Jump to content
IGNORED

Joe Paterno and Penn State


dhanson
 Share

Note: This thread is 3344 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

It doesn't look good, I wanted to give Paterno the benefit of the doubt because he always seemed like a good person with integrity but it's clear his legacy was more important to him than the welfare of those kids Sandusky was surrounding himself with.  The catholic church has been getting away with this same behavior for decades so I guess Penn State thought they could too.  I don't see given the corruption at the upper levels of the the university that there isn't some sort of penalty coming from the NCAA.

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

The Freeh Report is now out.  And let's just say, it doesn't look good for the school or Paterno's legacy.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8159195/report-says-penn-state-senior-officials-disregarded-children-welfare

If players taking money is an offense that can penalize a program, where does this sort of thing rank?  Obviously not violation under NCAA regulations, but still a system-wide breach of morality and law.

Aside from the hundreds of millions the university is going to have to pay out to victims, do you think NCAA penalties will be in play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by newtogolf

It doesn't look good, I wanted to give Paterno the benefit of the doubt because he always seemed like a good person with integrity but it's clear his legacy was more important to him than the welfare of those kids Sandusky was surrounding himself with.  The catholic church has been getting away with this same behavior for decades so I guess Penn State thought they could too.  I don't see given the corruption at the upper levels of the the university that there isn't some sort of penalty coming from the NCAA.

Was Sandusky really that valuable to the program?  I don't get it.  PSU was recruiting machine and could have carried on without Sandusky, seems like they should have cut ties with him as soon as this stuff came to light (back in the 90's), even if they didn't plan on reporting him to the authorities.  Why keep this ticking time bomb around for so long?  Arrogance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sandusky was defensive coordinator and highly regarded as major contributor to the teams success and development of pro level linebackers that PSU is known for.  He was in line to replace Paterno as head coach when Paterno retired.  When the child molestation charges first broke, they announced that Paterno would remain head coach and Sandusky supposedly left the team because he didn't believe Paterno was close to retiring.  At that point Sandusky officially cut ties with PSU, but he was given gym privileges, locker room access and allowed to provide tours and take kids from his charity to bowl games.

I also had read that Sandusky gave Paterno his word that he really did nothing wrong and promised to refrain from initmate contact with kids going forward.  My guess it was a combination of PSU officials disbelief that their friend and co-worker could really be such a disgusting individual and the potential suspicions that it would create if the university suddenly cut all ties with one of their top coaches.

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

Was Sandusky really that valuable to the program?  I don't get it.  PSU was recruiting machine and could have carried on without Sandusky, seems like they should have cut ties with him as soon as this stuff came to light (back in the 90's), even if they didn't plan on reporting him to the authorities.  Why keep this ticking time bomb around for so long?  Arrogance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Lack of Institutional Control.

I cannot see how this case doesn't constitute a serious LoIC to the NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by bwdial

Lack of Institutional Control.

I cannot see how this case doesn't constitute a serious LoIC to the NCAA.

I can see it both ways.

If the NCAA penalizes PSU for this, should it then be penalizing programs when the coaches/university officials break other laws, that aren't program related?

At the same time though, this involved football coaches, school officials, schools facilities and resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It sounds like PSU was in violation of the Clery Act, an act that requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on their respective campuses.  Violation of this act can result in civil penalties of $27,500 per violation.  Additionally institutions can be suspended from participating in federal student financial aid programs.  Sounds to me like this could result in the harsher penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The NCAA penalties will be minimal compared to the negligence lawsuits they will get hit with from Sandusky's victims.  It's pretty obvious PSU officials knew Sandusky was a threat to children and their cover up will cost PSU and Pennsylvania taxpayers big bucks since PSU is a state school.

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

It sounds like PSU was in violation of the Clery Act, an act that requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on their respective campuses.  Violation of this act can result in civil penalties of $27,500 per violation.  Additionally institutions can be suspended from participating in federal student financial aid programs.  Sounds to me like this could result in the harsher penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The NCAA penalties will be minimal compared to the negligence lawsuits they will get hit with from Sandusky's victims.  It's pretty obvious PSU officials knew Sandusky was a threat to children and their cover up will cost PSU and Pennsylvania taxpayers big bucks since PSU is a state school.

Oh I definitely think the payouts will be huge.  Just wondering if this could affect the students, by them not being able to obtain financial aid due to the Clery Act violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I can see it both ways.

If the NCAA penalizes PSU for this, should it then be penalizing programs when the coaches/university officials break other laws, that aren't program related?

At the same time though, this involved football coaches, school officials, schools facilities and resources.

There's a huge difference between a coach going out and getting a DUI, and a former coach being allowed the run of the facilities for decades so that he can rape little boys, all while a high level cover-up is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by bwdial

There's a huge difference between a coach going out and getting a DUI, and a former coach being allowed the run of the facilities for decades so that he can rape little boys, all while a high level cover-up is going on.

I agree, there is.  But from a where do you draw the line standpoint, where do we determine what gets penalized.

For the record, I think PSU should get destroyed for this.  I think the football program should get the death penalty, full Clery Act penalties should be given, and massive settlements to each victim given out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm not a lawyer, but believe that the penalties may be reduced because PSU is a state run school.  If I remember correctly, state schools operate under a different set of rules compared with private universities.

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I agree, there is.  But from a where do you draw the line standpoint, where do we determine what gets penalized.

For the record, I think PSU should get destroyed for this.  I think the football program should get the death penalty, full Clery Act penalties should be given, and massive settlements to each victim given out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

I agree, there is.  But from a where do you draw the line standpoint, where do we determine what gets penalized.

For the record, I think PSU should get destroyed for this.  I think the football program should get the death penalty, full Clery Act penalties should be given, and massive settlements to each victim given out.

From what I've seen from the NCAA over the years, there really isn't a well defined 'line' to begin with.  If it were up to me, the line would be at the point where criminal activity is covered up by university officials.

We are in total agreement on what should happen to Penn State.  They knew what was going on, and they - Paterno most of all - did everything they could to cover it up, based on some of the things that I have seen.  From what I understand, there was a very lucrative real estate deal that Paterno was an investor in back when the McQueery (sp?) incident occurred.  I have a sickening feeling that has a great deal to do with why there is no record of him reporting it.  Nauseating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Too many people in positions of power knew, and for far too long, that Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. It would have just taken one man with the stones to step up and this would have been stopped in 1998.  FOURTEEN YEARS after the initial reports to Paterno et al and nothing was done.  Since this appears to have had the tacit approval of the athletic department the football program should be made an extreme example of what happens when moral, ethical, or legal obligations are ignored to "protect" the program, department,and school.  Death Penalty, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I haven't read anything that pins the programme to an active cover-up. A lot of speculation, but no certain proof.

For the death penalty, it has to be beyond negligence. There is no doubt that extremely gross negligence was taking place. At the very least, those involved preferred to just look the other way.

But I'm not convinced people were certainly trying to cover knowledge of known incidents from coming out.

Negligence should be settled in court, leave the NCAA out of it. Cover up, if there is room within the NCAA rule-book to do so, should lead to a long-term hiatus. Something along the lines of twenty years without a football programme. I believe that would be the fairest response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Kapanda

I haven't read anything that pins the programme to an active cover-up. A lot of speculation, but no certain proof.

For the death penalty, it has to be beyond negligence. There is no doubt that extremely gross negligence was taking place. At the very least, those involved preferred to just look the other way.

But I'm not convinced people were certainly trying to cover knowledge of known incidents from coming out.

Negligence should be settled in court, leave the NCAA out of it. Cover up, if there is room within the NCAA rule-book to do so, should lead to a long-term hiatus. Something along the lines of twenty years without a football programme. I believe that would be the fairest response.

According to the investigation, “four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University” – former President Graham Spanier, former Senior Vice President Gary Schultz, former Athletic Director Tim Curley and former head coach Joe Paterno – “exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims." Worse, those men “concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and the authorities.”

per www.csnphilly.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yeah, I was going to touch on that.

I opened the link you gave, and it heads out with "Saint Joe No More". That much is undoubtedly true! The guy was grossly negligent beyond mere partial involvement. If this was known by the board that summarily fired him back when the story first broke, then they did the right thing without a doubt.

But having read the highlights, it seems like the concealment that they spoke is simply that, being aware of condemning facts, they simply decided not to let these facts be known. They were scared of the bad publicity.

Which makes me wonder if Joe had any issues at all with his own conscience during the fourteen years this was going on undetected.

However, there does not seem to be any active concealment in terms of an active attempt to make sure this does not become known. That's different from not coming out with it. My personal opinion, the former case would be gross negligence - though I'm not so sure it would be criminal - the latter case would probably be criminal.

With that said, and on second thought, if there is  room in the current NCAA rule book to punish Penn State for this, in either case, they should definitely go ahead with it. Just in case the message isn't clear enough, publicity takes no precedence over good conduct. Still don't think a full blown death penalty is the best solution. That would mean no more Penn State football forever. That's not fair on PSU generations past and coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 3344 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Day 13 Full swing iron practice with a 6i, 8i and GW.
    • Obviously, if a person made 100% of them on perfect greens, then on substandard greens they would miss putts. So, it would never benefit them.  Let's say a golfer makes 50% of putts on perfect greens, and on bad greens 50% of putts made were deflected away, and 50% of putts missed were deflected in, then their made % would not change.  I don't know we could assume that the green would cause 50% of the putts to miss for the golfer who made 100% on perfect greens, but it would cause a certain % of their putts to miss.  I would say that it hurts the better putters more and maybe doesn't effect bad putters as much. A horrible putter it may never help 😛. If you're not even close for a deflection. 
    • Day 204.  Several times during football Sunday, I took 5-10 minute breaks to hit a few practice balls.  As always, the focus was on the slow correct swings.  I think several small sessions might be better for me than one extended long session:  I don't always have good discipline as I go past the 15 minute mark, and sometimes I catch myself raking in a ball and hitting it right away;  by contrast, when I consciously start a short session, I'm going to at least set in with what I set to do. 
    • (Written without reading anyone else's replies) I voted the difference would increase.  Here's my line of thinking.  The good putter would have been in or close on the ideal surface;  so while the bumps can keep some out, it can also push some that were going to be close into the cup.  Luck at least has a chance to be at least as beneficial as it is hurtful.  By contrast, the poor putters can't really benefit much from luck -- sure, it might cause a ball to finish closer to the cup, but they aren't missing by two bumps instead of one.
    • I voted narrowed.  I took 2 extremes (unicorns); player A, a perfect player who never misses a putt on a perfectly smooth putting surface and player B who never makes a putt on a perfectly smooth putting surface.  Add bumpiness to the green in a way that randomly affects the result of the putt and player A can only get a worse result (missed putts) and player B only a better result (made putts).   Thus narrowing the gap.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. AmirReza
      AmirReza
      (34 years old)
    2. BushwoodCC
      BushwoodCC
      (55 years old)
    3. cozelos
      cozelos
      (36 years old)
    4. RollingStoppie
      RollingStoppie
      (52 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...