue to remain but they had to modify it to look the other way.

What do you mean by "allowed to remain as coach"?  Are you saying that Paterno should have been fired by the school in 1998 or 2001?  What possible reason could the AD have given in 1998 or 2001 for firing Paterno at that time?

The moment that Penn State's involvement with Sandusky was made clear, everyone involved was fired (even the mighty Joe Paterno).  Only hindsight is 20/20.

But that's not the "could have" we are talking about.

PSU's lack of institutional control over its staff DID NOT impact the football program; it impacted the lives of the children who were molested by Sandusky, which is not the same thing.  Their lack of control could have impacted the football program; say, if Paterno was abusing his lack of oversight in order to run an underground brothel to recruit players.  But that's not what actually happened.

So basically, you don't think I could possibly believe that PSU doesn't deserve to have their football program shuttered?  That there should be a distinction between violations committed to give your team a competitive edge and criminal activity?

You are incorrect. It was made clear a long time ago (that is why there was a cover up). Many people could have started the firing process of individuals much sooner. The moment it was made public is what you should be saying.

It also could have impacted the program because an icon of a coach was allowed to recruit players (not in the literal sense of recruiting, I know Paterno's role was very diminished but you get my point). Now is that a competitive edge, I guess we can argue that. But I would say it would be easier to get players while having the Paterno name still there.

Unfortunately, the guy in charge of making that decision simply reported it to his boss.

Essentially, the moment it became clear to someone that was not directly part of the conspiracy itself, everyone involved in the conspiracy was fired.  That is what I was trying to say.

The fallout continues.  Now there is evidence that Sandusky and a well known Penn State booster were involved in some pedophile ring.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-u-s-postal-inspectors-probing-disgraced-penn-state-coach-jerry-sandusky-involved-a-pedophile-ring-involving-men-connected-university-report-article-1.1134125

It just keeps getting worse and worse at Penn State.  I'm glad Sandusky will not see freedom again.