Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials
-
- AHL'er
- Posts: 4710
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:31 pm
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Anybody else think it's ironic that the NCAA is punishing Penn State for allowing a few corrupt men to hold absolute power by changing their own rules and giving all governing power to their President to make the decision on the sanctions?
-
- AHL'er
- Posts: 3174
- Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:33 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
ESPN was hinting at this without really saying it.DontToewsMeBro wrote:Anybody else think it's ironic that the NCAA is punishing Penn State for allowing a few corrupt men to hold absolute power by changing their own rules and giving all governing power to their President to make the decision on the sanctions?
And wow, some of the interviews of PSU students they showed were embarrassing. They must just interview ten people then pick the most controversial ones to air.
-
- AHL'er
- Posts: 4087
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:55 pm
- Location: Mt. Lebanon
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
IndeedDontToewsMeBro wrote:Anybody else think it's ironic that the NCAA is punishing Penn State for allowing a few corrupt men to hold absolute power by changing their own rules and giving all governing power to their President to make the decision on the sanctions?
-
- AHL'er
- Posts: 4087
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:55 pm
- Location: Mt. Lebanon
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Penn State could face 60 million dollars in Fines:
http://deadspin.com/5928112?utm_campaig ... socialflow" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://deadspin.com/5928112?utm_campaig ... socialflow" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 15747
- Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
This is a tricky tightrope to walk. I get what you're saying, but at what point does the bad make the good not worth it? Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of students who he helped. There also are several people who were incredibly harmed, in part because of his inaction. I can't imagine the type of conflict people who were in contact with him and the university feel.DontToewsMeBro wrote: A lot of Penn State fans are hurt, confused, and justly angry at what has transpired. Joe made horrible decisions in his life, there is no doubt, but did a lot of good as well. Twenty times more good than I will ever accomplish in my own time sadly. He really did help turn this place from a small farmers college into a huge university. No matter what he did we Penn State students still owe a lot to him in a way. In no way do I " idolize" anybody but I can recognize his importance in the way this school was ran. Even if Paterno's "success with honor" was a facade, does that change the way the graduated athletes, the students, and the faculty carried themselves over that time?
-
- AHL'er
- Posts: 4710
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:31 pm
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Not worth what? Is his impact on the thousands of football players lives he made better an illusion? The millions of dollars he donated worth less? The good does not "outweigh" the bad because people's actions should not be placed on scales to judge the quality of one's character, but that's how we operate I suppose.
I don't really want to go down the Paterno wormhole again, but it's clear there is a much bigger picture here. But don't let anybody tell you this is somehow about the victims, because it sure as hell isn't. The NCAA better tread carefully because this is something that is going to impact college athletics forever. Emmert is literally saying "**** the rules" and doing this his way.
I don't really want to go down the Paterno wormhole again, but it's clear there is a much bigger picture here. But don't let anybody tell you this is somehow about the victims, because it sure as hell isn't. The NCAA better tread carefully because this is something that is going to impact college athletics forever. Emmert is literally saying "**** the rules" and doing this his way.
Last edited by DontToewsMeBro on Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 27917
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
- Location: Fredneck
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Sorry bro. Forgiveness is one thing, but when you turn a blind eye to CHILD RAPE it certainly does outweigh the good he did.DontToewsMeBro wrote:Not worth what? Is his impact on the thousands of football players lives he made better an illusion? The millions of dollars he donated worth less? The good does not "outweigh" the bad because people's actions should not be placed on scales to judge the quality of one's character, but that's how we operate I suppose.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 15747
- Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Well, if you want to judge someone's character, then that's exactly what you do. Does the good a person contributes outweigh the bad. And if you're going to judge his character, then his character sucked. No two ways about it.DontToewsMeBro wrote:Not worth what? Is his impact on the thousands of football players lives he made better an illusion? The millions of dollars he donated worth less? The good does not "outweigh" the bad because people's actions should not be placed on scales to judge the quality of one's character, but that's how we operate I suppose.
That's not really what I was getting at though. I was just suggesting that I'm sure it's difficult for many who had an opinion about him to take into account all of it and form one coherent, all-encompasing opinion about him. I've never faced that type of conflict about someone so I really wasn't sure how people reconcile the two aspects.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 15747
- Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
I don't really care about what the NCAA does with PSU, so my involvement in the discussion doesn't really relate to that at all.DontToewsMeBro wrote: I don't really want to go down the Paterno wormhole again, but it's clear there is a much bigger picture here. But don't let anybody tell you this is somehow about the victims, because it sure as hell isn't. The NCAA better tread carefully because this is something that is going to impact college athletics forever. Emmert is literally saying "**** the rules" and doing this his way.
-
- AHL'er
- Posts: 4710
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:31 pm
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
I think you're missing my point "bro".If you want to call Joe a bad person that's your call, hell you can think he's the antichrist for all I care, but the point is that because of the things he's done the University still owes the man, whether they like it or not. If he's a terrible person, so be it, it doesn't make the fact any less true.PensFanInDC wrote:Sorry bro. Forgiveness is one thing, but when you turn a blind eye to CHILD RAPE it certainly does outweigh the good he did.DontToewsMeBro wrote:Not worth what? Is his impact on the thousands of football players lives he made better an illusion? The millions of dollars he donated worth less? The good does not "outweigh" the bad because people's actions should not be placed on scales to judge the quality of one's character, but that's how we operate I suppose.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 15747
- Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:36 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Serious question: Is PSU better off today than they were the day Paterno stepped foot on campus?
I know DTMB's answer, but am curious what others think. This obviously requires some prediction on what the university will face in terms of rebuilding in the next several years.
I know DTMB's answer, but am curious what others think. This obviously requires some prediction on what the university will face in terms of rebuilding in the next several years.
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 28740
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:00 pm
- Location: From Hockey Siberia to Hockey Hell
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
here's exactly where you said you are incapable of making a determination until the people involved give their side of the story. Then you say in your next breath that what they say is more worthy of skepticism.malkinshair wrote:Funny, but my eyes are wide open on this issue. I'm looking for who knew what and when. I want reasons for their behavior, if they knew definitely what was going on. I want to hear from the people involved before passing judgement. I want the Feds to determine whether Schultz and Curley perjured themselves. I want the NCAA to initiate their own due process before determining what punishment should be handed down. I want the media to do their job. What, exactly, is wrong with that line of thinking? Since when is wanting all the facts on the table considered burying your head in the sand?
Perhaps people are "unfairly" painting your view because you keep changing your view or you can't communicate it clearly. What you have made plainly obvious is that there is nowhere near enough information at this time to make any sort of logical jump in your decision making process.
It seems more than plainly obvious based on evidence, logic, and common sense that the child molesting did occur and that these guys were aware of it in some regard. That's more than enough for me to say that all of them need to rot in hell. I could care less what happens to the football team. That's so secondary, it's ridiculous to even discuss it now. But sure... keep going back to the opinion piece and how there's not enough information for anyone to make the logical connection that this was a group of old guys trying to protect each other because anything other than what they did/didn't do would have negatively impacted all of them. You keep going back to "all the facts" as if we will ever get them all. And that's the convenience of your apologetic stance... the facts will never all be there, so we can never judge PSU or Joe or any of these guys.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 19694
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:11 pm
- Location: BOBROVSKY!!!
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
If you mean like right now, today, they are "better" in the sense that the school has received so much money since Paterno came, but are they in a better position? It's debatable. Need to see what the sanctions are.MWB wrote:Serious question: Is PSU better off today than they were the day Paterno stepped foot on campus?
I know DTMB's answer, but am curious what others think. This obviously requires some prediction on what the university will face in terms of rebuilding in the next several years.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 5956
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:33 am
- Location: Admin wrote:Rooting for the Flyers is not allowed here. Seriously.
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Not sure admitted is the best descriptor, but my point was that people are outraged at the wrong thing. Starting over is hard and there are two coaches are still there, one of whom was Sandusky's assistant. Change of this magnitude takes years and it hasn't even started yet.shafnutz05 wrote:As I stated clearly in the portion of my post you didn't copy and paste, football will always be revered at Penn State. No death penalty is going to change that. Culturally, people are still going to cheer for the football team.Pitt87 wrote:Did you see the people lose their minds about changing the name of Paternoville? How many people have you heard say that 'this is being blown out of proportion'? Internally things are different, but the culture of reverence for PSU Football is not gone.shafnutz05 wrote:That culture is gone, whether or not football is played
As you yourself admitted, institutionally, that university will never be like that again.
-
- NHL First Liner
- Posts: 60559
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
- Location: Amish Country
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
I still do find it interesting (as others have mentioned), the nearly unilateral power the NCAA has given Emmert to cast down his ruling. If Penn State wasn't rolling over in full penitence mode, they would have plenty of grounds for a lawsuit. And I don't think it would make them look "pathetic" as others have suggested.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 5956
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:33 am
- Location: Admin wrote:Rooting for the Flyers is not allowed here. Seriously.
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Yes. But I think it would be reasonable to say that Joe Paterno was part of the betterment, not the reason for it.MWB wrote:Serious question: Is PSU better off today than they were the day Paterno stepped foot on campus?
I know DTMB's answer, but am curious what others think. This obviously requires some prediction on what the university will face in terms of rebuilding in the next several years.
-
- AHL Hall of Famer
- Posts: 9888
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 am
- Location: Location: Location
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
A bunch of my friends who went to psu are angry about the BOT...it could be argued they are as angry as they are about Sandusky.shafnutz05 wrote:I still do find it interesting (as others have mentioned), the nearly unilateral power the NCAA has given Emmert to cast down his ruling. If Penn State wasn't rolling over in full penitence mode, they would have plenty of grounds for a lawsuit. And I don't think it would make them look "pathetic" as others have suggested.
Maybe Penn State is accepting all of this because the Freeh report confirmed rumblings they have know about for a while? What if everything was true and they never delved deeper because the 4 from the Freeh report assured everyone things were fine?
Isn't that the most plausible explanation?
-
- ECHL'er
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:27 pm
- Location: about 455 yards away...with a 2 iron, I think.
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
'More worthy of skepticism' does not equal 'not worth being heard'...especially when trying to figure out appropriate punishment.bhaw wrote:here's exactly where you said you are incapable of making a determination until the people involved give their side of the story. Then you say in your next breath that what they say is more worthy of skepticism.malkinshair wrote:Funny, but my eyes are wide open on this issue. I'm looking for who knew what and when. I want reasons for their behavior, if they knew definitely what was going on. I want to hear from the people involved before passing judgement. I want the Feds to determine whether Schultz and Curley perjured themselves. I want the NCAA to initiate their own due process before determining what punishment should be handed down. I want the media to do their job. What, exactly, is wrong with that line of thinking? Since when is wanting all the facts on the table considered burying your head in the sand?
Perhaps people are "unfairly" painting your view because you keep changing your view or you can't communicate it clearly. What you have made plainly obvious is that there is nowhere near enough information at this time to make any sort of logical jump in your decision making process.
It seems more than plainly obvious based on evidence, logic, and common sense that the child molesting did occur and that these guys were aware of it in some regard. That's more than enough for me to say that all of them need to rot in hell. I could care less what happens to the football team. That's so secondary, it's ridiculous to even discuss it now. But sure... keep going back to the opinion piece and how there's not enough information for anyone to make the logical connection that this was a group of old guys trying to protect each other because anything other than what they did/didn't do would have negatively impacted all of them. You keep going back to "all the facts" as if we will ever get them all. And that's the convenience of your apologetic stance... the facts will never all be there, so we can never judge PSU or Joe or any of these guys.
I've never said 'JoePa knew nothing' or 'PSU shouldn't be punished'...my problem has always been using a report that failed to even talk to those that it uncerimoniously destroys. The report states as fact what they knew, the extent, and their reason for covering it up...without ever giving them a chance to explain the 'dots' that were connected. Would their answers be open to vast scrutiny? Absolutely...but is it fair to deny them the opportunity? I thought that's what our entire justice system was based on. (I know this isn't a court of law, but the principle remains).
Again, I'm not an apologist. My stance has little to nothing to do with JoePa, or PSU, or football...I'm just very concerned about the way this has been handled.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 16795
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:35 am
- Location: Sitting in front of my computer
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Yes. I think the end result is justified, how they are getting there is scary and not good for college sports imo, and completely ill advised and unjustified.DontToewsMeBro wrote:Anybody else think it's ironic that the NCAA is punishing Penn State for allowing a few corrupt men to hold absolute power by changing their own rules and giving all governing power to their President to make the decision on the sanctions?
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 16795
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:35 am
- Location: Sitting in front of my computer
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
We'll wait to see the extent of the punishment. If they lose 10-15 scholarships, postseason appearances etc. I don't see them challenging it. If it's tipping to "we'd be just as better off with the death penalty" it's something they'll have to consider.shafnutz05 wrote:I still do find it interesting (as others have mentioned), the nearly unilateral power the NCAA has given Emmert to cast down his ruling. If Penn State wasn't rolling over in full penitence mode, they would have plenty of grounds for a lawsuit. And I don't think it would make them look "pathetic" as others have suggested.
-
- NHL Second Liner
- Posts: 51889
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm
- Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
I think it is in the best interest of everyone to have this resolved before the academic year starts (and the football season too, of course.) If PSU really signed off on this, I think it's because they feared an even worse punishment and simply want to move forward.
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 34732
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:33 pm
- Location: Who is Sims?
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
It's very interesting right now watching my Facebook/twitter feed with PSU friends.
-
- NHL Second Liner
- Posts: 51889
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm
- Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
Vacating all of those wins...wow, would not have expected that.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:55 am
- Location: New Kensington, PA
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
60 million dollar fine
4 year bowl ban
Scholarships reduced from 25 to 15 for 4 years.
Kids can transfer and not have to wait a year to play.
Vacating all wins from 1998-2011
4 year bowl ban
Scholarships reduced from 25 to 15 for 4 years.
Kids can transfer and not have to wait a year to play.
Vacating all wins from 1998-2011
-
- NHL First Liner
- Posts: 60559
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
- Location: Amish Country
Re: Jerry Sandusky Trial
$60 million fine
Banned from bowls for four years
Scholarships reduced from 25 to 15 for four years
All wins vacated from 1998-2011.
5 years probation.
Individual sanctions.
This is FAR worse than the death penalty.
Banned from bowls for four years
Scholarships reduced from 25 to 15 for four years
All wins vacated from 1998-2011.
5 years probation.
Individual sanctions.
This is FAR worse than the death penalty.