Penn St. hit hard

[Hippy Hollow]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Neither of these are a particularly apt analogy because the criminal and/or bad conduct at Enron and NASA was sufficiently related to the work product they created, not just being bad people. If the leaders at Enron were running a human trafficking operation on the side, and others there didn't turn them in, do you think government should shut Enron, the company, down because their "culture" is bad? What about if the executive board covered up a murder? The idea to shut down the company wouldn't even merit serious discussion. Was Union Carbide shut down after the Bhopal disaster/coverup? Did people suggest shutting down Ford because of the Pinto design? Of course not.

But no-one is "shutting down" Penn State. They are being severely punished. Let's not use hyperbole. There will be a Penn State football team to watch in Happy Valley next season (albeit one that will not be anywhere as competitive as the those before the sanctions). I will wager that tens of thousands of PSU fans will tailgate, stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, and the like for the next four seasons.

As far as I know, there isn't an equivalent to the NCAA for Enron or NASA. Government doesn't quite have the same scope as the NCAA; as we know, government's intervention is in the form of the criminal justice system. If Enron belonged to an association of energy producers and they sanctioned them, that would work, and same for NASA. My point was that those in charge either explicitly or implicitly created a culture where morality took a backseat to image and wins.

And if you don't think the cover-up relates to football, you're not thinking this through. Joe Paterno himself was one who always discussed the importance of life lessons outside of sports. There was an opportunity for moral leadership by Paterno and all of the high level administrators, and to teach every young man a lesson and provide an example of what to do when you discover wrongdoing in your midst. It would have likely affected the perception of Penn State for a while, perhaps distracted the team. Who knows? Maybe it would have been enough of a distraction to lose a few games. But the example and lesson would have no doubt made those players and coaches better men, especially with a leader like Paterno decisively taking a stand to excise Sandusky and stand up for the kids he raped.

I don't know about you, but I would like to think that a football program at an academic institution has more of a soul than Union Carbide or Enron.

The reports that Paterno would routinely eschew or reject punishment from the vice president of student affairs in favor of his own quite frankly shows how out of balance things were at Penn State. Universities have organizational charts, and I'm quite sure that it goes head coach --> athletic director --> president. A head coach does not outrank a vice president, and while it would have been fine if Paterno wanted to add additional sanctions beyond those levied by the VP of student affairs, that would be fine. But by substituting his punishments with those which would have been assigned to any other student, Paterno only added to the sense of exceptionalism of the football program.

[The Man In Black]

Originally Posted by RyJae

So if your neighbor gambled and lost your house you would be okay with that? That's the problem I am having with this punishment.

The problem is that your analogy doesn't make since.

The people in charge of the school entered into a cover-up to protect Sandusky. They were found out, and now action is being taken against the school.

[Hippy Hollow]

Just to add, I don't doubt that some of Penn State's appeal was the perception that it was a squeaky clean program. How many recruits decided to attend Penn State because of its reputation - the assumption that the staff, starting with Paterno, saw to it that any bad apples or miscreants would not be part of the program? How many blue chippers chose PSU over Ohio State or Michigan based on the reputation of Paterno and the program, giving PSU a competitive edge? Well, they were lied to. Of course, if Paterno and the administration sat down in 1998 and said, "Look, we've discovered that someone we trusted has abused that trust and harmed young men, and we are removing him from any association with our program and cooperating with authorities," that would have been living up to that promise.

One of my fraternity brother's cousins played at PSU - RB Eric McCoo. He told me how proud the family was that he was a scholarship athlete at Penn State - not Miami or USC or Oklahoma. The fact that he was at Penn State under Paterno meant something. I wonder what he makes of all this.

Coaches, ADs, and presidents have to make incredibly difficult choices all the time. Mack Brown sat a number of Texas' best players for a bowl game several years ago for violating team rules. Bobby Stoops kicked out his all-everything quarterback, Rhett Bomar, when he was discovered working a job that violated NCAA rules. Woody Hayes and Bobby Petrino were fired by their ADs for misconduct, which likely hurt those teams' ability to compete (granted, both scenarios would have been hard to cover up). I don't know if these firings and benchings were out of fear of NCAA punishment if they weren't meted out, but nevertheless, the right thing was done. If Paterno had dealt with Sandusky in 1998 as soon as the allegations were out there - it would simply have been a dark time in PSU's history, and doubtless we would be using how Paterno handled the situation back then as an exemplar of moral leadership.

It's such an irony that it happened under his watch. If this went on under Barry Switzer at Oklahoma, we'd be disgusted, but probably not shaken to the degree that we are knowing this about Paterno. And even more ironically, Switzer had some of the most prophetic and perceptive comments on this whole sordid situation in November:

Originally Posted by Barry Switzer

Having been in this profession a long time and knowing how close coaching staffs are, I knew that this was a secret that was kept secret. Everyone on that staff had to have known, the ones that had been around a long time. I'll tell you how it happens -- it's the American sports phenomenon. I've seen it happen all my life; we've made coaches and players and athletes more than what we are. It's what happens in American sports. Because of that, they've gotten away with more than they should have.

Damn. I'm a burnt orange Switzer hater, but I have to give him some respect for that insight.

[moejoe]

Originally Posted by RyJae

So if your neighbor gambled and lost your house you would be okay with that? That's the problem I am having with this punishment.

If keeping my house depended on his gambling skill, that's the risk I took along with him (and how could my neighbor bet my house otherwise?). I'd be pissed that he made a stunningly immoral bet, but that doesn't get me out of the loss.

Look at this this way, if you go to vegas and bet everything on red and lose, your landlord still expects you to pay the rent yes? But if you don't have any money left then you can't pay the rent and the landlord loses out because he willingly connected his income to yours.

Nobody gets out of this one with their shirt because everyone agreed to place their shirt on the table.

[joebuck20]

Just how many scholarships is Penn State losing? I've seen several people mention 20 on here, but I've seen reports of 10 elsewhere.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by RyJae

So if your neighbor gambled and lost your house you would be okay with that? That's the problem I am having with this punishment.

This is a good point.

Sanctions should only be handed down in cases where every member of the team, every coach, and all incoming freshman conspired to commit some crime.

Anything short of that is preposterous.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Hippy Hollow

But no-one is "shutting down" Penn State. They are being severely punished. Let's not use hyperbole.

Fair enough, but let's also not pretend this punishment wasn't meant to cripple the football program, and by extension, the university.

Originally Posted by Hippy Hollow

There will be a Penn State football team to watch in Happy Valley next season (albeit one that will not be anywhere as competitive as the those before the sanctions). I will wager that tens of thousands of PSU fans will tailgate, stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, and the like for the next four seasons.

I am nowhere near as confident as you. Sports attendance is generally correlated with the skill of the team on the field. There is no way a team that puts together a number of losing seasons in a row will have the same draw as a successful one.

Originally Posted by Hippy Hollow

My point was that those in charge either explicitly or implicitly created a culture where morality took a backseat to image and wins.

This happens naturally in any large organization or group. This is why people don't snitch in urban areas, and why corporate scandals happen all the time. PSU is not unique in any cultural sense. It's only because there is a popular football program, with a tenuous connection to the scandal, that people can glom onto that we are even discussing this.

For example, have you read about the sex-abuse cover up scandal at The Citadel?

The Citadel and its president Lt. Gen. John W. Rosa face multiple lawsuits claiming the historic institution and its leaders concealed knowledge of sexual abuse by summer camp counselors who admitted to preying on young boys.

In the complaints, McLeod recounts the history of two alleged sexual predators who worked at the camp during its final decade: former Marine Capt. Michael Apria - who was a counselor from 1995 to 2001 and was later the subject of a lawsuit filed by several of his alleged victims - and ReVille, who worked at the camp during the summers of 2000 to 2004.
In 2002, according to the federal complaints, ReVille confessed to members of The Citadel Public Safety that he sexually abused young boys, and requested the help of The Citadel.
Members of The Citadel Public Safety are state-commissioned law enforcement officers operating under the authority and supervision of the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED).

The complaint states that the former camper and his family were assured that The Citadel would investigate the allegations of ReVille's sexual abuse and report him to the proper authorities.
"However, John W. Rosa chose only to share the former camper's report with The Citadel's insurance carrier and attempted to offer the former camper and his parents money to keep the allegations from surfacing and to avoid a lawsuit," according to a second federal complaint, which names only Rosa as a defendant. Rosa broke his silence only after the media got wind of the alleged abuse in 2011, according to that complaint.

How much of call do you hear for The Citadel's board and president to resign? When can we expect Freeh to investigate?

The loudest voices you hear calling for PSU's head are those who think football "culture" is a problem anyway. Finding an excuse to chip away at is just gravy. Few people would be paying attention if Paterno was the Dean of Sciences, even if he had done the same stuff. Nobody would suggest telling PSU they need to forfeit Biology scholarships either. They would be saying that guy did some questionable stuff, rather than that football coach, and the football culture that enabled him, need to be punished. They'd focus on what he did rather than what his job was.

Plus, punishment of this kind will not get rid of institutional bias towards self-preservation or coverups. Those tendencies will exist because it's, in part, what allows groups or institutions to function well.

Originally Posted by Hippy Hollow

I don't know about you, but I would like to think that a football program at an academic institution has more of a soul than Union Carbide or Enron.

Why?

Originally Posted by Hippy Hollow

The reports that Paterno would routinely eschew or reject punishment from the vice president of student affairs in favor of his own quite frankly shows how out of balance things were at Penn State.

Do you have a cite for this?

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

Just how many scholarships is Penn State losing? I've seen several people mention 20 on here, but I've seen reports of 10 elsewhere.

Penn State is losing a total of 20 scholarship slots per year for four years (reducing the annual allotment from 85 to 65). For each year, 10 of those 20 must be initial scholarships (reducing the annual allotment of initial scholarships from 25 to 15).

[sitchensis]

The troubling thing to me is that the majority of the people being punished by these sanctions (students) were probably 8 to 12 years old during the 1998 and 2002 incidents. They were pretty much the same ages and Jerry’s victims.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by sitchensis

The troubling thing to me is that the majority of the people being punished by these sanctions (students) were probably 8 to 12 years old during the 1998 and 2002 incidents. They were pretty much the same ages and Jerry’s victims.

Players? Those that could/would have receive PSU scholarships will certainly get them elsewhere. The number of elite college athletes being punished here is precisely zero. In theory, somewhere in the country, 20 marginal Division II players per year won't get scholarships at all. I suppose it would have been nice for the NCAA to let 20 schools at that level have one extra slot apiece.

Student fans? Yes, they will be "punished" by having a less-competitive team at their school. I can only hope that's enough to make them consider the possibility that there might be more important things--to escape the rut that their elders couldn't.

[aceplace57]

I'd like to see Penn State challenge this in court. Somebody has to stand up to the NCAA once and for all.

This horrific crime had absolutely nothing to do with the Football program at all. Sandusky was not even an active coach at the time. The victims were not Penn State students or athletes. I can understand part of the sanctions. A hefty fine makes sense.

But, victimizing players from a decade ago is just wrong. What did they do wrong? Absolutely nothing. The Assistant coaches? I wonder how many knew anything about Sandusky and the kid in the shower? I can't imagine Paterno saying anything about this to his staff at the time. You can't have it both ways. If there was a cover up, then wouldn't this have been kept secret? Only Paterno, the witness, and a few Admin guys would have known.

The NCAA over reached this time. I hope Penn State has the guts to fight this stupidity.

[silenus]

Fat chance. First off they'd lose, and lose badly and they know it. Secondly, they want this swept back under the rug as quickly as possible. A lawsuit would bring even more malfeasance to light IMO. Thirdly, they voluntarily joined the NCAA. If they don't want to abide by their decision, they are free to quit.

[sitchensis]

You don’t find it the least but troubling that the students being punished are essentially the peers of the victims.

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

I can only hope that's enough to make them consider the possibility that there might be more important things

In fact you’re actually blaming the peers of the abuse victims for allowing the molestation to happen.

[Love Rhombus]

Out of total curiosity-did Sandusky's actions break any NCAA regulations?

[Love Rhombus]

Ignore my post, I didn't read the thread beforehand. Sorry.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by RyJae

So if your neighbor gambled and lost your house you would be okay with that? That's the problem I am having with this punishment.

That's a terrible analogy you're trying to make. Penn State was Joe Paterno's house, not Joe Paterno's neighbor's house.

[Zebra]

The students come and go. It is the school that gets punished. Yes, the current students get punished, except that they can transfer.

If I were a PSU fan, this would surly shake me of that. I wouldn't want to watch another game.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Of course I'll mind, but the whole point is that this is supposed to be a penalty, not theft. It's supposed to hurt.

And this IS going to hurt Penn State. Big time.

Originally Posted by Marley23

When a win is vacated, it does not change the result of the game. It means Penn State (and Paterno) don't get credit for the win. And yes, Penn State's championships and bowl wins were also vacated. The wins don't go to the losing teams, they're just vacated.

So they're the equivalent of exhibition games, then, basically?


People, it had EVERYTHING to do with football. Paterno covered it up because he cared more about the consequences to his football program, and the impact it would have had than Sandusky's victims.

In the mean time, people, go root for Pitt.

[Accidental Martyr]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

I'd like to see Penn State challenge this in court. Somebody has to stand up to the NCAA once and for all.

This horrific crime had absolutely nothing to do with the Football program at all. Sandusky was not even an active coach at the time. The victims were not Penn State students or athletes. I can understand part of the sanctions. A hefty fine makes sense.

But, victimizing players from a decade ago is just wrong. What did they do wrong? Absolutely nothing. The Assistant coaches? I wonder how many knew anything about Sandusky and the kid in the shower? I can't imagine Paterno saying anything about this to his staff at the time. You can't have it both ways. If there was a cover up, then wouldn't this have been kept secret? Only Paterno, the witness, and a few Admin guys would have known.

The NCAA over reached this time. I hope Penn State has the guts to fight this stupidity.

Penn State has agreed to the NCAA sanctions. Frankly, if they were to challenge it in any way it would only add to the PR disaster they already have. At this point, they know the best thing they can do is accept the punishment and move on. Anything else will only make things worse. I don't necessarily agree with everything the NCAA has done, but Penn State knows this is a no win situation and there will be no appeal, etc.

[Disheavel]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Do you have a cite for this?

Gosh darn it, it is impossible to find now as punishment and Paterno dominate all other descriptive words in Google's search.

But the easiest story to find (if you can!!!) is the one where Paterno assigned the football players to sweep the bleachers after the game whereas all of the other students involved in the fight? at a frat? house were punished by probation (expulsion?). WHen this happened 2-4 years ago there was a pretty big to-do about it at the time about Paterno's favoritism and control, but everyone (in the media or at least at Penn State) seemed to be on the side of, the football players ARE being punished. This incident was cited widely just last week after the freeh report that was an obvious demonstration of Paterno's control over the University.

I apologize for not being able to pull the articles right now, but perhaps someone else can help out or perhaps it jogs your memory.

[Snowboarder Bo]

RaftPeople linked to one story earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

report

It's pretty easy to find info including emails like the one quoted in this report.

And if you google "Vicky Triponey Paterno" you'll get more articles, including one at CNN that has a link to another story that is more in-depth.

[oreally]

Originally Posted by Hippy Hollow

Damn. I'm a burnt orange Switzer hater, but I have to give him some respect for that insight.

LOL

It's also no secret that Switzer is a horse's ass and about as smart - and about as squeaky clean as a sewer. Bringing a gun to the airport, for starters. The absurd just gets more so. lmao @ him acting like he has a clue about this. Or anything, for that matter.

Oh well back to the witch hunt and mindless hysteria. Burn baby burn!

"HEY YOU! Did you just say you watched a Penn St game once? Big fines and maybe jail time for you mister! Cmon gang, bring the torches, we gots us another'n here!"

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

This happens naturally in any large organization or group.

No, it doesn't. I've worked in many large organizations and at no point would anyone have considered covering up child rape because it would have hurt the team. This is not normal organizational culture.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by oreally

LOL

It's also no secret that Switzer is a horse's ass and about as smart - and about as squeaky clean as a sewer. Bringing a gun to the airport, for starters. The absurd just gets more so. lmao @ him acting like he has a clue about this. Or anything, for that matter.

Oh well back to the witch hunt and mindless hysteria. Burn baby burn!

"HEY YOU! Did you just say you watched a Penn St game once? Big fines and maybe jail time for you mister! Cmon gang, bring the torches, we gots us another'n here!"

Oh good, the pedophile apologist is back to type the word "burn" a few more times.

Thanks, pedophile apologist!!

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by oreally

LOL

It's also no secret that Switzer is a horse's ass and about as smart - and about as squeaky clean as a sewer. Bringing a gun to the airport, for starters. The absurd just gets more so. lmao @ him acting like he has a clue about this. Or anything, for that matter.

Oh well back to the witch hunt and mindless hysteria. Burn baby burn!

"HEY YOU! Did you just say you watched a Penn St game once? Big fines and maybe jail time for you mister! Cmon gang, bring the torches, we gots us another'n here!"

You know who else was completely mistreated?

Stalin.

A bunch of rumor and innuendo - did you ever meet anyone he supposedly "disappeared"? Neither did I. Ridiculous.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by Accidental Martyr

Penn State has agreed to the NCAA sanctions. Frankly, if they were to challenge it in any way it would only add to the PR disaster they already have. At this point, they know the best thing they can do is accept the punishment and move on. Anything else will only make things worse. I don't necessarily agree with everything the NCAA has done, but Penn State knows this is a no win situation and there will be no appeal, etc.

Even if the Penn State administration thinks they're being treated unfairly, they're not COMPLETE idiots, and they know very well that, outside Pennsylvania, there is ZERO sympathy for them.

There are FAR more people who think Penn State got off too lightly than there are who think (as I do) they're being punished too severely. There's absolutely no hope of appealing or getting a lighter sentence, so there's nothing to do except take their medicine and hope for the best.

[RaftPeople]

The Paterno family should just be quiet instead of continuing to make statements like these:

"The sanctions announced today by the NCAA defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach and educator without any input from our family..."

Why would the NCAA ask for input from the family?

[Marley23]

Apparently one reason Penn State accepted these sanctions was that even tougher ones - including a four-year football ban - were discussed. That's pretty breathtaking. And now, back to oreally posting about Penn State football fans being hunted down and killed.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Disheavel

Gosh darn it, it is impossible to find now as punishment and Paterno dominate all other descriptive words in Google's search.

I apologize for not being able to pull the articles right now, but perhaps someone else can help out or perhaps it jogs your memory.

Even using the dates of a know event? It seems a fairly broad, damning claim like this would be fairly easy to substantiate via something other than one's memory.

Originally Posted by Telemark

No, it doesn't. I've worked in many large organizations and at no point would anyone have considered covering up child rape because it would have hurt the team. This is not normal organizational culture.

First, most organizations don't have a team to protect Second, how do you know? Have you ever worked in a high enough position where such decisions are typically made? If you had asked anyone at PSU a few years back, what do you think they would have said? If you honestly think Apple's board wouldn't have covered up crimes committed by Steve Jobs, or that Facebook executives wouldn't cover up something Zuckerberg did, you are fooling yourself. Yes, this exact situation, a cover up of child abuse, will likely never arise, but organizations cover up serious things all the time for a variety of reasons.

You are also forgetting how all of this started. The first report of showering was investigated by the DA, who decided no charges would be brought. They likely force Sandusky to retire given that the whole thing was terrible PR, and involved very questionable behavior. Paterno, et al., did much of what they should have during this particular incident. The mistakes were allowing him to have emeritus status, and not informing Second Mile and other relevant parties of the accusations. Once they take that somewhat understandable half measure, they are arguably complicit in the future actions of Sandusky. That slippery slope is, IMO, what lead to coverups and inaction far more than trying to "protect football".

[NetTrekker]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

The Paterno family should just be quiet instead of continuing to make statements like these:

"The sanctions announced today by the NCAA defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach and educator without any input from our family..."

Why would the NCAA ask for input from the family?

Or they should be talking about the victims and not themselves.

[Hippy Hollow]

Yeah, my money was on a PSU alumnus to put their foot in their mouth during this time. It's the Paternos. They would be well advised to not say a damn thing right now.

Time has a way of correcting legacies. Nixon's legacy improved many years after Watergate. I think there is a lot of anger at PSU and Paterno right now; as time passes, maybe there will be a more sympathetic view of his role. (I don't necessarily agree, but I don't have a crystal ball.) Being quiet for a good long while is probably the best they can do to preserve his legacy aside from this horrible chapter.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

I'd like to see Penn State challenge this in court. Somebody has to stand up to the NCAA once and for all.
...
The NCAA over reached this time. I hope Penn State has the guts to fight this stupidity.

Originally Posted by Accidental Martyr

Penn State has agreed to the NCAA sanctions.

Indeed, having read some more, it seems that the penalties we're seeing are the deal Penn State was able to salvage. The NCAA did consider laying a "death penalty" on them, but agreed to step back from that in exchange for Penn State's written acceptance of this package, so that both institutions could hope to begin putting the nightmare behind them.

Originally Posted by Marley23

Apparently one reason Penn State accepted these sanctions was that even tougher ones - including a four-year football ban - were discussed.

Yep.

The NCAA is still a little chickenshit for pretending that what they dealt out here was somehow worse than a death penalty (and commentators who repeated that line are dopes), but given that they decided to bring the hammer down swiftly and without their own additional investigation, getting Penn State's immediate formal submission counts for something.

Also, it seems that the NCAA is considering not counting the scholarships of PSU players who transfer against the allotments of their new schools. Which means that even in trickle-down theory, no college football players anywhere would lose their opportunities. And, of course, it means that the pool of players who might be persuaded right now to leave Penn State is more attractive than ever. There must be some furious second-wave recruiting going for those guys.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Even using the dates of a know event? It seems a fairly broad, damning claim like this would be fairly easy to substantiate via something other than one's memory.

The story in question has been linked to multiple times in this thread.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

The story in question has been linked to multiple times in this thread.

Can you help me with a link then?

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Can you help me with a link then?

Here.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

Here.

Thanks. Pretty damning stuff.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Penn State is losing a total of 20 scholarship slots per year for four years (reducing the annual allotment from 85 to 65). For each year, 10 of those 20 must be initial scholarships (reducing the annual allotment of initial scholarships from 25 to 15).

Actually, for some strange reason, while the reduction to 15 "initial counters" (i.e. someone receiving a football scholarship anywhere for the first time) starts in the 2013 season, the reduction to 65 total scholarships starts in the 2014 season. Each lasts for four seasons.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

First, most organizations don't have a team to protect.

Organizations are protecting themselves. Whether it's a team, a company, or a religion there are always reasons. The fact that it's a football team is irrelevant.

Second, how do you know? Have you ever worked in a high enough position where such decisions are typically made? If you had asked anyone at PSU a few years back, what do you think they would have said? If you honestly think Apple's board wouldn't have covered up crimes committed by Steve Jobs, or that Facebook executives wouldn't cover up something Zuckerberg did, you are fooling yourself. Yes, this exact situation, a cover up of child abuse, will likely never arise, but organizations cover up serious things all the time for a variety of reasons.

These are good points, and the situation in the Roman Catholic church is a good parallel. But the point is that both organizations were abnormal. If Facebook or Apple did the same thing, they would be abnormal. I believe it is possible but unlikely that individuals in either company could pull off something like that and maintain secrecy for long enough, or would want to. It's just too abhorrent.

Paterno, et al., did much of what they should have during this particular incident. The mistakes were allowing him to have emeritus status, and not informing Second Mile and other relevant parties of the accusations. Once they take that somewhat understandable half measure, they are arguably complicit in the future actions of Sandusky. That slippery slope is, IMO, what lead to coverups and inaction far more than trying to "protect football".

No, it goes well beyond that. Paterno took an active roll in covering up the problem and changing the minds of the administration who planned to report this to the authorities. It wasn't a slippery slope; it was a calculated decision at least by my reading of the report. The measures taken were not "somewhat reasonable", they were reprehensible and representative of a culture gone bad.

[sachertorte]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

Here.

Holy crap. That is both surprising and unsurprising at the same time. I feel bad for that admin. It must have been terribly hard for her.

What makes Penn State look even worse is that when they get a decent admin who apparently was trying to do the right thing, she gets harassed and asked to re-evalute her future at Penn State.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Telemark

Organizations are protecting themselves. Whether it's a team, a company, or a religion there are always reasons. The fact that it's a football team is irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. That's the point. Why are you punishing the football team when the program's tangential involvement is incidental at best. All the guilty parties are gone. What you have left are innocent people. Why punish them?

Originally Posted by Telemark

These are good points, and the situation in the Roman Catholic church is a good parallel. But the point is that both organizations were abnormal. If Facebook or Apple did the same thing, they would be abnormal. I believe it is possible but unlikely that individuals in either company could pull off something like that and maintain secrecy for long enough, or would want to. It's just too abhorrent.

They are only abnormal in the sense that most crimes are not subject to workplace disclosure. The fact that people don't report crimes, even serious ones, even when they are mandatory reporters, is pretty widespread. That said, why do you think a coverup is unlikely to be successful?

Originally Posted by Telemark

No, it goes well beyond that. Paterno took an active roll in covering up the problem and changing the minds of the administration who planned to report this to the authorities.

My comments were limited to the first incident. The one where the DA declined to press charges. What actions should they have taken that they didn't?

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Of course it's irrelevant. That's the point. Why are you punishing the football team when the program's tangential involvement is incidental at best. All the guilty parties are gone. What you have left are innocent people. Why punish them?

Because the football team, and the cult of Paterno and "We are Penn State" are the motivating factor for all the offenses. The desire here was to protect the football team and Joe Pa's legacy at all costs. It's necessary to tear the entire structure down and rebuild from scratch. The players are certainly being affected, but they are not the victims here. The football players are being given opportunities to transfer to other schools or stay and get an education. It's also a message to other schools that the cult of football will not be tolerated; if they go down that road they will be disassembled brick by brick. That's the only thing that will get the attention of the schools that are headed down a similar road.

My comments were limited to the first incident. The one where the DA declined to press charges. What actions should they have taken that they didn't?

I missed that, sorry. Not sure about the first incident since I haven't read much on that. But it's clear that eventually Paterno took an active role in covering up Sandusky's activities. I don't think there's any way to view that as anything but self-serving at the expense of innocent children. Everyone involved, and the organization that fostered that culture deserves punishment. I don't view this as a slippery slope; Paterno's actions and the actions of those around him were abhorrent and no amount of "somewhat understandable half-measures" can ameliorate their guilt.

The current football players are unfortunately affected but they have options. The Penn State student body and surrounding businesses will have to deal and move on.

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Of course it's irrelevant. That's the point. Why are you punishing the football team when the program's tangential involvement is incidental at best. All the guilty parties are gone. What you have left are innocent people. Why punish them?

For deterrence. If the only punishment for being caught covering up unethical practices is to remove those caught doing so, there's no reason not to cover it up. If they get found out, they get fired but the culture remains the same, no need for the institution to have control over their athletic programs.

[RaftPeople]

I'm kind of laughing to myself about the B10 sanctions of no championship game.

They have cleverly walked the line of trying to appear to send a message, while at the same time choosing something that wasn't going to happen anyway due to the NCAA sanctions.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

I'm kind of laughing to myself about the B10 sanctions of no championship game.

They have cleverly walked the line of trying to appear to send a message, while at the same time choosing something that wasn't going to happen anyway due to the NCAA sanctions.

Actually I thought Penn State was already barred from the conference championship as well as bowl games, under the NCAA penalty. Not that it makes much difference, as you say. It's a gesture.

Originally Posted by Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors

They have failed their great university, their faculty and staff, their students and alumni, their community and state--and they have failed their fellow member institutions in the Big Ten Conference. For these failures, committed at the highest level of the institution, we hereby condemn this conduct and officially censure Penn State.

Ooh.

[Bartman]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Of course it's irrelevant. That's the point. Why are you punishing the football team when the program's tangential involvement is incidental at best. All the guilty parties are gone. What you have left are innocent people. Why punish them?

Because that is how you punish corporate wrong doing. A few years back my employer was investigated by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) for insider trading. The guilty party was identified and fired. But the corporation was still heavy fined. Because that low level employee was a part of the body corporate.

If a person stabs someone... we don't just punish the offending hand (and arm) we punish the person. If a legal fiction person, like a corporation or a university, does wrong we punish the legal fiction person... even if the direct offenders are no longer associated with that body. Don't like it? Then you need to go back and undo about 100 years of legal precedent.

Who do you imagine is paying the price when say Microsoft is fined a few million dollars for one thing or another?

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Telemark

Because the football team, and the cult of Paterno and "We are Penn State" are the motivating factor for all the offenses. The desire here was to protect the football team and Joe Pa's legacy at all costs. It's necessary to tear the entire structure down and rebuild from scratch.

You know, everyone repeats this as gospel, and not having read all 267 pages of the Freeh report, maybe I am ignorant. But, is there any evidence that this was the case instead of just a normal CYA move? If the whole goal was to cover up for the football team, why was the first report given to the county DA? Why did Joe Paterno tell the president and the AD? Honestly, if you think Paterno is powerful enough to plan to coverup from day one in order to protect the team, why did he include more and more people? He could have easily told McQuery he told the cops, president, etc. without doing so. Why do you think his behavior is at all consistent with an all-powerful ruler trying to cover up for his program? I just don't see it. Like I said, are there emails with him saying we have to protect the program, or is he justifiably worried that their foot dragging, obfuscation, and indifference made the liable and guilty.

Originally Posted by Telemark

It's also a message to other schools that the cult of football will not be tolerated; if they go down that road they will be disassembled brick by brick. That's the only thing that will get the attention of the schools that are headed down a similar road.

The school isn't heading down any road, a few principle bad actors were, and there is no way to defend against that in a large institution. Especially if the standard is just a coverup or silence. Especially when a large percentage of people don't report abuse even when they don't have the institutional pressures working against them.

By my count, 3 people, aside from Sandusky, involved in athletics were involved in this scandal. Paterno, the AD, and McQueary. One might argue McQueary, was not really involved too much in the cover up. How can a sports program guard against that if the actors don't care about the consequences, or they decided to roll the dice? There are already extremely deleterious consequences for behaving the way Paterno did, why do you think hurting the football program that fired him, and is engaged in an effort to pretend he didn't exist, is gonna stop the next coverup? Do you honestly think McQueary thought he made the right choice until yesterday? Paterno didn't lose his scholarship. He is not going to have to pay $60mm. Anyone who argues this just doesn't understand how incentives and deterrents work. The NCAA sanctions won't work anymore than the actual death penalty deters people from committing murder.

Originally Posted by Telemark

I missed that, sorry. Not sure about the first incident since I haven't read much on that. But it's clear that eventually Paterno took an active role in covering up Sandusky's activities. I don't think there's any way to view that as anything but self-serving at the expense of innocent children.

I do. It's that you give this guy you know for 30 years the benefit of the doubt, thinking that maybe he just made a mistake. Maybe he just didn't realize showering with a kid is way out of bounds. You think he has to go, but you don't think the guy is a predator. You see the DA doesn't press charges, and agree that maybe this is not a serious as it could be. Then you hear another, more serious accusation years later, and realize your previous decision were utterly wrong and hopelessly naive. You think nobody is gonna believe that you didn't know this guy you knew for decades is a complete monster. You know it's gonna come out that you lied and enabled this future behavior. You start to worry about how your friends and family and community will judge you. You panic. Then you figure your guilt and complicity cannot be assuaged by confessing, so you cover it up. And the longer it goes on, the more compromised you become. His actions, thought cowardly and thoughtless, do not strike me as a guy those of a man with no conscience; but rather as those of a man who lost his moral compass along the way in small, seemingly insignificant pieces.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

For deterrence. If the only punishment for being caught covering up unethical practices is to remove those caught doing so, there's no reason not to cover it up. If they get found out, they get fired but the culture remains the same, no need for the institution to have control over their athletic programs.

There is already sufficient deterrents for most all rational actors confronted with such choices.

Originally Posted by Bartman

Because that is how you punish corporate wrong doing. A few years back my employer was investigated by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) for insider trading. The guilty party was identified and fired. But the corporation was still heavy fined. Because that low level employee was a part of the body corporate.

Yes, but also because insider trading was a crime sufficiently related to the work being done at your company. Should the company be fined if that employee covered up child rape committed by a fellow employee at a company event? Because that's closer to what is being done here. Nobody would raise a brow if there were being punished for paying players, or telling their athletes to juice, because those infractions are RELATED TO THE "WORK" OF THE FOOTBALL PROGRAM. The program exists to put a team on the field, they are not tasked with preventing abuse or ensuring good citizenship on the part of employees. Although those are expectations we have of human beings, we don't expect the institution to ensure compliance in those areas.

Originally Posted by Bartman

Who do you imagine is paying the price when say Microsoft is fined a few million dollars for one thing or another?

Show me a case where an institution was penalized by an outside entity for a unrelated crime committed by an employee.

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

There is already sufficient deterrents for most all rational actors confronted with such choices.

Based on the culture that exists at Penn State, I don't agree.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Mince

The actions of the administration in this case didn't confer benefit to the football program, on field.

They didn't? You don't think reporting a coach who helped you win two national championships as a child predator wouldn't affect on-field competitiveness? Seriously? So here's the deal, one of my employees sets up a program whereby any 5-star recruit that doesn't sign with me is murdered. I get a whiff that the program is going on and demand that he retire! Immediately! 3 years later, I get a hint that the program is still going on, but I sweep that under the rug. You're saying the NCAA shouldn't punish the program?

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

Based on the culture that exists at Penn State, I don't agree.

Again with this vague "culture" thing. Please explain to me how the culture at PSU is any different than what exists at around 25 other schools. Tell me where throughout this process you think the NCAA punishment would have led PSU to act differently, and why you think their compliance at that juncture would have prevent NCAA sanctions? More importantly, please let me know why you think this will prevent other coaches or employees at colleges from not reporting their close colleagues accused of crimes?