It’s not just a dead guy, it’s the leadership of the athletic department and the school. And it’s not just “not worthy of praise,” it’s criminal conduct that was undertaken to protect the image of the football program, the school, and those same people. Rick Reilly could convince me of anything as long as he argued the opposite and he almost did it again here, but it’s true that if the NCAA doesn’t do anything here (and they would prefer to do little or nothing), they’ll be stating they’re more concerned about making sure recruits don’t get free breakfasts from coaches or too many phone calls and not all that interested in possible crimes committed by football coaches and athletic directors with the intent of protecting their programs.
You know, I find is endlessly entertaining that you somehow seem to be arguing simultaneously that football is so pivotal to the success of the university, that it would be cruel to an unprecedented degree to put the program on hold for a season, and at the same time arguing that there is no way the football program could have been so important to protect that it would be the motivating factor for the coverup of allegations of child abuse within the facility itself.
And I believe all of those people are now gone- dead, fired, or facing prosecution. Why are we punishing the innocent people left behind?
As they should. Why are they responsible for things outside their purview anymore than any other organization? There are plenty of outside entities that could exact revenge on PSU if they wanted. Are all of them sending the same message IYO?
[MODERATING]
This is not the Pit, it’s the Game Room. Some of the posts are beginning to get a little personal. Please remember to limit yourselves to the topic at hand and to avoid personal attacks, which haven’t happened yet but I see them brewing.
Thanks.
RickJay
Moderator
You misunderstood me. I am not saying they importance of the football team was not a motivation for a coverup. I am saying it was not a necessary condition. It was incidental, and as such should not really be the focus here. Particularly considering all the relevant involved parties have been removed.
Hey, NCAA! Why not shit-can Notre Dame while you’re at it! 
And I disagree, but my disagreement is supported by the evidence that 1) the meeting with Paterno resulted in a change of course for the administration, and 2) individuals who witnessed the abuse were convinced that the school would seek to protect the program if they came forward with what they saw. In fact, that is what they did. So while you argue that it wasn’t a necessary condition for the coverup, there isn’t any evidence that there were other motivating factors beyond protecting the reputation of the former coach (and by extension the football program). If you have evidence to demonstrate that it was the reputation of the school at large and not the overwhelming power the individuals involved in the football program wielded, please do share. Otherwise it just seems like you’re saying “Well, it could have been something other than football!” without really providing evidence that it was the case. It was a former football coach, abusing children in the football locker room, witnessed by a former football player and current football recruiting director, who went to the current head coach, who notified the current athletic director. The culture of the importance of the football program, which you have so eloquently defended and demonstrated yourself, resulted in them handling the matter in house and in violation of their reporting requirements. So tell me again. What part of this is in no way related to the football program?
Hear, hear!
Because it’s not just about those four people. It’s about the fact that the football department had that much influence on the rest of the school and the fact that their actions were intended to benefit the football program (and they did). These people covered up the activities of a child abuser in part to protect the team and the money tree it represented for Penn State. They not only didn’t go to the police, they kept what they knew from the board of trustees of the school. For that matter they did the same thing when renegotiating Paterno’s last contract and giving him a big going-away bonus and some crazy perks. The heads of the football program were more powerful than the leadership of the school until this news came out, and that can’t be allowed to continue. When it does, this kind of thing can happen.
Yes, that’s the best argument for arguing that the football program shouldn’t be punished - that this is not the NCAA’s domain. But ultimately, if they do nothing then their system becomes a joke. On every level, the actions of Paterno and others were intended to help the football team and themselves, and if the NCAA feels that’s less important than the number or calls or text messages a recruit gets or someone buying him a meal, what credibility do they have?
One thing to think about when debating the death penalty is how it will affect the economy and people in a college town. I live and work in a college town (Hint: winner of two of the last three BCS Championships) and part of my income comes directly from working at home football games. If the football program was shut down the local economy would be devastated. Restaurants, bars, hotels etc. rely on business during football season for a large part of their yearly revenue. Punishing local business owners and employees for something they had nothing to do with is not a good idea.
So we shouldn’t punish any sports institution because of the collateral effect it has on people who weren’t involved? Can you see why that might not be a really great position to take?
Tell that to the local business owner who goes out of business because he loses the majority of his revenue for the year. Tell that to the people who lose jobs because local businesses go under. Would you gladly sacrafice your source of income just because you want to see some other people get punished? Also, I still haven’t seen how the NCAA even has the power to punish Penn St. for what happened.
Can you explain to me how covering up the Sandusky scandal was of any material benefit to a football program in which he had no role by the time it was a coverup instead of just a investigation into some weird shit that was reported?
We shouldn’t punish any institution for actions taken by its executives for their own personal benefit.
The first incident had an outside party from the state find nothing wrong. Sandusky was nonetheless told he wasn’t getting promoted to head coach at that point. Sandusky wasn’t coaching and was retired at the time of the second incident.
The only reputation being protected here was JoePa’s and that of his good-ol-boy network. The new university administration will no doubt be in a much better position to enforce university-wide disciplinary policy on the new athletic director. The guilty have been punished or are dead. Those who sought to benefit are out on their ears.
Virtually every study done by an independent, honest researcher in the entire history of sports economics demonstrates that when the option of a given major sport is taken away from the consumer, the money spent largely gets spent anyway, on other entertainments and diversions. The net effect on the economy is extremely tiny, if not nonexistent.
I also question just how important the Nittany Lions’ home games can be to a specific business when they only play five or six home games a year. If your hotel is relying on being full for six weekends out of 52, your business plan is insane.
You misread my post in your response to it–and if it was not productive, why did you choose to respond to it, and not to the productive one?
This is incorrect. Its first sentence is, again:
Engineering is a form of education, of teaching, of research,and possibly of service; it’s one of the vital functions the university performs.
Football is entertainment. It is not one of the vital functions the university performs.
Sure, the university could exist without any single discipline, but each eliminated discipline diminishes its mission. Eliminating football leaves its mission unaffected.
You’re seriously arguing that when you want to determine an institution’s mission, you should look at their budget instead of their mission statement?
It kept very negative news about the Penn State football program out of the press. Sandusky was no longer on the staff by 2001, but he had just retired and received an unusually large bonus and still had extensive privileges (some of which he hadn’t really earned), and he did, after all, abuse children in the athletic facilities. And it’s not just that he was the former defensive-coordinator and coach in waiting: he used his connection to Penn State football to help get his victims. So the publicity would certainly have been bad. The news could have hurt donations, recruiting, and the job statuses of Paterno and Curley in particular.
Which is why the program needs to get nuked. There needs to be a statement to the effect of: “If you think letting news of wrongdoing get out will hurt the school, it ain’t shit compared to what will happen if you try to hide it.”
I can assure you where I live, the local economy would be affected drastically. The money spent doesn’t come from people who live here, it comes from people travelling here to attend the games. Take that away and businesses will fail and jobs will be lost.
I’ve never been to State College, PA but I believe the situation is similar to where I live. Home football games generate a huge amount of revenue for the community. We’re not talking about New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta etc. These are towns where the economy depends largely on the university and business generated during home football games. I would not want to punish thousands of people for crimes they had nothing to do with.
Yep. I suspect there are some folks so loyal to their program that they’ll fall on their sword if necessary to protect it. They need to know that’s not an option: precisely the action they’d take to defend the program will destroy it instead.