RIP JoePa

[BigPapaKain]

Originally Posted by whodey21

You can't lead without followers. You can't have power without people giving it to you. I don't blame (all) the German people for the Holocaust, but I don't really concern myself with their post-1945 economic status, either.

I already said that I don't blame the fans for what happened, but I do blame them for the corrupt culture that allowed it to happen.

Did you really just compare Penn State to the Nazi Regime in Germany? REALLY?! As sick and twisted as this all is, it's nothing like the Nazi Regime.

Just so this is out there - the NCAA has already said their mulling their options, but since no NCAA rules were broken, there hands are effectively tied unless the State Legislator forces their hand. Jerry Sandusky wasn't molesting children to gain an unfair advantage on the football field, so if Penn State football gets the death penalty because of it then the backlash will be staggering.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by BigPapaKain

Just so this is out there - the NCAA has already said their mulling their options, but since no NCAA rules were broken, there hands are effectively tied unless the State Legislator forces their hand. Jerry Sandusky wasn't molesting children to gain an unfair advantage on the football field, so if Penn State football gets the death penalty because of it then the backlash will be staggering.

You are absolutely correct. However, the coverup did give them an unfair competitive advantage. Avoiding bad press and avoiding being scathed in the media (as they are now) gained them access to recruits that would not have been at all interested if the phrase "Pedo State Nittany Liars" were as prevalent as is is now. If you were a teenager weighing your options for college, and you saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mf-HhDFAko Would you even consider Penn State? Preventing a disadvantage through lying is the same as gaining an advantage.

And the last interview I read from the NCAA said that nothing is off the table.

[BengalHawk62]

Originally Posted by BigPapaKain

Did you really just compare Penn State to the Nazi Regime in Germany? REALLY?! As sick and twisted as this all is, it's nothing like the Nazi Regime.

Just so this is out there - the NCAA has already said their mulling their options, but since no NCAA rules were broken, there hands are effectively tied unless the State Legislator forces their hand. Jerry Sandusky wasn't molesting children to gain an unfair advantage on the football field, so if Penn State football gets the death penalty because of it then the backlash will be staggering.

How many dollars did his foundation give to the Penn State Athletic Dept? I honestly don't know, but if its more than $1, then how can you not say it was gaining an unfair advantage? The crimes were covered up by the head football coach, assistant coaches AD, President of the school and God knows who else. Yes, they were getting an unfair advantage.

[BigPapaKain]

Originally Posted by whodey21

You are absolutely correct. However, the coverup did give them an unfair competitive advantage. Avoiding bad press and avoiding being scathed in the media (as they are now) gained them access to recruits that would not have been at all interested if the phrase "Pedo State Nittany Liars" were as prevalent as is is now. If you were a teenager weighing your options for college, and you saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mf-HhDFAko Would you even consider Penn State? Preventing a disadvantage through lying is the same as gaining an advantage.

And the last interview I read from the NCAA said that nothing is off the table.

How does a cover up give them an advantage? Now they're way more screwed then they would've been if they'd of blown the lid off the whole thing right off the rip. The men involved wanted to stay in power, as I have already said. It has nothing to do with the students or the athletes - it has to do with the almighty dollar. Penn State is screwed enough with the whole thing, so why screw over an entire community to punish people who didn't touch boys and didn't cover it up? All those people are gone.

And the NCAA has no power over this whole thing because as I said - no NCAA rules were violated. As sick as it sounds, their hands are tied simply because they forgot to write in 'No touching of children' in their rulebook.

How many dollars did his foundation give to the Penn State Athletic Dept? I honestly don't know, but if its more than $1, then how can you not say it was gaining an unfair advantage? The crimes were covered up by the head football coach, assistant coaches AD, President of the school and God knows who else. Yes, they were getting an unfair advantage.

A defensive coach runs a foundation that gives a portion of its proceeds to the place he works isn't an advantage - it's simply being a booster for the place that pays you and using money that isn't coming out of your pocket to boost. If anything, that's investing in your job/retirement fund.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by whodey21

There was no false choice described. The choice was: Report and break federal confidentiality agreements OR Do not report and break an NCAA rule. It's an asinine choice to have to make, but Tressel decided that he'd rather risk trouble with the NCAA than the federal government, and the NCAA punished OSU for it. It's like if a teacher told a student to stab someone as homework, and he gets detention if he doesn't do his homework. The NCAA overstepped its bounds.

If the competitive advantage thing is "bunk", then it was bunk every time it was ever claimed outside of steriod use, including at OSU and USC, and their wins need to be un-vacated, among other things.

You still don't get it. The OSU penalty involved NCAA rules, not laws. And it was not only about Tressel's inability to report. In fact, Tressel's himself received a penalty for that, while the bowl ban was brought about by several other factors.

Secondly, claiming competitive advantage is bunk any time no advantage was gained. PSU may have prevented a PR hit, but that didn't give then an unfair advantage. If that was the case, it could be argued that concealing ANYTHING, illegal or not, in order to avoid a PR hit, is gaining a competitive advantage. Didn't reveal that the coach was having marital troubles or had high blood pressure? Unfair advantage. That's a helluva slippery slope to start traveling.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BengalHawk62

How many dollars did his foundation give to the Penn State Athletic Dept? I honestly don't know, but if its more than $1, then how can you not say it was gaining an unfair advantage? The crimes were covered up by the head football coach, assistant coaches AD, President of the school and God knows who else. Yes, they were getting an unfair advantage.

Why the hell would a foundation for disadvantaged children give any money to a football program? That makes NO sense at all. I'm not even sure that's legal. If they were a tax exempt foundation, I'm pretty sure they would be legally bound to use their money in ways that supported their stated mission. Giving money to the football program wouldn't even be an option.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by BigPapaKain

How does a cover up give them an advantage? Now they're way more screwed then they would've been if they'd of blown the lid off the whole thing right off the rip. The men involved wanted to stay in power, as I have already said. It has nothing to do with the students or the athletes - it has to do with the almighty dollar. Penn State is screwed enough with the whole thing, so why screw over an entire community to punish people who didn't touch boys and didn't cover it up? All those people are gone.

If a coverup didn't provide some advantage, then there would never be a need for a coverup. You are entirely correct that they are "way more screwed then they would have been", as they should be. The people who covered it up thought they could keep it covered forever, or at least long enough that the benefits would outweigh the negatives, which inherently means that there were benefits to be had.

I agree that it's a terrible thing that they need to punish everyone, even those who weren't involved, after the guilty parties are gone but that is the nature of the beast, and that is what has happened every single time the NCAA has every stepped in. If they want to take back the punishments they have doled out in the past and leave this one alone, that's fine, but there can't be a middle ground. Consistency must reign supreme.

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

You still don't get it. The OSU penalty involved NCAA rules, not laws. And it was not only about Tressel's inability to report. In fact, Tressel's himself received a penalty for that, while the bowl ban was brought about by several other factors.

It seems like it is you that doesn't get it. If Tressel reported anything, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AGAINST THE LAW. He is not allowed to discuss ongoing federal investigations. In fact, the lawyer who informed him in the first place WAS BREAKING THE LAW. The free tattoos that were recieved were received BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE LAW (a person's signature has a limit in value for tax purposes, which was exceeded).

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

Secondly, claiming competitive advantage is bunk any time no advantage was gained. PSU may have prevented a PR hit, but that didn't give then an unfair advantage. If that was the case, it could be argued that concealing ANYTHING, illegal or not, in order to avoid a PR hit, is gaining a competitive advantage. Didn't reveal that the coach was having marital troubles or had high blood pressure? Unfair advantage. That's a helluva slippery slope to start traveling.

OSU recieved a bowl ban because they players who recieved free tattoos were deemed by the NCAA to have given them competitive advantage, and there was a lack of institutional control. It's a slippery slope for sure, but it's one that the NCAA has had no problem with tapdancing all over in the past, and the term "lack of institutional control" no doubt applies when you have janitors too afraid to report an assistant coach, a president willing to cover it up, and a head coach who allows a monster to roam the campus freely.

You seem to think that lying to prevent an honest disadvantage is different from cheating to gain an unfair advantage. It isn't. If I start taking steroids to level the playing field in a fight with George Foreman (in his prime), that doesn't make it fair for me to do it. If it didn't give them an advantage, they wouldn't have bothered to cover it up.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by whodey21

It seems like it is you that doesn't get it. If Tressel reported anything, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AGAINST THE LAW. He is not allowed to discuss ongoing federal investigations. In fact, the lawyer who informed him in the first place WAS BREAKING THE LAW. The free tattoos that were recieved were received BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE LAW (a person's signature has a limit in value for tax purposes, which was exceeded).

The tattoos were also against NCAA rules, which, along with the fact that OSU had a past history of rule violations, is why the NCAA took action. They did not do it because tax laws were broken. Just because that is a part of it doesn't mean that the NCAA was specifically punishing that part. You are mistaking coincidental circumstance for causality.

Originally Posted by whodey21

OSU recieved a bowl ban because they players who recieved free tattoos were deemed by the NCAA to have given them competitive advantage, and there was a lack of institutional control. It's a slippery slope for sure ...

Actually, that part isn't a slippery slope at all. What you just described is the NCAA punishing a program for breaking NCAA rules,plain and simple. It was completely separate from the issue of breaking the law.

Originally Posted by whodey21

... but it's one that the NCAA has had no problem with tapdancing all over in the past, and the term "lack of institutional control" no doubt applies when you have janitors too afraid to report an assistant coach, a president willing to cover it up, and a head coach who allows a monster to roam the campus freely.

Again, "Lack of institutional control" in the OSU case applies to the institute's inability to police NCAA regulations, not criminal law. The NCAA would be setting a dangerous new precedent if they started taking responsibility for overseeing the punishment of entire institutions for the criminal conduct of a few individuals.

Originally Posted by whodey21

You seem to think that lying to prevent an honest disadvantage is different from cheating to gain an unfair advantage. It isn't.

It absolutely is. If a coach is taking medication for mental health reasons, and conceals it because he doesn't want it to affect his recruiting, is that an unfair advantage punishable by the NCAA? Where do you draw the line there? And don't say you draw it when it involves a crime. Either concealing information to prevent bad PR is gaining an unfair advantage or it isn't. I say it isn't. The only exception would be if every other institution had the same dirty secret but chose instead to make it public. Then, and only then, does the institution that kept it a secret gain an unfair advantage.

Originally Posted by whodey21

If I start taking steroids to level the playing field in a fight with George Foreman (in his prime), that doesn't make it fair for me to do it. If it didn't give them an advantage, they wouldn't have bothered to cover it up.

They covered it up because they didn't want the bad PR. They didn't do it to gain an advantage. They did it because they thought going public would hurt the program. There absolutely IS a difference there. Besides, your example doesn't even fit this. Taking steroids increases an athlete's physical abilities, thereby granting him an unfair advantage. That is not what we're talking about here.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

It absolutely is. If a coach is taking medication for mental health reasons, and conceals it because he doesn't want it to affect his recruiting, is that an unfair advantage punishable by the NCAA? Where do you draw the line there? And don't say you draw it when it involves a crime. Either concealing information to prevent bad PR is gaining an unfair advantage or it isn't. I say it isn't.

You realize you just compared a 14 year coverup of a pedophile to filling a prescription, right? The line is where a crime was committed. And I'm not trying to defend the unfair advantage bit, I'm just saying that it was the same logic they used for OSU last year. If covering up free tattoos is a PR advantage, then covering up a monster certainly falls into that category, as well. I say it isn't an unfair advantage; I agree with you. But the NCAA has already said, in their infinite wisdom , that it is. They decided that last year when they changed OSU's penalty after they realized there was a coverup.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by whodey21

You realize you just compared a 14 year coverup of a pedophile to filling a prescription, right? The line is where a crime was committed. And I'm not trying to defend the unfair advantage bit, I'm just saying that it was the same logic they used for OSU last year. If covering up free tattoos is a PR advantage, then covering up a monster certainly falls into that category, as well. I say it isn't an unfair advantage; I agree with you. But the NCAA has already said, in their infinite wisdom , that it is. They decided that last year when they changed OSU's penalty after they realized there was a coverup.

The part of this that you are utterly failing to comprehend is that the NCAA had specific rules in place that were violated in the OSU case. It was not a judgment call. They did not 'stradle' any lines. They simply penalized a school for breaking NCAA rules. The OSU case is NOT a precedent for the NCAA doling out punishment for violations of criminal law. Period.

As for your response to the unfair advantage bit, I was not 'comparing' anything. I was giving you another example of concealing facts to prevent bad PR to show you how ridiculous it is to use that as a justification for NCAA action. Either it is an unfair advantage or it isn't. The fact that you draw the line at criminal acts shows that you aren't interested in making the case for unfair advantage at all - you simply want any sort of justification you can get - rational or not - for the NCAA to do the work of the legal system and punish PSU for the illegal actions that occurred. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that this is simply not within their purview.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

The part of this that you are utterly failing to comprehend is that the NCAA had specific rules in place that were violated in the OSU case. It was not a judgment call. They did not 'stradle' any lines. They simply penalized a school for breaking NCAA rules. The OSU case is NOT a precedent for the NCAA doling out punishment for violations of criminal law. Period.

As for your response to the unfair advantage bit, I was not 'comparing' anything. I was giving you another example of concealing facts to prevent bad PR to show you how ridiculous it is to use that as a justification for NCAA action. Either it is an unfair advantage or it isn't. The fact that you draw the line at criminal acts shows that you aren't interested in making the case for unfair advantage at all - you simply want any sort of justification you can get - rational or not - for the NCAA to do the work of the legal system and punish PSU for the illegal actions that occurred. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that this is simply not within their purview.

If you aren't comparing the two, then mentioning at all was just mindless blather. After all, providing an example of something that isn't meant to be compared to the situation being discussed is just asinine. What if a kitten were on the moon with a BB gun? What then? Huh?!

Congratulations on making that clever deduction (bolded), based only on the fact that I said EXACTLY THAT:
"And I'm not trying to defend the unfair advantage bit, I'm just saying that it was the same logic they used for OSU last year. If covering up free tattoos is a PR advantage, then covering up a monster certainly falls into that category, as well."

If you can't be bothered to read a post before responding to it, I won't be bothered to reply to you anymore. You're clearly blinded by your love to Penn State, and I'm sorry for what happened at your school.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by whodey21

If you aren't comparing the two, then mentioning at all was just mindless blather. After all, providing an example of something that isn't meant to be compared to the situation being discussed is just asinine. What if a kitten were on the moon with a BB gun? What then? Huh?!

Congratulations on making that clever deduction (bolded), based only on the fact that I said EXACTLY THAT:
"And I'm not trying to defend the unfair advantage bit, I'm just saying that it was the same logic they used for OSU last year. If covering up free tattoos is a PR advantage, then covering up a monster certainly falls into that category, as well."

If you can't be bothered to read a post before responding to it, I won't be bothered to reply to you anymore. You're clearly blinded by your love to Penn State, and I'm sorry for what happened at your school.

You still don't understand. Covering up the tattoos was only a problem because IT WAS AGAINST NCAA RULES FOR THEM TO RECEIVE THE TATTOOS IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's a dumb rule in my opinion, but it is what it is. And, it's the root of the reason why the NCAA was involved.

Let me repeat that so I can try to make this as clear as possible for you: the NCAA didn't get involved because OSU covered up the tattoos to prevent a PR hit. Covering it up was a problem only because ANY SORT OF GIFTS TO PLAYERS - EVEN TATTOS - ARE AGAINST NCAA REGULATIONS. That was the violation. The cover up made it worse, but it wasn't the main problem. It wouldn't have been a problem at all if It hadn't involved NCAA violations.

And you still don't understand my example. Regardless of the difference in severity, the thing they both have in common is that they are examples of concealing facts that could hurt the program. You made the case that doing so is one of the justifications for the NCAA to punish PSU. If that is the case, then ANY potentially damaging information that isn't revealed could be considered an unfair advantage, including my example. The fact that you accept the one and not the other only goes to show the inconsistency of your thinking.

You should just admit that you don't really have a legitimate rational justification; you just want the NCAA to punish Penn State no matter what.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

You still don't understand. Covering up the tattoos was only a problem because IT WAS AGAINST NCAA RULES FOR THEM TO RECEIVE THE TATTOOS IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's a dumb rule in my opinion, but it is what it is. And, it's the root of the reason why the NCAA was involved.

Let me repeat that so I can try to make this as clear as possible for you: the NCAA didn't get involved because OSU covered up the tattoos to prevent a PR hit. Covering it up was a problem only because ANY SORT OF GIFTS TO PLAYERS - EVEN TATTOS - ARE AGAINST NCAA REGULATIONS. That was the violation. The cover up made it worse, but it wasn't the main problem. It wouldn't have been a problem at all if It hadn't involved NCAA violations.

If that was the case, then why did the punishment change after a coverup was discovered? Players were allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl, and would be suspended for a few games the next season. Then they found out that Tressel knew about it beforehand, and issued the bowl ban. If the coverup wasn't the problem, they would have kept the same punishment.

You're ignorant to the facts and order of things, that much is obvious. I don't want to punish Penn State, I want the NCAA to be consistent. I couldn't care less about what happens to them one way or the other, I only care about the NCAA staying consistent from year to year with what they claim as their jurisdiction.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by whodey21

If that was the case, then why did the punishment change after a coverup was discovered? Players were allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl, and would be suspended for a few games the next season. Then they found out that Tressel knew about it beforehand, and issued the bowl ban. If the coverup wasn't the problem, they would have kept the same punishment.

You're ignorant to the facts and order of things, that much is obvious. I don't want to punish Penn State, I want the NCAA to be consistent. I couldn't care less about what happens to them one way or the other, I only care about the NCAA staying consistent from year to year with what they claim as their jurisdiction.

In order for this to be a consistency issue, there would have to be an NCAA violation first in the PSU case. The extra punishment was because the coverup made the existing violation worse. Without the initial violation, no one would have cared that they didn't say anything. I'm shocked that you fail to understand that the OSU case cannot be used as a 'precedent' because of the fact that it involved NCAA violations, which the PSU case did not.

But I can see It's fruitless to argue with you, as you have no sense of logic. I give up.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

In order for this to be a consistency issue, there would have to be an NCAA violation first. The extra punishment was because the coverup made the existing violation worse. Without the initial violation, no one would have cared that they didn't say anything.

But I can see It's fruitless to argue with you, as you have no sense of logic. I give up.

You're right. I must have learned logic at Penn State, where hypocrisy reigns supreme:

"It's unbelievable to think that kind of corruption came right from the top of the power structure." Joe Paterno, 1987, in reference to SMU.

"The college football world has once again been thrown in controversy. During this time I'd like to remind you again that...
Penn State is 1 of 2 Division I institutions who have never been investigated or sanctioned for any major NCAA infractions.
Think about that as you make your college decision. Coach Paterno's saying "Success with Honor" has value here. It is not something we take lightly." -Mike McQueary, 2011, in reference to OSU

PSU fans, 2011, in reference to OSU

If the NCAA doesn't shut it down, by JoePa's own statements, the university should. If the NCAA isn't consistent, PSU ought to try to be while they're under the microscope, and before the feds do it for them.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by whodey21

You're right. I must have learned logic at Penn State, where hypocrisy reigns supreme:

"It's unbelievable to think that kind of corruption came right from the top of the power structure." Joe Paterno, 1987, in reference to SMU.

"The college football world has once again been thrown in controversy. During this time I'd like to remind you again that...
Penn State is 1 of 2 Division I institutions who have never been investigated or sanctioned for any major NCAA infractions.
Think about that as you make your college decision. Coach Paterno's saying "Success with Honor" has value here. It is not something we take lightly." -Mike McQueary, 2011, in reference to OSU

PSU fans, 2011, in reference to OSU

If the NCAA doesn't shut it down, by JoePa's own statements, the university should. If the NCAA isn't consistent, PSU ought to try to be while they're under the microscope, and before the feds do it for them.

Since past history has shown that you won't comprehend the fallacy in your thinking, I won't attempt to explain. Let someone else take a turn.

[JS-Steelerfan]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...lty/index.html

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

Since past history has shown that you won't comprehend the fallacy in your thinking, I won't attempt to explain. Let someone else take a turn.

Say what you want. The fact is that the majority of the country agrees with me: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/fl...&pollId=142988

You are advocating that it's an obvious situation, totally cut and dry, when it is clearly more complicated than that. Unless, that is, you happen to be a fan of the university. Then bias gets in the way and your blue-tinted glasses make you see the rest of the world as villains. Hiding behind insults is something people do when they have nothing to contribute. I can find and post meaningless articles from people who agree with me, too, but the only opinion that matters is the NCAA's.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by whodey21

Say what you want. The fact is that the majority of the country agrees with me: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/fl...&pollId=142988

You are advocating that it's an obvious situation, totally cut and dry, when it is clearly more complicated than that. Unless, that is, you happen to be a fan of the university. Then bias gets in the way and your blue-tinted glasses make you see the rest of the world as villains. Hiding behind insults is something people do when they have nothing to contribute. I can find and post meaningless articles from people who agree with me, too, but the only opinion that matters is the NCAA's.

I'm actually not much of a Penn State fan, or college football fan at all for that matter.

I'm not defending anyone. In fact, I think I'm more objective about this than you are. You're thinking mostly with your heart on this one and ignoring several issues that are, in fact, cut and dry:

1. The death penalty would punish people who weren't even remotely involved. That's not subjective. That's fact. Not only that, but the people who were MOST responsible would not really be affected by it. That's bass-ackwards. It's the same as saying we should close churches and dioceses down because priests molested children and bishops covered it up. Bass. Ackwards.

2. The NCAA exists to regulate its own rules and is not a legal institution. Also fact.
I suppose you could make a Goodell-like 'protecting the integrity of the game' argument, but even in that case, I'd refer you back to #1. At least Goodell punishes the people who were directly involved. Even the Saints, as a team, are still playing and eligible for the postseason.

3. No NCAA rules were broken. Fact.

4. Giving the death penalty for this would be unprecedented. Fact. The OSU example you gave was about NCAA rules, regardless of whether there were other legal issues involved. Besides, they didn't even give the death penalty to OSU. There is simply no precedent for the NCAA to step outside its purview here.

Look. I understand the desire for punishment and justice. In principle, I agree. But I want to see that punishment come through appropriate avenues. I hope that those most responsible for the coverup go to jail for a long time. I would love to see the inevitible civil suits result in Penn State having to pay ten or twenty years worth of football revenues to the families of victims. I think they should take down the statue and remove Paterno's name from anything and everything. THESE are the ways to punish. These methods either target those responsible or they actively work towards providing some form of restitution. They also depend on those institutions whose job it is to do such things. The death penalty on the other hand, would mostly satisfy revenge-thirsty people like you while hurting innocent bystanders.

Here's the thing: you are right to want certain things that could be accomplished through the death penalty. The institution SHOULD be embarrassed and taught a lesson. But, as I've suggested above, there are ways to do that without harming innocent people.

If you looked at it objectively, you, and the rest of the misguided majority, would see that the death penalty would be an emotionally based overreaction that would do far more harm to innocent people than it would do good.

[BigPapaKain]

Originally Posted by JS-Steelerfan

I'm actually not much of a Penn State fan, or college football fan at all for that matter.

I'm not defending anyone. In fact, I think I'm more objective about this than you are. You're thinking mostly with your heart on this one and ignoring several issues that are, in fact, cut and dry:

1. The death penalty would punish people who weren't even remotely involved. That's not subjective. That's fact. Not only that, but the people who were MOST responsible would not really be affected by it. That's bass-ackwards. It's the same as saying we should close churches and dioceses down because priests molested children and bishops covered it up. Bass. Ackwards.

2. The NCAA exists to regulate its own rules and is not a legal institution. Also fact.
I suppose you could make a Goodell-like 'protecting the integrity of the game' argument, but even in that case, I'd refer you back to #1. At least Goodell punishes the people who were directly involved. Even the Saints, as a team, are still playing and eligible for the postseason.

3. No NCAA rules were broken. Fact.

4. Giving the death penalty for this would be unprecedented. Fact. The OSU example you gave was about NCAA rules, regardless of whether there were other legal issues involved. Besides, they didn't even give the death penalty to OSU. There is simply no precedent for the NCAA to step outside its purview here.

Look. I understand the desire for punishment and justice. In principle, I agree. But I want to see that punishment come through appropriate avenues. I hope that those most responsible for the coverup go to jail for a long time. I would love to see the inevitible civil suits result in Penn State having to pay ten or twenty years worth of football revenues to the families of victims. I think they should take down the statue and remove Paterno's name from anything and everything. THESE are the ways to punish. These methods either target those responsible or they actively work towards providing some form of restitution. They also depend on those institutions whose job it is to do such things. The death penalty on the other hand, would mostly satisfy revenge-thirsty people like you while hurting innocent bystanders.

Here's the thing: you are right to want certain things that could be accomplished through the death penalty. The institution SHOULD be embarrassed and taught a lesson. But, as I've suggested above, there are ways to do that without harming innocent people.

If you looked at it objectively, you, and the rest of the misguided majority, would see that the death penalty would be an emotionally based overreaction that would do far more harm to innocent people than it would do good.

I agree with everything except what is bolded. You leave those reminders up and you make sure that every person who sees those things know that he was a coach there for forever and he holds a lot of those NCAA coaching records - the man is still a legendary coach. What you do, however, is slather this whole scandal all over everything with his name on it and you make sure EVERYONE knows that he was more concerned with maintaining his legacy than the protection of children.

[JS-Steelerfan]

Originally Posted by BigPapaKain

I agree with everything except what is bolded. You leave those reminders up and you make sure that every person who sees those things know that he was a coach there for forever and he holds a lot of those NCAA coaching records - the man is still a legendary coach. What you do, however, is slather this whole scandal all over everything with his name on it and you make sure EVERYONE knows that he was more concerned with maintaining his legacy than the protection of children.

Fair enough. I could go either way on that. Just as long as they didn't leave all of those things untouched.

[Harmening]

Well, the statue's down.
Sounds like tomorrow will be the day that "unprecedented" punishments will be handed down to the school as well as the football program.
Should be interesting....

[BigPapaKain]

The Death Penalty is likely off the table, but it sounds like it's going to be all kinds of bad.

[Ron Mexico]

So glad they took that statue down. It no longer represented anything but corruption and immorality. Hopefully, the NCAA doesn't come down too hard on them, and they can re-build their football program. It's a shame that the students there that play football may have to transfer.

Get rid of Joe Paterno's dirty legacy as best as you can, and move on....

[BigPapaKain]

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes

So glad they took that statue down. It no longer represented anything but corruption and immorality. Hopefully, the NCAA doesn't come down too hard on them, and they can re-build their football program. It's a shame that the students there that play football may have to transfer.

Get rid of Joe Paterno's dirty legacy as best as you can, and move on....

Originally Posted by BigPapaKain

You leave those reminders up and you make sure that every person who sees those things know that he was a coach there for forever and he holds a lot of those NCAA coaching records - the man is still a legendary coach. What you do, however, is slather this whole scandal all over everything with his name on it and you make sure EVERYONE knows that he was more concerned with maintaining his legacy than the protection of children.

Again, you don't ignore the man - you just make sure everyone knows what he did - or didn't do.