New showers.
That’s essentially what I mean. There’s a difference between “willfully,” and “consciously” or “deliberately.” They may not have realized what they were doing, but they still wanted to do it.
Yes, to some extent I do.
This isn’t some kind of spite thing. I lived there for a while myself. I had friends and a girlfriend at the school. I have nothing against Penn State or college football as such. I just think that this particular college football culture, both in and around the school, got way out of balance. It became like a junkie. This condition is what enabled Sandusky to go on so long.
Withdrawal would feel rough, but they’d be better for it.
Obviously there are limits to the NCAA’s power and capability, but I certainly think they had a responsibility to try. And I think, in fact, that they did feel and try to act upon that responsibility–for college sports culture as a whole, not just its formal institutional practice–to some degree.
Then they backed away from the harshest, most meaningful penalties that were considered, as a practical matter to secure Penn State’s full and immediate submission. So I guess that shows the limits of their power in practice.
I still think a full shutdown for a couple years, followed by a constrained rebuilding, would have been most just, and best, in the long term, for the soul of the game. As it stands, I think a moderately strong message has been sent to institutions around the country, but I’m not sure that central Pennsylvania has gotten the treatment it needs.
They clearly had no idea at all what they were doing and you have no evidence to raise this as a possibility. The school fucked up and should take a hard look at itself, but let’s just call it what it is: they did not do enough to prevent that abuse and were too stupid to believe this guy could be doing something wrong. You can’t in good conscience imply that maybe they were ok with this guy molesting their students when there’s no evidence to support that.
No, it’s not. What enabled this situation to go on for so long was the fact that he falsely presented the appearance of a charitable, generous man who wanted to help children, the fact that he knew how to choose the most vulnerable victims and manipulate them psychologically, and (this one does relate to what you’re saying) the fact that he used his association with Penn State to impress people and shield himself from suspicion. But I think you’re wrong to treat this as some kind of psychological condition unique to Penn State fans. I’m not an expert in cases like this, but it seems pretty similar to the behavior of some of the priests who were later convicted of child abuse. They presented themselves as people who were above reproach, giving, and very credible. It meant that people trusted them with their children and it meant people would be inclined to reject accusations against them. Whether it’s football coaches or priests or some other thing, I don’t think the problem is specific to the group of people whose confidence was taken advantage of. People need to remain vigilant and skeptical, period. Depriving these people of football won’t fix this human tendency. I don’t think they’re going to be quick to trust people connected to Penn State or football coaches in general in the near future.