Penn State & Syracuse Scandals

[La Dame au Feu Rouge]

I haven't read everything about this case, but I have never heard that Sandusky had a "dungeon". All he had was a basement, as far as I have heard. A "dungeon" in this context implies that he was involved not just in having sexual contact with minors but that the sexual contact involved sadomasochistic behavior and that there was S&M equipment in his basement. . I've never heard that and assume that if there was any evidence of it that it would have been mentioned in these threads before.

I consider any room where individuals are held against their will (whatever else happened there is inconsequential to defining the term) as a dungeon. I think when young boys are screaming for help because they are being held against their will in said room also qualifies as 'sadomasochistic behavior.' But go ahead and continue making light of the situation.

*Why are my posts being deleted? Also,

WHY AM I GETTING ATTACKED HERE?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's true. I also saw that since 4 years is equal to or longer than anyone's eligibility, every single current Penn State player can transfer away without having to sit out a year. I'd imagine quite a lot of them, particularly the incoming freshmen, will.

ETA: So its definitely a hefty punishment, the Penn State football program is going to be crippled for at least 4 years and probably a lot longer; this is definitely very punitive. But again, I don't think it was the right way to go. Let the civil and criminal courts sort that out, I'm not a fan of the NCAA getting involved in this just like I'm not a fan of the NFL suspending players with run-ins with the law. I think the death penalty would've been fine, since its so symbolic, but otherwise, not a good move. Now that we have this precedent are we going to starting punishing programs if a coach gets a DUI or an AD gets caught soliciting a prostitute?

That's the same problem I have -- I don't see any way that NCAA sanctions can really be applied with any kind of logical consistency even in this case. If the NCAA is going to hold the university responsible, then I don't see how any penalty designed to penalize a football program is sufficient. The SMU "death" penalty? Oh, so shutting down a program for just one year is sufficient punishment for child molestation? How can anything less than shutting down the program permanently be considered "enough". Trying to find the balance between "child molestation" and "football" seems an impossible task.

We have a criminal justice system, which includes imprisonment for crimes, and a civil justice system that permits huge damages (including punitive damages), for behavior we find unacceptable. I'm not sure of the law in Pennsylvania, but in my state, the fact that the NCAA has imposed these sanctions would lessen the recovery for punitive damages by the injured plaintiffs. Juries would be told that they can take those punishments into account in considering the proper amount of punitive damages to impose, and you can bet that the attorneys for the school are going to be arguing that awarding even more punitive damages is going to hurt the public interest in terms of having a vibrant college educational experience, etc.. So the net result is likely to be less for the victims.

To me, the NCAA's punishments should have been limited to things like bowl/TV appearances, because there seems to be a legitimate interest there in protecting the public image of the NCAA, and not wanting to have a circus on tv every time the team plays. But other than that, it seems like the NCAA is a hammer, and the problem at PSU is a screw -- the NCAA just isn't the right tool to address this.

[La Dame au Feu Rouge]

The Nazi stuff,

I tried to respond to this but my response was deleted.

[Xray the Enforcer]

*Why are my posts being deleted?

[mod] <--- you see this little tag? That means I'm talking to you as a moderator. And I specifically requested that people not talk about the Nazi/German people threadjack. Failure to do so results in post deletions and eventual bans. So pretty please, with sugar on it, stop talking about the fucking Nazis. Thank you. [/mod]

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I consider any room where individuals are held against their will (whatever else happened there is inconsequential to defining the term) as a dungeon. I think when young boys are screaming for help because they are being held against their will in said room also qualifies as 'sadomasochistic behavior.' But go ahead and continue making light of the situation.

*Why are my posts being deleted? Also,

WHY AM I GETTING ATTACKED HERE?

Because you're making blanket, baseless accusations against hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people -- players and other affiliated with the team -- by accusing them of all turning a blind eye without any actual evidence that they knew. And your claim that Sanduky did all this "in the open", as if he's raping little boys in the shower with the entire team watching, is completely nonsensical.

People don't like false, or at least baseless, accusations being made against anyone. Particularly ones as nasty as claiming they ignored open and obvious child molestation. It suggests you have an unfair, stereotyped view of everyone who was involved in any way with that program.

And that's why you're being attacked. If you tried limiting your criticisms to those people against whom specific evidence exists, you might get a different reaction.

[La Dame au Feu Rouge]

[mod] <--- you see this little tag? That means I'm talking to you as a moderator. And I specifically requested that people not talk about the Nazi/German people threadjack. Failure to do so results in post deletions and eventual bans. So pretty please, with sugar on it, stop talking about the fucking Nazis. Thank you. [/mod]

1) I understand that you are the moderator, and I wasn't talking about them in particular (will I be banned if I mention the word in the response?) but complicit behavior. In the SAME post I ALSO mentioned the Stanford Prison experiment. Again, complicit/complacent behavior.

2) You don't have to be so rude about it. I only joined this board a few days ago, this thread has been going on since December and though I've scanned through the 20-something-pages of a disgusting subject matter I obviously mentioned your ban on certain topics.

So pretty please, with sugar on top, don't ban me over a mistake in questioning the behavior of the Penn State officials.

[Greywolf2375]

Now that we have this precedent are we going to starting punishing programs if a coach gets a DUI or an AD gets caught soliciting a prostitute?

If the institution makes a practice to cover up DUI or - in areas where it is illegal - hiring a prostitute or anything else, then yes, they should expect that they would receive severe punishments for the actions of covering up illegal activities.

[La Dame au Feu Rouge]

Because you're making blanket, baseless accusations against hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people -- players and other affiliated with the team -- by accusing them of all turning a blind eye without any actual evidence that they knew. And your claim that Sanduky did all this "in the open", as if he's raping little boys in the shower with the entire team watching, is completely nonsensical.

People don't like false, or at least baseless, accusations being made against anyone. Particularly ones as nasty as claiming they ignored open and obvious child molestation. It suggests you have an unfair, stereotyped view of everyone who was involved in any way with that program.

And that's why you're being attacked. If you tried limiting your criticisms to those people against whom specific evidence exists, you might get a different reaction.

Okay, so ONLY the Penn State officials knew and they covered it up so well that an assistant coach walked in during the early afternoon hours, saw (though he did backtrack his statement) Sandusky 'violently' (his words, not mine) raping a 10 year old boy...out in the open, in the open shower area. When the assistant coach can be bullied to not go to the police, when Paterno can cow the officials into silence, what chance do you think that a football player is going to be able to stand up against him?

Having gone to college within the past decade, having had friends in the sports programs ranging from football to rugby to softball/baseball, they ALL say that with some of the reports of abuse (specifically in the gym and shower area as they are all 'open' [meaning large, and not in a closed area] and anyone could walk through the door and see what was going on) in the Penn State there is no way that the players did not see/hear something. It is improbably from the law of statistics.

*Oh, this is aside from friends in Pennsylvania, who have gone to Penn State (I attended Drew University in New Jersey and met people who attended Penn State) that state that football players 'knew something was going on, tried to stay away from Sandusky, but had no idea it was this covered up'. There is a huge difference between what people will say to the papers about their school and what people tell their trusted friends.

[Sci-2]

well, your friends have judged, so that says it all right? i'll bring the tar and feathers.

[Bronn Stone]

As SJohn noted above, according to the NCAA, Penn State can still make plenty of cash off of their TV rights. Even shitty programs with a national following can make their nut from that, which means that the program is not at all impacted by the sanctions save for a bad record. O noz, a losing record! Frankly, that's no punishment at all in my eyes. Anything less than handing the Penn State program its own head on a platter (death penalty for some length of time, lose all TV rights for an even longer length of time, lose all football scholarships for a length of time, etc) is basically a slap on the wrist to Penn State, and an affront to all of those who were harmed by Penn State's actions.

You and SJohn are both wrong. This will be crushing. Penn State has already lost any hope of maintaining its national following and had done so months ago. They are down to Western Pennsylvania. They will lose their players - a few this year because of the late date and many more next. Their games will be televised, but only on small regional networks, which will further exacerbate the recruiting challenges. The remaining TV revenues will do what they have always done, keep the minor sports afloat. But the cash cow was gone either way. Any further cuts and you are just destroying things like the PSU Women's Volleyball team (where they are a power).

Eliminating TV revenues entirely, if even for a couple of years, would have been the Death Penalty not only for PSU football, but for every sport on campus.

[Kalbear]

That's the same problem I have -- I don't see any way that NCAA sanctions can really be applied with any kind of logical consistency even in this case.

I actually thought they were pretty consistent here as far as that goes. The program gets zero wins for every year they did not report. The program loses all revenue for every year they didn't report. Those two penalties made a lot of sense to me as far as both the NCAA and as far as what they could do that other organizations could not. And since it's NCAA revenue, not a fine or not going to the victims, I believe that most juries won't care about the money when awarding claims to other defendants.

The bowl bans and scholarship losses don't make a lot of sense to me. They're penalizing but ultimately not particularly special; I would have rather the program had that for again the length of the time they did not report, but so it goes.

[Greywolf2375]

The bowl bans and scholarship losses don't make a lot of sense to me. They're penalizing but ultimately not particularly special; I would have rather the program had that for again the length of the time they did not report, but so it goes.

One of the scouts from Rivals.com had said that if they were penalized scholarships either at a higher volume (>15) or longer than 3 years that it would effectively be the death penalty because of the long term impact it would have on their ability to recruit. What will be interesting now is if their current top recruit - a QB - is going to stay or if he will leave and from the sound of it, if he left, there would be a decent sized domino effect on the rest of the class.

[Fez]

Looks like the Big 10 didn't add all that much to the penalties:

The Big Ten announced it'll match the NCAA's four-year bowl ban with a four-year conference championship ban -- not that PSU's going to the Big Ten title game any time soon -- and will redistribute Penn State's cut of Big Ten bowl revenue for the same period to children's charities. That should amount to something like $13 million.

[Castel]

Well, that's that then.

[Thlayli]

I really don't understand what vacating the wins from 1998 onward means. Do they have to return the bowl money? Do they have to erase any mention of wins for that time period? For example: if they have a banner from the 2006 season that reads "Season Record 8-3" do they change it to "Season Record 0-11"? Seems silly. The team still won those games, the actions of Penn State regarding Sandusky did not give them a competitive advantage. Maybe the NCAA merely wants to avoid the black eye of having JoPa the winningest head football coach. I so don't give a shit, the NCAA could use a few more black eyes.

That said, the sanctions don't seem to go far enough. Can't play in a bowl game for four years. Heavens! During the time period from 1998 on they missed four bowls because they weren't good enough. The program survived those dark, dark times.

The fines are nice, but I think the death penalty was called for here.

[Greywolf2375]

Looks like the Big 10 didn't addall that much to the penalties:

that feels very token gesture-y.

[Castel]

I really don't understand what vacating the wins from 1998 onward means. Do they have to return the bowl money? Do they have to erase any mention of wins for that time period? For example: if they have a banner from the 2006 season that reads "Season Record 8-3" do they change it to "Season Record 0-11"? Seems silly. The team still won those games, the actions of Penn State regarding Sandusky did not give them a competitive advantage. Maybe the NCAA merely wants to avoid the black eye of having JoPa the winningest head football coach. I so don't give a shit, the NCAA could use a few more black eyes.

That's it basically.

[UNIT81]

They are down to Western Pennsylvania.

I really wish you'd stop equating PSU with Western Pa. It has no greater connection than any other area of Pa.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Thread has reached 400. Feel free to start another thread. [/mod]