Should the Penn State football program get the death penalty?

That works for Paterno and Sandusky (I don’t believe it, but it’s at least plausible), but not for Curley and Schultz. Once the AD and a VP get involved in the coverup, it’s an institutional issue.

So I repeat: what does it have to do with the junior coaches, staff, and players that you’re proposing to punish?

I should be clear here, too–I’m the kind of PSU Alumni who wishes they’d move the football stadium 30 miles away so the damn games didn’t tie my whole town in lots. I have no particular love for the Lions or JoePa–I just don’t think it’s ever right to punish innocents for the actions of their supervisors.

Nothing, and I feel bad for them. I feel bad for the innocent employees of a company that declares bankruptcy as a result of its own illegal actions as well, but we as a society don’t let that stop us from punishing the company.

The legal system will deal with the individuals, but there’s no criminal system in place that’s going to deal with the institutional structure that created the environment in which NCAA football was more important than protecting sexually abused kids. That’s what I think the NCAA has to do.

Penn State has effectively purged their program. The head coach, athletic director, and president of the university have departed over this, and I doubt the bloodletting is over. No one would benefit from giving the program the death penalty at this stage.

If anything else happens in the next few years, that’s on the table.

Obviously, I think you’re wrong. It’s the difference between actions taken BY or ON BEHALF OF the football program, vs. actions taken by EMPLOYEES of the program that had no benefit to the program.

If Sandusky were arrested for stealing the pensions of widows and orphans to pay players under the table, sure, death-penalty the program. He wasn’t.

If you can point out some kind of tangible benefit the coverup had to “Penn State Football” as opposed to merely “Sandusky’s reputation”, but I don’t think you can.

For what it’s worth, a recruit in South Carolina has rescinded his verbal commitment from PSU.

This may be enough for the NCAA to take steps toward punishment. Granted, the NCAA of course has some messed up rules, but I’m guessing they don’t care much for former coaches going to different parts of the country to watch players’ spring games.

Why would that be the case? Am I not allowed go to different parts of the country to watch spring games?

I knew it Munch - you’re really Gerry Faust, aren’t you?

Looking at it by itself, molestation and such not taken into account, if a former coach of a school, who’s getting a pension for his time as coach at that school, goes to another part of the country to watch a high school spring game, and then one of those players commits to that school, do you think the NCAA might take notice? Especially with a fairly highly rated recruit? I don’t know if Sandusky then gave money back to the athletic department, but if so, he’s a booster. And was Penn State, or were PSU boosters, also giving money to Sandusky’s Second Mile organization? If so, right or wrong, it’s hard to say the NCAA won’t take an interest into whether this violated recruiting rules.

But those were problems relevant to the issue of the administration of NCAA rules. The NCAA has a specific role to play. It’s not the justice department.

Yes. That’s entirely plausible.

This sort of thing happens quite a lot and it’s not limited to high-visibility football programs.

Apologies in advance…

“What did he blow, and when did he blow it?”

I’ve always gotten the impression that the death penalty is to nuke a program when nobody in a position of responsibility is willing to fix the program’s problems. In this case, PSU has already nuked the program, by grace of firing everybody in a position of power who was involved. It would be a bit redundant for the NCAA to start sanctions.

(We also have a justice system to deal with child molestation, and the NCAA doesn’t really need to get in on the act, but that’s not as strong an objection.)

Should we close Congress because a few legislators messed around with their interns?

The Penn state football program did not bugger that kid in the shower. That was one sick, perverted criminal’s independent action. He had retired from coaching a few years earlier.

The school officals that covered it up & lied to a grand jury have been arrested. Others like Paterno reported the incident but got fired for not calling the cops.

The football program is made up of players and other coaches that had nothing to do with this incident.

I voted other ust to say" Hell No!"

I’ll take it as a compliment that you didn’t suggest I was Bob Davie.

I don’t see the point in shutting down the football team. Sure, do a thorough investigation and make sure that everybody who had any idea what was going on with Sandusky but didn’t go to the police isn’t back next season, and is permanently unwelcome on every PSU campus. Make sure the investigation doesn’t leave out the administration and trustees.

Bring in a new AD, and have him hire a new head football coach who will in turn hire/bring in his own staff, and thereby give the football program itself a fresh start. I can’t see any reason why that shouldn’t suffice.

People are calling for this? Dumb.

It does. Actual crimes are handled by the justice system. The NCAA handles “crimes” against college athletics. This is outside their jurisdiction.

Right.

Maybe. Probably. But it’s unfair to accuse them of this without any evidence that this is the case.

Shutting down one guilty football program misses the point. There needs to be a federal law making it a felony for an eyewitness to fail to report sexual abuse directly to the police. An institution’s internal reporting policy may not be nearly sufficient, as we’ve learned.

Hey PSU alum: if you watch this and can honestly say that you think there was no coverup, then I got nothing for you:

http://espn.go.com/videohub/video/clip?id=7229386&categoryid=2378529

Did anyone actually say this? There are certainly assertions that the coverup was on behalf of “the old boy’s network” rather than “the benefit of the football program”.