Say it ain't so, Joe

[GFB]

Something still isn't right here. Ok, follow my thinking for a minute. If PSU knew about the alleged incidents involving Sandusky back in '98, why not just come out with it? Just turn the pervert in, wash your hands of it, and go back to being Penn State. Sure, your reputation would take a hit, but you could play the "shocked and appalled" card and get the media and press on your side and move along relatively quickly. (And no, I don't believe "fear of JoePa" is enough reason for starting a university-wide cover-up). It doesn't add up...

...UNLESS, PSU knew that if they came out with it then, people will start digging into the story and find that this goes much deeper than Jerry Sandusky. Or, at the very least, Sandusky had some real juicy dirt back then on some pretty important people...

There's too much smoke here for my liking... You see a DA who vanished into thin air. You read stuff like this: http://gratewire.com...hile-network... Unfortunately, I think this may go way, way deeper than anyone realized.

Well to add to the Penn Conspiracy, you could look at how:

1- Spanier asked the state open records law not to include Penn State.

2- Sara Ganim (a PSU graduate) went on CBS's "Face The Nation" and called Penn State, "the Kremlin" in terms of getting information.

However, the McMartin Trial turned out to not be what it was called out to be and there also was a story. And there was a much bigger headline in 1989 which became to be false.

You could even interpret something like the President of the university jumping on the NCAA's offer so quickly it doesn't even go to a trustee vote as a sign that there's something else at play here (if you wanted to).

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, and I haven't yet (and really don't want to) spent the time to figure what fits and what doesn't, I just think this whole thing has been really strange from very beginning and I wouldn't be shocked to find out it's not done yet. But, like admiral said, I tend to believe this is more than "just four people." People who are this sick usually surround themselves with others who are in the same mold...

[BBTV]

Remember those rumors about Sandusky and Second Mile pawning off kids to wealthy Penn State donors?

They may not be rumors after all.

New explosive child sexual abuse charges against Jerry Sandusky and Penn State

I never realized Penn State was being charged with child sexual abuse. I'm not one to argue with Radar online.com though.

"Sandusky, 68, was the defensive coordinator for Penn State and was accused of sexually abusing 10 boys during 15 years. Many of the victims were from the Second Mile charity, which Sandusky founded to help troubled youth."

Same difference. :|

Thank you for bolding that. Unfortunately I still don't know what your point is.

[The_Admiral]

I thought his point was that Penn State and The Second Mile were very closely connected, with the principals of the two groups working on investment opportunities together (a retirement community, a bottled water company), such that they may as well be one big combine.

You know, it was back in November that people were intimating that this runs way deeper than Sandusky. It kind of lost steam. It's picking back up now.

[dfwabel]

I thought his point was that Penn State and The Second Mile were very closely connected, with the principals of the two groups working on investment opportunities together (a retirement community, a bottled water company), such that they may as well be one big combine.

You know, it was back in November that people were intimating that this runs way deeper than Sandusky. It kind of lost steam. It's picking back up now.

That "voice" was Mark Madden who was an honest journalist years ago then became a pro wrestling announcer and sports radio guy who needs to be outlandish to keep his name out there nationally.

[IceCap]

If this Penn State case concerning 'state action' destroys the NCAA, I would appreciate what those at Penn State did.

Never mind those kids, as long as the NCAA gets destroyed... solid logic.

I know people have fun bashing dfwabel, but I'm not sure that backing a school's potential decision to challenge a corrupt governing body equals not caring about abuse victims or being insensitive towards them. Accepting the sanctions does nothing for the kids (with the possible exception of the $60 M), and only really buys the school some much needed good PR. I believe he's simply stating that he would appreciate the challenge, not appreciate the cover up that lead to this.

If it's me, I probably don't challenge just because they really don't need even the slightest bit of negative PR piled on to what they've already earned, however I can understand the rationale of feeling the need to challenge a body that might be overstepping it's boundaries, and doing what's best for the current students (and believe it or not, they still do have an obligation to the people who attend there and even to those who donate there) and try whatever they can to keep generating revenue to fund things (though I'll admit to having no idea how football money gets used for anything.) Again, not what I would probably do, but still a reasonable course of action. Boards of publicly-traded companies have an obligation to their shareholders first and foremost, which often times leads to un-PR-friendly decisions (drug companies deciding to fight lawsuits instead of pulling a drug because it's less expensive to kill people and pay off families than it would be to eliminate the revenue all together, etc.) I'm not sure that the board of a school is all that different (with the clear distinction being that the board of a school also has more of an obligation to demonstrate the values that it supposedly holds their students up to, which in a case like this creates an obvious conflict.)

Again, the point's been missed. I really don't care about the NCAA's "track record" outside of this case, as the discussion relates to this case. Call them corrupt, out of touch, ineffective, buffoons, what have you. All of those are probably correct to varying degrees.

Again though, it doesn't matter here. Here, they're in the right. Here, they're the ones punishing an institution that put winning football games ahead of the safety of children. Here, they're in the right. Let the anti-NCAA stuff work itself out in the debates over the latest scandal from Miami. The NCAA probably could use reform. Here though? They did the right thing. Yes, the right thing. Not "they agree with my take on an issue with many viable points of view." They did the only morally right thing, punishing the school severely.

It's why I find the "I hope Penn State appeals and destroys the NCAA" viewpoint so asinine. It's attempting to champion a school that should be rightfully punished get out of that punishment so they can destroy an institution that annoys them in the realm of college football. It's the same kind of attitude that led to this mess in the first place, placing SPORTS! above an institution facing the responsibilities of their actions (or in this case inaction).

Really - people read an opinion that's anything other than "should have been death penalty for program and then death penalty for 100 students" and just go into flame mode.

The whole "I'm so reasonable, I'm above getting mad at pedophiles and those that enable them" attitude is getting a bit tiring as well. Most people, who you would categorize as having a "hardline" approach to Penn State" were fine with the penalties laid out by the NCAA. Penalties which certainly didn't include the death penalty for the program.

People are rightfully disgusted about this. So let them be disgusted. I REALLY don't get the whole "I'm to good to be outraged" mentality.

[infrared41]

The whole "I'm so reasonable, I'm above getting mad at pedophiles and those that enable them" attitude is getting a bit tiring as well. Most people, who you would categorize as having a "hardline" approach to Penn State" were fine with the penalties laid out by the NCAA. Penalties which certainly didn't include the death penalty for the program.

People are rightfully disgusted about this. So let them be disgusted. I REALLY don't get the whole "I'm to good to be outraged" mentality.

No offense, but so is the whole "you're not reacting to it like I am so you must be OK with it" attitude. It's got nothing to do with being "too good to be outraged." We're all outraged. It's about being able to separate, for lack of a better term, the guilty from the innocent in this mess. And let's be honest, there are a few people in this thread who are not able to do that. I think it's unfair on your part (and a little irresponsible) to claim anyone here is "above getting mad at pedophiles and those that enable them." You know that not one person in this thread feels that way.

[IceCap]

It's about being able to separate, for lack of a better term, the guilty from the innocent in this mess. And let's be honest, there are a few people in this thread who are not able to do that.

Who? Who in this thread has seriously tried to insinuate that the business school or biology department, or your average Penn State student, is "just as guilty"? I admit to be a vocal "you people disgust me" type of guy in regards to those who are guilty, those who enabled them, and those who still defend them, but I don't think I've ever actually said "everyone affiliated with PSU, past, present, and future, is a terrible person and the school should be burnt to the ground."

Which kind of leads into...

I think it's unfair on your part (and a little irresponsible) to claim anyone here is "above getting mad at pedophiles and those that enable them." You know that not one person in this thread feels that way.

It's the vibe I'm getting. Bucsfan claimed that "the reaction some have had against this whole situation to be nearly as dissapointing as the issue itself." I'm sorry, but in no way does "wanting to see a rapist and his enablers punished" = "rapist raping children and a football team covering it up." To even make that comparison smacks of a sense of "trying to hard" to appear "above it all."

Thankfully that's the extreme end of that side. And, ftr, I don't think anyone really believes that child rape is ok.

Still, I get the vibe that there's a sense of faux-sophistication some people are reaching for here. Calling people "trolls" and "mental midgets" for being outspoken about their distaste for Penn State after all of this certainly isn't productive. At the end of the day, how you choose to deal with these feelings of disgust, anger, or even disappointment is up to you.

I just don't feel like I, or anyone else who's been outspoken about their feelings of anger or disgust, ought to be talked down to because of it. Regardless of BBTV's intended meaning, saying "Really - people read an opinion that's anything other than "should have been death penalty for program and then death penalty for 100 students" and just go into flame mode" does come across as being talked down to.

Of course I know you, Vet, and the vast majority of people here aren't ok with rape. I just don't see what's so bad about being outspoken about it in the face of people who try to defend those who enable it.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Whenever I see this thread title I think of the Weezer song.

[The_Admiral]

Me too! I wish I wouldn't. It's not a very good song, and the Asher Roth song that sampled it is even worse still.

[infrared41]

I just don't see what's so bad about being outspoken about it in the face of people who try to defend those who enable it.

We both know that no one here has tried to defend or enable pedophilia.

[IceCap]

I just don't see what's so bad about being outspoken about it in the face of people who try to defend those who enable it.

We both know that no one here has tried to defend or enable pedophilia.

My apologies for not conveying my point properly.

I know that no one here has tried to defend paedophilia or those that enable it.

My point is that one can say "perhaps we need to reign in the anger" without using terms like "trolls," "mental midgets," and comparing those who are outraged with child rapists themselves.

[njmeadowlanders]

http://deadspin.com/5937380/the-details-of-minnesota-state-head-football-coach-todd-hoffners-child-porn-charges-are-horrifying?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Now maybe Minnesota States coach is involved in kiddie porn...with his own children. You can't make it up.

[CS85]

I'd put it at an 8.9 on the Sanduskometer.

[crashcarson15]

I'd put it at an 8.9 on the Sanduskometer.

The Russian judge gives it a 5.3

[Magnus]

Ridiculous

[rams80]

I don't know, I think banning Sweet Caroline is an admirable decision, but more because its a crappy, hideously overplayed song rather than the lyrics.

[Raysfan12]

From Sweet Caroline

One

Touching one

Reaching out

Touching me

Touching you

This part of the lyrics is why Penn State banned the song because they want to disassociate from the Sex scandal.

[Eye]

From Sweet Caroline

One

Touching one

Reaching out

Touching me

Touching you

This part of the lyrics is why Penn State banned the song because they want to disassociate from the Sex scandal.

Sandusky didn't touch one though.

[dfwabel]

I don't know, I think banning Sweet Caroline is an admirable decision, but more because its a crappy, hideously overplayed song rather than the lyrics.

True. That's why they are removing it, "Rock and Roll, Part 2" since it is from Gary Glitter, and a couple others and will replace them with the following:

Billy Squire- "The Stroke"

Clarence "Frogman" Henry- "I Ain't Got No Home"

The Doors- "Touch Me" (or substitute the same title from Samantha Fox)

[BBTV]

Ridiculous

What about that is ridiculous?