The bell tolls for Penn State

[Spider-Dan]

I would agree if we weren't talking about a college institution. Their whole existance is to educate, influence, motivate etc the youth of this country. That's their charter. They aren't in business to make cars or build houses or something else, they are in the business of educating the young. Instead they took advantage of kids.

But they didn't take advantage of kids!  Sandusky did!

The only offense that PSU's Board committed was letting their coach become too powerful.  And yet, all of the remaining super-powerful college coaches have just as much power today as they did 2 weeks ago.

I invite you to seriously consider the following: had all of this gone down at some other school, do you think Joe Paterno himself would have been affected IN ANY WAY by this ruling?  Do you honestly believe that if this had happened at Notre Dame 2 years ago, the PSU Board would have started investigating Paterno on their own and found this stuff out themselves?

If you believe that, then you also believe that today, there is someone in Baton Rouge saying, "You know, we should really take a hard look at what Les Miles has been up to."  I don't find that idea remotely credible.

Let me put it another way:  what would you say the odds are of a major university announcing a spontaneous self-investigation (with significant disciplinary action) against a big-name coach in the next year (without it being the result of a public incident)?  I can comfortably say those odds are non-existent.

[Pappy13]

But they didn't take advantage of kids!  Sandusky did!

The only offense that PSU's Board committed was letting their coach become too powerful.

No sir. Paterno wasn't the only one that knew what was going on. There had already been reports to the SCHOOL (not Paterno) that Sandusky had been showering with the kids WHILE HE WAS STILL AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL. Sandusky admitted it in front of PSU employees. If you believe that the board of trustees shouldn't have been made aware of that or that they didn't find out about that, then I think you are mistaken. I don't believe there's any way they WOULDN'T have known about that without gross negligence on their part and the part of A LOT OF PEOPLE, not just Paterno.

No sir, this was not just a case of Paterno becoming too powerful, but also a case of PSU not doing due diligence in ensuring that Paterno was using that power appropriately and then removing that power from him when it became apparent that he was abusing it most likely because they were more worried about what a scandal would cost them then what it would cost the kids. That IS their responsibility. You don't just hire the man and walk away, you have to continue to oversee his duties and make sure that he's weilding the power you have given him appropriately. That IS their responsibility and they didn't live up to that responsibility. That is on THEM just as much as it's on Paterno.

That's how I see it and a lot of other folks see it as well. You are welcome to your opinion.

I've already said that deterrance is not really the main reasoning behind the punishment, so I won't argue with you on that point.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

And yet, all of the remaining super-powerful college coaches have just as much power today as they did 2 weeks ago.

Do you know that as a fact (as in you are aware of exactly what has happened on each college campus) or is that your speculation? 

I cause I would bet dollars to donuts that at atleast some of the colleges the adminstration has began a process of greater oversight and/or implementing/enhancing whisle blower protection for employees and students who report misconduct since the scandel came to light.  I don't know if this has happened in fact, but I would bet the farm it has happened on at least one campus.   

[Spider-Dan]

Do you know that as a fact (as in you are aware of exactly what has happened on each college campus) or is that your speculation? 

I cause I would bet dollars to donuts that at atleast some of the colleges the adminstration has began a process of greater oversight and/or implementing/enhancing whisle blower protection for employees and students who report misconduct since the scandel came to light.  I don't know if this has happened in fact, but I would bet the farm it has happened on at least one campus.

So then, what would you say the odds are of a major university announcing a spontaneous self-investigation (with significant disciplinary action) against a big-name coach in the next year (without it being the result of a public incident)?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So then, what would you say the odds are of a major university announcing a spontaneous self-investigation (with significant disciplinary action) against a big-name coach in the next year (without it being the result of a public incident)?

Annoucing one on there own?  -- Almost none.

Quietly investigating suspicians that in the past they would have ignored and then acting upon them (either publicly or privately)-- very high.

Getting tips of various misconduct that in the past would have gone unreported and then investigating them-- very high.

[Spider-Dan]

Annoucing one on there own?  -- Almost none.

Quietly investigating suspicians that in the past they would have ignored and then acting upon them (either publicly or privately)-- very high.

These are the same thing.  By "announcing," I mean "announcing the outcome" (i.e. disciplinary measures).  And I don't see any way that South Carolina is going to explain to their boosters and alumni that they are taking it upon themselves to punish Steve Spurrier for some transgression that nobody knew about.  (And if they punish him in complete privacy, how is that any different than a coverup?)

So when you say the odds are "very high," I presume that you are predicting that within the next year, at least 2 high-profile coaches will be disciplined by their universities for transgressions that nobody but the university itself knew about.  Is that a fair interpretation?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I am not claiming cover ups completely go away.  But there is a difference between acting on something sooner rather than later.

And I don't see any way that South Carolina is going to explain to their boosters and alumni that they are taking it upon themselves to punish Steve Spurrier for some transgression that nobody knew about.  (And if they punish him in complete privacy, how is that any different than a coverup?)

Mr. Spurrier it has come to our attention that you paid several of our cheerleaders to striptease for three players that had sacks against the NC QB.   You have until 9 am tommorow to announce your resignation 'for person reason' or at 10 am you will be fired. 

That is punishment and private.  Still a cover up - yup.  Different than doing nothing - yup.

So when you say the odds are "very high," I presume that you are predicting that within the next year, at least 2 high-profile coaches will be disciplined by their universities for transgressions that nobody but the university itself knew about.  Is that a fair interpretation?

I am not predicting any numbers.  My ONLY prediction is that UNIVERSITIES WILL TAKE THE CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOR OF THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT MORE SERIOUSLY.

[Spider-Dan]

Mr. Spurrier it has come to our attention that you paid several of our cheerleaders to striptease for three players that had sacks against the NC QB.   You have until 9 am tommorow to announce your resignation 'for person reason' or at 10 am you will be fired. 

That is punishment and private.  Still a cover up - yup.  Different than doing nothing - yup.

So when Sandusky was forced into retirement in '99, that counted as doing something, right?

My ONLY prediction is that UNIVERSITIES WILL TAKE THE CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOR OF THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT MORE SERIOUSLY.

And my prediction is that they will only do so when misconduct is involuntarily made public.
Which is to say, there will be exactly zero impact on situations like PSU's.

You will still have look-the-other-way coverups, and if/when the coverups are exposed, future universities will act no more harshly than PSU did (firing all involved).  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Pappy13]

So when Sandusky was forced into retirement in '99, that counted as doing something, right?

If he was forced into retirement, yes. But then if he was forced into retirement, why was he allowed full access to the facilities after having been KNOWN to have been caught showering with a child? Why weren't his keys taken away then? And why did they continue to let his foundation continue to use the facilities and promote his foundation, unless Sandusky resigned from the foundation?

You're assuming that he was forced into retirement, but all these other things suggest that he was ALLOWED to retire under the guise that it was his idea on the basis that they would continue to coverup the fact that he was caught in the showers with a child. This is EXACTLY the reason they were fined, because they did everything they could to avoid a scandal rather then doing what they could have to protect the children from a sexual predator.