Penn State football officials implicated in covering up on campus child rape by coach

[JayP]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

One could argue that the NCAA is setting a precedent to prevent future abuses by coaches or other athletic officials. Paterno's legacy is ruined forever. If other coaches don't want to suffer the same fate, maybe they'll blow the whistle next time instead of covering up for a child-rapist in the interest of winning more football games.

So the loss of legacy in football games is a greater deterrent than the jail time people are going to get for perjury? Interesting theory.

The funny thing about all these precedents is that the penalties really have no affect on the people involved. If you get caught in a major cover-up, you're likely going to lose your job immediately and potentially face jail time - but we'll take all those wins away, and strip scholarships away from your replacements.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by JayP

Because it broke none of the NCAA's rules. What does an athletic governing body have business involved in a child abuse scandal?

Because it makes everyone look bad?

The NCAA has a duty to protect the brand of college football. If PSU were to go unpunished and make a major bowl game this year do you know what every single article and broadcast would be filled with? The fact that an organization (yes, made up of individuals who may or may not be long gone) that is known for boy ####ing is playing in a bowl game.

By exiling them, which is essentially what happened, the NCAA has ensured that PSU's stink won't infect the rest of the multi billion dollar business that is college football.

The university is not an entity that can think. When you say "the university" you really mean the people in charge - "the chancellor/the president/etc." - all of which are long dismissed and are going to trial for perjury. Now there's new, hopefully more reputable people in charge and what exactly does punishing them achieve?

See above, plus it makes me feel better. I think it is a stretch to assume that every single POS that had anything to do with this is now gone, there could be some people who knew who went unpunished.

Also, even though the university isn't a sentient entity and we are in actuality talking about people who had positions of power within that organization who are responsible the organization itself still needs to be punished.

It needs to be shown that you can't be a child rapist, or cover up child rape, and just get fired and charged. If there ever is a next time with a similar type case the people involved will know that they can't just take the blame and let the organization and legacy continue unblemished.

It's one thing if Sandusky, or the next one like him, thinks that his actions will disgrace himself. Another thing entirely if he has to consider that he'll ruin the entire organization along with it. Disgracing an institution is quite the legacy. Also, I'm aware that at no point did the POS Sandusky actually consider that he might ruin PSU or that even if he did he would have stopped. Clearly when he's raping kids, thoughts about consequences of ruined lives wasn't at the forefront for him. But the next guy, who's scandal may be far less heinous than child raping, may think twice about his actions if he knows he'll go down in history as the guy who ruined XYZ University, instead of just some forgotten disgraced coach.

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

It needs to be shown that you can't be a child rapist, or cover up child rape, and just get fired and charged. If there ever is a next time with a similar type case the people involved will know that they can't just take the blame and let the organization and legacy continue unblemished.

This makes no sense at all.

If I were to list the things that would make me think twice about committing this crime it would go:

1) I could go to jail
2) I could lose my job
.
.
.
.
.
.
3) I may hurt the reputation of the football program.

[MarchHare]

So the loss of legacy in football games is a greater deterrent than the jail time people are going to get for perjury? Interesting theory.

For Paterno, at least, it's clear that winning football games was more important than protecting children from being raped, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that threatening one's legacy would be a very powerful deterrent. If someone had approached Paterno in 1998 and said, "If you don't blow the whistle on Sandusky, your next decade's worth of wins will be struck from the record books. Also, the university's football program will be ruined," do you think he would have still helped with the cover-up?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Because it makes everyone look bad?

The NCAA has a duty to protect the brand of college football. If PSU were to go unpunished and make a major bowl game this year do you know what every single article and broadcast would be filled with? The fact that an organization (yes, made up of individuals who may or may not be long gone) that is known for boy ####ing is playing in a bowl game.

By exiling them, which is essentially what happened, the NCAA has ensured that PSU's stink won't infect the rest of the multi billion dollar business that is college football.

So you agree it was a PR play then? Because "it makes us look bad" isn't really a valid reason to invent punishments to rules that aren't broken. Kind of the whole point of the rules in the first place. If the NCAA wants to re-write their bylaws to punish this sort of behavior that's great, but as of now this is a special exception that is just a PR play and likely won't have any bearing on future non-football related incidents.

See above, plus it makes me feel better. I think it is a stretch to assume that every single POS that had anything to do with this is now gone, there could be some people who knew who went unpunished.

So they're guilty until proven innocent is what you're saying.

Also, even though the university isn't a sentient entity and we are in actuality talking about people who had positions of power within that organization who are responsible the organization itself still needs to be punished.

That's the only good point I've heard - the university is responsible for putting those people in positions of power. But this has nothing to do with an athletic body like the NCAA.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

This makes no sense at all.

If I were to list the things that would make me think twice about committing this crime it would go:

1) I could go to jail
2) I could lose my job
.
.
.
.
.
.
3) I may hurt the reputation of the football program.

Well that's taking it pretty far out of context but ok.

First off, what kind of crime?

Second, I didn't say the football program, the entire university will forever be known for this scandal.

Third, you wouldn't even consider the effect of all the shame and embarrassment that your family has to suffer? That's weird.

Fourth, you don't think people like Joe "I have my own 900lb statue and a library named after me" Paterno aren't concerned about their public image and legacy?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

For Paterno, at least, it's clear that winning football games was more important than protecting children from being raped, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that threatening one's legacy would be a very powerful deterrent. If someone had approached Paterno in 1998 and said, "If you don't blow the whistle on Sandusky, your next decade's worth of wins will be struck from the record books. Also, the university's football program will be ruined," do you think he would have still helped with the cover-up?

You don't think he thought of that? I mean, did Paterno really not consider any consequences when he made his choices? Did he never consider that if the scandal ever came out that it would affect his legacy?

Either way, it's still a matter of having a coach care about his legacy more than spending considerable time in prison for the deterrent to be effective. I'd wager the list of coaches that think that are very, very slim.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by JayP

So you agree it was a PR play then? Because "it makes us look bad" isn't really a valid reason to invent punishments to rules that aren't broken. Kind of the whole point of the rules in the first place. If the NCAA wants to re-write their bylaws to punish this sort of behavior that's great, but as of now this is a special exception that is just a PR play and likely won't have any bearing on future non-football related incidents.

Just because the optics of it and the PR side are a factor doesn't mean that's the only reason. The NCAA is essentially an extension of all the universities. Universities do stupid things and it makes the NCAA look bad, the NCAA does stupid things and it makes the universities look bad.

A university did something wrong and now the NCAA is punishing that university. The individuals within that university that were partly responsible did something wrong and they were punished too.

So they're guilty until proven innocent is what you're saying.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Who did I say was guilty? That makes no sense.

That's the only good point I've heard - the university is responsible for putting those people in positions of power. But this has nothing to do with an athletic body like the NCAA.

Well even a broken clock is right twice a day so I had to get something right eventually.

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Well that's taking it pretty far out of context but ok.

First off, what kind of crime?

Second, I didn't say the football program, the entire university will forever be known for this scandal.

Third, you wouldn't even consider the effect of all the shame and embarrassment that your family has to suffer? That's weird.

Fourth, you don't think people like Joe "I have my own 900lb statue and a library named after me" Paterno aren't concerned about their public image and legacy?

For the sake of the argument lets say you were at Penn State and knew of the crime Sandusky committed and risked perjury charges by covering it up. You're telling me that when thinking if you should keep this a secret or not, "my family would be embarrassed" and "my legacy would be tarnished" would carry more weight in your decision making process than "i'll go to jail"?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by JayP

You don't think he thought of that? I mean, did Paterno really not consider any consequences when he made his choices? Did he never consider that if the scandal ever came out that it would affect his legacy?

Either way, it's still a matter of having a coach care about his legacy more than spending considerable time in prison for the deterrent to be effective. I'd wager the list of coaches that think that are very, very slim.

No I really don't. I mean Joe was constantly thinking about his legacy I'm sure, but I believe he was convinced that he was untouchable because of the importance of the institution of college football. He'd seen it covered up for so long by prominent individuals, even though it sounds like Sandusky wasn't the most discreet fellow, that Paterno probably didn't even consider the possibility of getting in trouble.

For the next guy, be it Sandusky or Paterno, they may at least consider the fact that they aren't untouchable and that they will ruin their own legacy and the university's by their actions.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

For the sake of the argument lets say you were at Penn State and knew of the crime Sandusky committed and risked perjury charges by covering it up. You're telling me that when thinking if you should keep this a secret or not, "my family would be embarrassed" and "my legacy would be tarnished" would carry more weight in your decision making process than "i'll go to jail"?

But it isn't about Penn State it's about next time.

Ever heard a player/coach say they feel bad for letting down an entire province, country, fanbase etc?

You don't think people in these positions aren't acutely aware of their image and legacy? Especially at universities where they have a real "brothers in arms" type outlook.

You embarrass yourself and it's bad. You shame the entire organization and it's worse.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Just because the optics of it and the PR side are a factor doesn't mean that's the only reason. The NCAA is essentially an extension of all the universities. Universities do stupid things and it makes the NCAA look bad, the NCAA does stupid things and it makes the universities look bad.

A university did something wrong and now the NCAA is punishing that university. The individuals within that university that were partly responsible did something wrong and they were punished too.

The NCAA has never operated like this before. Obviously these are exceptional circumstances, but you act like this is common practice for the NCAA which it isn't.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Who did I say was guilty? That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Everyone that has been proven to be a part of the cover-up has been dismissed. You said that you didn't think that could've been everyone involved and "there could be some people who knew who went unpunished" so the actions are justified. Basically everyone at the university is guilty until proven innocent then. It's impossible to know 100% if everyone involved is gone/punished, but there's no rumors otherwise and all the evidence says otherwise so it's pretty ridiculous to declare everyone else guilty by association.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is rather difficult to fathom how one could think that the football program covering up the child rape orchestrated by a football coach is a non-football related scandal.

The football program is the heart of Penn State, and the privledged position the football program enjoyed in that school is precisely why Sandusky got away with it for so long. It is this very attitude that enables the abusers. Everything the school did to protect Sandusky at the expense of his victims was done to protect the football program. It is only fitting that that very malevolence is what destroyed Penn State football in the end.

This ^

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

One could argue that the NCAA is setting a precedent to prevent future abuses by coaches or other athletic officials. Paterno's legacy is ruined forever. If other coaches don't want to suffer the same fate, maybe they'll blow the whistle next time instead of covering up for a child-rapist in the interest of winning more football games.

Agreed

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No I really don't. I mean Joe was constantly thinking about his legacy I'm sure, but I believe he was convinced that he was untouchable because of the importance of the institution of college football. He'd seen it covered up for so long by prominent individuals, even though it sounds like Sandusky wasn't the most discreet fellow, that Paterno probably didn't even consider the possibility of getting in trouble.

For the next guy, be it Sandusky or Paterno, they may at least consider the fact that they aren't untouchable and that they will ruin their own legacy and the university's by their actions.

That's very well possible.

I just think that people are a little more rational and at least consider some of the potential consequences before acting. And in this case, going to prison for the cover-up would be far and away the biggest deterrent, IMO.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by JayP

The NCAA has never operated like this before. Obviously these are exceptional circumstances, but you act like this is common practice for the NCAA which it isn't.

Examples of similar incidents that didn't garner the same type of reaction?

This isn't even about precedent for me. It is about the NCAA protecting themselves and the rest of the college football teams. Whether they've done it before doesn't matter to me at all.

What matters is that I get why they'd want to do it this way.

It makes perfect sense. Everyone that has been proven to be a part of the cover-up has been dismissed. You said that you didn't think that could've been everyone involved and "there could be some people who knew who went unpunished" so the actions are justified. Basically everyone at the university is guilty until proven innocent then. It's impossible to know 100% if everyone involved is gone/punished, but there's no rumors otherwise and all the evidence says otherwise so it's pretty ridiculous to declare everyone else guilty by association.

Ugh.

I said we don't know that everyone who knew has been punished. That's all. Don't make up stupid ####, it just lowers the level of discussion.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by JayP

The university is not an entity that can think. When you say "the university" you really mean the people in charge - "the chancellor/the president/etc." - all of which are long dismissed and are going to trial for perjury. Now there's new, hopefully more reputable people in charge and what exactly does punishing them achieve?

Anybody who took over in those positions had to realize this kind of punishment might be looming. They took a chance taking those jobs.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Anybody who took over in those positions had to realize this kind of punishment might be looming. They took a chance taking those jobs.

Agreed, but that still doesn't mean it's right.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Examples of similar incidents that didn't garner the same type of reaction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Bliss

I said we don't know that everyone who knew has been punished. That's all. Don't make up stupid ####, it just lowers the level of discussion.

Yeah, that's exactly what I re-iterated. We don't know if everyone who knew has been punished, but everyone with evidence against them has. To punish everyone else is basically saying they're guilty too because we just don't know for sure. I don't what else you'd call saying the penalties are justified because they might not have cleaned out everyone.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

This makes no sense at all.

If I were to list the things that would make me think twice about committing this crime it would go:

1) I could go to jail
2) I could lose my job
.
.
.
.
.
.
3) I may hurt the reputation of the football program.

Actually, it seems everyone involved put the reputation of the football team above all those, and above the welfare of the children.

The motive of everyone involved in the cover up appears to have been to protect the football program. Severely punishing the football team is entirely appropriate.

The message it sends is that if you cover up something like this the damage to the football progam is going to be much worse than if they had done the right thing in the first place.