494 replies to this topic

[RShack]

Do you people work for Goodell?  What you are saying is insane.

 

This is the equivalent of Gordon getting suspended 4 games for weed, and Rice getting 2 for beating his wife. 

 

So, you think the NCAA should go through the criminal code and come up with a list of penalties they're gonna impose on each school whenever one of their athletic personnel commits a crime unrelated to the sports for which the NCAA is the governing body?  

 

Furthermore, they should levy these penalties whenever one of the school's athletic personnel *appears* to have committed a crime even if the legal system doesn't find him guilty?  

 

Or maybe you think the penalty imposed by the NCAA should be tied to how much bad press the alleged off-field transgression generates?

 

Sorry, my friend, but you're completely looney-tunes on this one.  You're usually not, but on this particular one you are.

[mweb08]

The problem is that the cover-up of this crime was in all likelihood related to athletics and it went on well after those involved should have been removed from their positions and faced criminal charges.

[You Play to Win the Game]

The issue I have with it isn't related to it being criminal or not... it's that Paterno turned the other cheek because he didn't want his program to take a hit. The school, not having institutional control to prevent something like that, should absolutely be punished significantly more harshly than USC because of Reggie Bush.

[mweb08]

The issue I have with it isn't related to it being criminal or not... it's that Paterno turned the other cheek because he didn't want his program to take a hit. The school, not having institutional control to prevent something like that, should absolutely be punished significantly more harshly than USC because of Reggie Bush.

To continues with this...there is a huge distinction between this and if an assistant coach commits some horrid crime with everyone else associated with the program being none the wiser to it.

[BSLMikeLowe]

The issue I have with it isn't related to it being criminal or not... it's that Paterno turned the other cheek because he didn't want his program to take a hit. The school, not having institutional control to prevent something like that, should absolutely be punished significantly more harshly than USC because of Reggie Bush.

 

What is "institutional control," and how might it have made Paterno and his three co-conspirators act differently? What was supposed to happen? Are we supposed to occasionally ask, "Hey, just checking, but is anyone around here covering up for a child molester?"....and expect someone to raise their hand and say "Yeah, you got me."

 

Paterno, the AD, VP and president were pretty much at the top of the heap as far as the school's hierarchy, so it's not like they directly reported to anyone who could have forced them to talk, or at least sense that something wasn't right. As far as I know, the Board of Trustees didn't hear about it until the rest of the public did.....they all have day jobs, many don't live near the school, and they only meet quarterly (or for extenuating circumstances like this). And once the indictment was handed down, two of the people involved "resigned" and the board immediately fired the other two (including Paterno). Is that institutional control?

 

So after the perp himself, you're left with four guys. Three of them are facing their own criminal charges, and prison if convicted....and safe to say none of them is likely to hold a position at a university again. The 4th would probably be in the same boat, but he's dead. So what is left for the NCAA? They could ban all of these guys from ever holding a position at a member institution, I suppose (and perhaps they did and I didn't notice), but I have to believe that will take care of itself. There's the vacated wins thing, but that was always pretty meaningless. There's the $60 million fine, which is the one thing that actually has the potential do some good (if allocated properly) so I'm fine with that, even if it may have been beyond the NCAA's boundaries (and is probably why they settled the lawsuit). What else is there?

[DJ MC]

The issue I have with it isn't related to it being criminal or not... it's that Paterno turned the other cheek because he didn't want his program to take a hit. The school, not having institutional control to prevent something like that, should absolutely be punished significantly more harshly than USC because of Reggie Bush.

 

Sounds to me like they HAD institutional control, just the wrong kind...

 

In terms of on-field effects, which is worse: covering up a crime, or paying players to come to your school?

[mweb08]

The issue I have with it isn't related to it being criminal or not... it's that Paterno turned the other cheek because he didn't want his program to take a hit. The school, not having institutional control to prevent something like that, should absolutely be punished significantly more harshly than USC because of Reggie Bush.

 
Sounds to me like they HAD institutional control, just the wrong kind...
 
In terms of on-field effects, which is worse: covering up a crime, or paying players to come to your school?

Covering up this crime to help the program is a lot worse IMO than having some booster pay for an apartment or whatever.

[DJ MC]

Covering up this crime to help the program is a lot worse IMO than having some booster pay for an apartment or whatever.

 

Not from the perspective of an organization like the NCAA. The school that finds a way, directly or indirectly through boosters, to pay players is directly affecting competitive balance and the outcome of games, and--importantly--in a way that is not monitored by the criminal justice system. 

[mweb08]

Covering up this crime to help the program is a lot worse IMO than having some booster pay for an apartment or whatever.

 
Not from the perspective of an organization like the NCAA. The school that finds a way, directly or indirectly through boosters, to pay players is directly affecting competitive balance and the outcome of games, and--importantly--in a way that is not monitored by the criminal justice system. 

Both situations are affecting competitive balance. Heck, the Penn State example is probably worse from that regard since it's actually unique rather than just being caught for the type of thing that's happening all over the place.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Claiming that covering up a child molester somehow results in a competitive advantage in athletic competition sounds like a stretch to me. The only connection I could see is from 1998-99, the period starting when the Freeh Report said Paterno should have known what was going on, and ending with Sandusky's retirement. So basically if he had done the right thing, Paterno would have had to replace his longtime DC two seasons earlier, but didn't. That's about it, as far as I can see, how this could have impacted the outcome of football games.

[RShack]

Yeah, the competitive advantage thing doesn't apply here.  What applies is the idea that anybody who covered up the crime should go on trial as an accessory to the crime and, if found guilty, do time in prison.  The list of those folks include various academic bigwigs and Paterno if he hadn't died.   It's got nothing to do with the football team's W's.

[You Play to Win the Game]

How can you possibly not see how covering up the fact that you had a child molester in a key position on your staff would help them continue BAU on the recruiting trail? It didn't help them get anyone better than they were getting. But the key is they didn't experience a few rough years of good recruits going elsewhere due to the controversy.

[DJ MC]

How can you possibly not see how covering up the fact that you had a child molester in a key position on your staff would help them continue BAU on the recruiting trail? It didn't help them get anyone better than they were getting. But the key is they didn't experience a few rough years of good recruits going elsewhere due to the controversy.

 

Because that's only theoretical. Akin to, say, omitting crime statistics from information given about the program to prevent recruits from feeling the campus is unsafe. As opposed to an active attempt to affect competition, like paying players under the table.

[BSLMikeLowe]

How can you possibly not see how covering up the fact that you had a child molester in a key position on your staff would help them continue BAU on the recruiting trail? It didn't help them get anyone better than they were getting. But the key is they didn't experience a few rough years of good recruits going elsewhere due to the controversy.

 

See, I don't buy this at all. In fact, I think that one of the sad ironies in this whole mess is that if Paterno had done the right thing immediately, he would have been hailed as a hero and the football program would have felt hardly any impact. Not saying that I personally would have labeled him a hero, just for doing what any decent human should have done. But I think that's what the public perception would have been....this man, whom we always believed was a man of principle and values, just validated that belief by turning in his most trusted and accomplished assistant to the authorities, rather than look the other way from atrocious crimes. Like I said above, I think the biggest on-field impact would simply have been having to replace Sandusky sooner, by two years if the Freeh Report is accurate. Perhaps a couple of recruits who Sandusky himself was recruiting might have felt uncomfortable and gone elsewhere, but I think they could have easily made up for that.

[mweb08]

How can you possibly not see how covering up the fact that you had a child molester in a key position on your staff would help them continue BAU on the recruiting trail? It didn't help them get anyone better than they were getting. But the key is they didn't experience a few rough years of good recruits going elsewhere due to the controversy.

 

Yep. Clear advantage of preventing the reputation of the school and program from taking a hit, which would of course have a negative impact on recruting. Other than that, there's an advantage in keeping a great defensive coordinator on staff for longer.

 

Again, if this were a matter that had nothing to do with collegiate athletics, I think the opposition would be spot on, but I don't see how that can be concluded here.

[RShack]

Because that's only theoretical. Akin to, say, omitting crime statistics from information given about the program to prevent recruits from feeling the campus is unsafe. As opposed to an active attempt to affect competition, like paying players under the table.

 

This is exactly correct...

[DJ MC]

Yep. Clear advantage of preventing the reputation of the school and program from taking a hit, which would of course have a negative impact on recruting. Other than that, there's an advantage in keeping a great defensive coordinator on staff for longer.

 

Again, if this were a matter that had nothing to do with collegiate athletics, I think the opposition would be spot on, but I don't see how that can be concluded here.

 

Again though, the idea that they WOULD have taken a hit is entirely theoretical, and as pointed out may very well not have happened at all. So you're talking about a "maybe/maybe not" versus a direct action.

 

Let's take an extremely low-level comparison. Which is worse: internet trolling, or drunk driving?

[mweb08]

It's really not a maybe. The only real question is how much it would have affected it. And the best motive for nothing being done to put a stop to what was going on was because they were afraid of the negative effects. So even if you want to argue that nothing negative would have come from it, they weren't so sure, which affected their decision making.

[DJ MC]

It's really not a maybe. The only real question is how much it would have affected it. And the best motive for nothing being done to put a stop to what was going on was because they were afraid of the negative effects. So even if you want to argue that nothing negative would have come from it, they weren't so sure, which affected their decision making.

 

Upper management in an organization made a stupid decision to avoid an unknown amount of risk: more at 11.

 

Are you going to answer my question?

[mweb08]

It's really not a maybe. The only real question is how much it would have affected it. And the best motive for nothing being done to put a stop to what was going on was because they were afraid of the negative effects. So even if you want to argue that nothing negative would have come from it, they weren't so sure, which affected their decision making.

 
Upper management in an organization made a stupid decision to avoid an unknown amount of risk: more at 11.
 
Are you going to answer my question?

How about you just go with whatever point you want to make based on the answer you presumed I'd give. I'm going to bow out of this one anyway because I can't take you people seriously with this theoretical nonsense. Sure, we don't absolutely know with 100% certainty, but it's pretty damn obvious and you guys know that. I mean, I can jump out of a tall building tomorrow(taller than the one Omar jumped out of), but it's just theoretical what will happen, right? Some miracle could happen and I could survive.