Say it ain't so, Joe

[Gothamite]

What I heard, though, is that the punishment would've been death penalty + everything else PSU got. So they would've missed this past year and then had to start anew with the bowl ban, scholarship reductions, etc.

That would mean that Penn State traded straight-up their right to appeal for the death penalty being taken off the table.

[pmoehrin]

What I heard, though, is that the punishment would've been death penalty + everything else PSU got. So they would've missed this past year and then had to start anew with the bowl ban, scholarship reductions, etc.

That would mean that Penn State traded straight-up their right to appeal for the death penalty being taken off the table.

That's what I first thought when I heard Penn State would be spared the death penalty and still think that is the case.

You can do whatever you want to us within reason, just don't shut down the program. I really believe that was Penn State's rational in this towards the NCAA.

I don't the NCAA had much of a choice in the matter because I think they had/have alot of political pressure on them to act. But as long as that side was reasonably satisfied with the punishments imposed there really is no reason to try to force the death penalty on Penn State and put yourself in a situation for a long and lengthy legal battle to unfold, because I think Penn State would be willing to go to court over the matter if it came to their football program being shut down. I think even now you have a pretty large voice within Penn State that wants to go to court with the NCAA over their ruling. I highly doubt a court case will actually come of it and I would doubt a judge would even agree to hear the case, but the sentiment is still there.

[OnWis97]

What I heard, though, is that the punishment would've been death penalty + everything else PSU got. So they would've missed this past year and then had to start anew with the bowl ban, scholarship reductions, etc.

That would mean that Penn State traded straight-up their right to appeal for the death penalty being taken off the table.

That's what I first thought when I heard Penn State would be spared the death penalty and still think that is the case.

You can do whatever you want to us within reason, just don't shut down the program.

I don't the NCAA had much of a choice in the matter because I think they had/have alot of political pressure on them to act. But as long as that side was reasonably satisfied with the punishments imposed there really is no reason to try to force the death penalty on Penn State and put yourself in a situation for a long and lengthy legal battle to unfold, because I think Penn State would be willing to go to court over the matter if it came to their football program being shut down. I think even now you have a pretty large voice within Penn State that wants to go to court with the NCAA over their ruling. I highly doubt a court case will actually come of it and I would doubt a judge would even agree to hear the case, but the sentiment is still there.

That seems about right. The punishment was much more than a slap on the wrist and the NCAA may have lost in court because this may not technically be in their purview. From Penn State's side, they would have lost in the court of public opinion. They can keep the program going and hope to keep what little momentum they have to stay in the middle of the Big Ten pack and maybe compete for conference titles not long after the sanctions have run their course.

[Gothamite]

I think it's also smart from the NCAA's side, because now they don't have to deal with any "Why are you punishing the merchants and restaurants and everybody counting on game day revenue?" nonsense.

[OnWis97]

Looks like you may be wrong. The NCAA wasn't reluctant to invoke the death penalty at all. In fact they were going to give PSU a 4 year ban. They gave them the option of accepting what became the penalty or take the death penalty.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

Just goes to show that Penn State still doesn't get it and never will. They actually chose 20+ years of futility and getting to field a (crappy) team this year over shutting it down for 4 years, cleaning house, and coming back stronger. Why? Because god forbid Happy Valley goes five minutes without their FOOTBAW.

I could not disagree more with the premise of this. How to be competitive in football is not what Penn State was not "getting." What they were not getting was how to put it in perspective. I think if they thought shutting it down would lead to being competitive more quickly, they may have done so.

What I hope they do "get" after the football team takes a step into Indiana territory is that life goes on when your team is not competitive. I hope they get that the football team is just one of many University entities and it's reputation is not more important than, say, human decency. Having a coach that is not considered some sort of God, along with having a team that is not playing in bowls or for the conference title may do that.

(changing gears) I tell you, though, sometimes I think nobody "gets it" like CCSLC. I am so tired of sports media (not only ESPN) whining about the NCAA and the punishments. I am tired of them saying "the guilty parties are not even there" and "why punish the current players." This is not about punishing the guilty parties. This is about changing the culture that allowed this to happen. And to just say "carry on" and let it go allows that culture to continue. Maybe, MAYBE, PSU would have improved that culture with "the God" no longer there and maybe lessons would have been learned, but to do what we can to make sure that the program remains what it is because we punished the right people would be to risk that culture maintaining itself. Sure, there would hopefully never be a Sandusky incident again, but the football program would still hold too much influence. I think a couple of years of "death" would have served better, but hopefully this leads to a change in the culture there. I just wish someone in sports media would, oh I don't know, think critically, rather than simply spit out "but these guys didn't do it." It's not that simple. Had they busted Sandusky the moment they found out, then the "institution" would have had "control" and it would have been one monster, caught because the "culture" at PSU cared about doing the right thing. In that case I'd have had PSU's back in any discussion of punishment beyond Sandusky (which there would not have been). The culture is broken and removing four guys does not fix that. End rant.

[Gothamite]

Good rant.

[pmoehrin]

What I heard, though, is that the punishment would've been death penalty + everything else PSU got. So they would've missed this past year and then had to start anew with the bowl ban, scholarship reductions, etc.

That would mean that Penn State traded straight-up their right to appeal for the death penalty being taken off the table.

That's what I first thought when I heard Penn State would be spared the death penalty and still think that is the case.

You can do whatever you want to us within reason, just don't shut down the program.

I don't the NCAA had much of a choice in the matter because I think they had/have alot of political pressure on them to act. But as long as that side was reasonably satisfied with the punishments imposed there really is no reason to try to force the death penalty on Penn State and put yourself in a situation for a long and lengthy legal battle to unfold, because I think Penn State would be willing to go to court over the matter if it came to their football program being shut down. I think even now you have a pretty large voice within Penn State that wants to go to court with the NCAA over their ruling. I highly doubt a court case will actually come of it and I would doubt a judge would even agree to hear the case, but the sentiment is still there.

That seems about right. The punishment was much more than a slap on the wrist and the NCAA may have lost in court because this may not technically be in their purview. From Penn State's side, they would have lost in the court of public opinion. They can keep the program going and hope to keep what little momentum they have to stay in the middle of the Big Ten pack and maybe compete for conference titles not long after the sanctions have run their course.

If the NCAA was really serious about shutting down the program, I don't think they would have done anything beyond just placing a call to a couple of Senators or Reps at either the State or Federal level, and just letting them take care of it.

The problem with that from the NCAA perspective is that if you differ to that, your going to come off as weak and its also not something the government really wants to get involved in. But if Penn State had made it clear that they were going to play hardball with this and just stonewall whatever the NCAA's ruling was, then I think you would have seen the government get involved. But from Penn State's side you really don't want that, because even if the government can't go after the football program directly, (which they probably could through Title IX) they can still do alot of other nasties such as withholding grant money or sending it to other schools Looking at it from that perspective, I don't think it was that hard of a decision from Penn State to try to cut a deal with the NCAA as much as the hardcore football boosters may protest.

[nash61]

Think of it as like being a muslim. If you're a muslim, chances are you don't support Al Qaeda or anything that they did, and you're ashamed that some of "your people" would do such a thing

If you're someone who's obsessed with speeding, chances are you do

Nice to see my graphic still getting some use after his ban.

[rams80]

Looks like you may be wrong. The NCAA wasn't reluctant to invoke the death penalty at all. In fact they were going to give PSU a 4 year ban. They gave them the option of accepting what became the penalty or take the death penalty.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

Just goes to show that Penn State still doesn't get it and never will. They actually chose 20+ years of futility and getting to field a (crappy) team this year over shutting it down for 4 years, cleaning house, and coming back stronger. Why? Because god forbid Happy Valley goes five minutes without their FOOTBAW.

You don't come back stronger when you take a 4 year holiday on something. The turn around for Penn State is still going to be quicker without taking the years off. (Although I stand by my contention that all the sanctions do is drop Penn State to 5-8 wins per year for awhile. Which is not Indiana-level.)

[RevNet]

Lawyers: Shower abuse victim to sue Penn State

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A man who claims to be the unknown victim molested in a Penn State shower by Jerry Sandusky in a case that led to Joe Paterno's firing intends to sue the university for its ''egregious and reckless conduct'' that facilitated the abuse, his lawyers said Thursday.The lawyers have done an extensive investigation and gathered ''overwhelming evidence'' on details of the abuse by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, they said in a statement.

The identity of so-called Victim 2 has been a central mystery in the Sandusky case, and jurors convicted Sandusky last month of offenses related to him judging largely by the testimony of Mike McQueary, who was a team graduate assistant at the time and described seeing the attack.

''Our client has to live the rest of his life not only dealing with the effects of Sandusky's childhood sexual abuse, but also with the knowledge that many powerful adults, including those at the highest levels of Penn State, put their own interests and the interests of a child predator above their legal obligations to protect him,'' the lawyers' statement said.

The university said in a statement that it was taking the case seriously but would not comment on pending litigation.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/trustees-sanctions-better-football-ban-063918993--ncaaf.html

[TheOldRoman]

Looks like you may be wrong. The NCAA wasn't reluctant to invoke the death penalty at all. In fact they were going to give PSU a 4 year ban. They gave them the option of accepting what became the penalty or take the death penalty.

http://espn.go.com/e...r-death-penalty

Just goes to show that Penn State still doesn't get it and never will. They actually chose 20+ years of futility and getting to field a (crappy) team this year over shutting it down for 4 years, cleaning house, and coming back stronger. Why? Because god forbid Happy Valley goes five minutes without their FOOTBAW.

You don't come back stronger when you take a 4 year holiday on something. The turn around for Penn State is still going to be quicker without taking the years off. (Although I stand by my contention that all the sanctions do is drop Penn State to 5-8 wins per year for awhile. Which is not Indiana-level.)

Absolutely. PSU would have potentially taken four years off, then came back with nothing but true freshmen and walk-ons to get eviscerated for the next 2-3 seasons, and that doesn't even include whatever sanctions they would face after they got the team back. I can't see any way in which a death penalty would have been better for Penn State. It's either be mediocre-to-bad for four seasons or lose four years and make Indiana look like 2005 USC for at least three seasons afterwards.

[BlueSky]

What I don't like about the NCAA's actions is that it reeks of a good ole boy deal worked out in a smoke-filled room. From CNN:

===

The four-year death penalty option was confirmed by NCAA President Mark Emmert, who said in a separate interview with ESPN that what the network termed "a core group of NCAA school presidents" had agreed on the unprecedented sanctions.

Once Penn State learned of the NCAA intentions, school officials engaged in five days of secret discussions with the NCAA that resulted in the penalties announced Monday, ESPN reported. Those include the record $60 million fine, a four-year postseason ban, a four-year reduction in football scholarships and five years of probation. Penn State also was forced to vacate its football victories since 1998, including 111 by the late coach Joe Paterno.

===

Penn State was in no position to demand or negotiate anything. They'd have deserved what they got had they just covered one incident. They covered up two and through their actions created numerous other victims. So I'm very sorry for any innocent parties connected with Penn State football but the NCAA really needed to come down harder than they did.

Edit: Who gives a rat's a** how Penn State fares under different scenarios? Worrying about that crap is the kind of thinking that led to this mess to begin with.

[Gothamite]

Penn State was in no position to demand or negotiate anything.

I was very much in favor of the death penalty in this case, but I understand the negotiations, especially if that was when Penn State gave up its right to fight or appeal the sanctions.

Seems as though the NCAA didn't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. That's legitimate, much as I want Penn State to join the ranks of Fordham and the University of Chicago.

[pmoehrin]

Penn State was in no position to demand or negotiate anything.

I was very much in favor of the death penalty in this case, but I understand the negotiations, especially if that was when Penn State gave up its right to fight or appeal the sanctions.

Seems as though the NCAA didn't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. That's legitimate, much as I want Penn State to join the ranks of Fordham and the University of Chicago.

I'm of the opinion that the NCAA should have gone for the death penalty as well. Fight from them or not. But I'm also not in Mark Emmert's shoes and I'm not in the room when these discussions are going, so while I can disagree with the NCAA's decision to some extent, I don't have enough to go on to say that they made the wrong decision. The only thing I can say is as an outsider I would have handled it a little differently, but there's things that may have come up that I wasn't privy to that may have led to act differently if I were in Mark Emmert's position.

[Raysfan12]

I got a question; How many wins does Penn State program have now since the NCAA vacated Paterno's wins from 1998-2012?

[Epiphanic]

Lawyer says evidence of Paterno coverup lacking.

[njmeadowlanders]

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-07-25/penn-state-graham-spanier-president-federal-government-job-national-security-fre

In yet another shocking development in the Penn State story, ousted president Graham Spanier will soon begin working with the federal government on projects related to national security, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pa., first reported.

In an email written to the paper, Spanier said: “For the next several months, as I transition to my post-presidential plans, I will be working on a special project for the U.S. government relating (to) national security. This builds on my prior positions working with federal agencies to foster improved cooperation between our nation’s national security agencies and other entities.”

Even the Mob is like 'this is corrupt, come on'. To be fair, if anyone knows how to keep a secret, Spanier is your guy...

[/he'sadouche]

[pmoehrin]

Lawyer says evidence of Paterno coverup lacking.

I like how he starts off with I haven't followed the scandal much, then proceeds to go into tedious detail about the Freeh Report.

He really comes off as someone trying to present themselves as an expert layman. I don't know much about the issue, but this is why I'm right. And maybe the guy does have a legit point to make, but I have a hard time taking arguments that are framed in a passive aggressive way seriously.

[pmoehrin]

Lawyer says evidence of Paterno coverup lacking.

I like how he starts off with I haven't followed the scandal much, then proceeds to go into tedious detail about the Freeh Report.

He really comes off as someone trying to present himself as an expert layman. I don't know much about the issue, but this is why I'm right. And maybe the guy does have a legit point to make, but I have a hard time taking arguments that are framed in a passive aggressive way seriously.

[BBTV]

Lawyer says evidence of Paterno coverup lacking.

I don't think I'd ever associate myself with any attorney who had a blog like that. Forget that his argument is poorly written, I'd question the confidentiality of any of our conversations if one should ever turn in to the subject of a blog post.

Regardless, he's probably just advertising for the Paterno family to hire him for a defamation suit. If they haven't already considered it, this article could put the idea in their head and hey - what a coincidence - the athor just happens to be an attorney who believes they're right.

http://aol.sportingn...al-security-fre

In yet another shocking development in the Penn State story, ousted president Graham Spanier will soon begin working with the federal government on projects related to national security, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pa., first reported.

In an email written to the paper, Spanier said: ?For the next several months, as I transition to my post-presidential plans, I will be working on a special project for the U.S. government relating (to) national security. This builds on my prior positions working with federal agencies to foster improved cooperation between our nation?s national security agencies and other entities.?

Even the Mob is like 'this is corrupt, come on'. To be fair, if anyone knows how to keep a secret, Spanier is your guy...

[/he'sadouche]

Spanier was talking about this the other day. He said that he was vetted for months, and had several background checks including talks with character witnesses. He was stating this, as well as the fact that he was a victim of abuse himself, as a basis for his "defense".