Delusional

[squintsdd]

We're hardly throwing anybody into any camps in this case. Your comparison is way off

In what way is the comparison of justifications off at all?

Both are cases of negatively affecting innocent people for crimes they didn't commit in order to theoretically punish someone who is guilty.

I liken it to when someone goes to jail. A father could commit a crime and his kids who were not involved in any way are going to be affected by his sentence but just because it hurts those kids doesn't mean due justice should not be served against their father

True. However, punishing people (the entire program) for crimes they did not commit is not an example of due justice.

Everything that you've posted as punishment has been an overreaction. Let the authorities do their job in handing out punishment to those involved in the coverup and make the NCAA stay out it for the most part. There's no real need for the death penalty. Penn State should pay, in perpetuity, any bowl revenue and a percentage of football revenue to organizations that help those affected by child abuse.

Exactly. This is a job for the police. The sport of football has nothing to do with it. Apart from a few individuals, Penn State has nothing to do with it.

Banning football at Penn State over this makes as little sense as closing a freeway because some guy drove drunk on it.

If Penn State wants to address their image issue by donating proceeds to anti child abuse organizations, I think that would be a noble and worthwhile gesture. However, it becomes meaningless if they are forced to do it.

You really think there's an overreaction to a program that knowingly allowed a grown man to rape innocent kids?

Yes. An overreaction would be acting as if the entire program had something to do with it and punishing innocent people for crimes that they did not commit.

Do you really think that not being able to watch Penn State football is an appropriate punishment for the crime that was committed?

What does a school have to do in order to receive a football moratorium?

Since the entire school did not commit this crime, why should they all be punished? What is wrong with punishing those involved as we do in every other criminal prosecution?

And why is this a football issue? The crime wasn't committed to gain a football advantage.

You're right, not everyone at the school knew nor were involved in this, but very high ranking people did. The school president and vice president knew about it, the AD, and a coach with a major name all knew. How do you not punish a school when arguably 4 of the most recognizable people at it played major roles? But what really gets me is that there are probably more people involved, and while those 4 mentioned were undoubtedly involved, they were most likely used as scapegoats to protect whoever else knows about this. Hell, a janitor, his boss, an engineer, and the campus police knew about it, and I seriously doubt they didn't pass along any information to people.

How do you say this is not a football issue? While there are no rules within the NCAA rule book for this type of thing, probably because noone would think it would need to be mentioned that this a major f*** up, the whole coverup happened because the school was trying to protect it's football program and image. This is directly related to Sandusky's connection to the football program and an attempt to protect it. The image of a prestigious school and football program were deemed more important by these people than the well being of children.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Everyone will have their opinions on what is justifiable punishment, but nobody will get it perfect. The victims will always feel that not enough was done, and rightfully so, while the people who get punished but weren't invovled will feel that they were unfairly included, and righfully so. In the end I'm going to side with the victims and their familes, because those who get punished that weren't involved are only being punished by the NCAA and not the law.

[wheaton4prez]

You're right, not everyone at the school knew nor were involved in this, but very high ranking people did. The school president and vice president knew about it, the AD, and a coach with a major name all knew. How do you not punish a school when arguably 4 of the most recognizable people at it played major roles? But what really gets me is that there are probably more people involved, and while those 4 mentioned were undoubtedly involved, they were most likely used as scapegoats to protect whoever else knows about this. Hell, a janitor, his boss, an engineer, and the campus police knew about it, and I seriously doubt they didn't pass along any information to people.

Because the people responsible weren't recognizable to others for their crime. The vast majority of people at the school had no idea and do not deserve to be punished for things that they had nothing to do with.

If punishing innocent people is acceptable, why have criminal investigations at all? Someone commits a crime? No need to find out who was involved. Just ask who their friends were and throw them all in jail. Throw their entire family in as well since some of them might be guilty.

Finding out who is responsible for what specifically is an important part of justice.

How do you say this is not a football issue? While there are no rules within the NCAA rule book for this type of thing, probably because noone would think it would need to be mentioned that this a major f*** up, the whole coverup happened because the school was trying to protect it's football program and image. This is directly related to Sandusky's connection to the football program and an attempt to protect it. The image of a prestigious school and football program were deemed more important by these people than the well being of children.

Liking football is not a crime. If the conditions that motivated individuals to cover this up are wrong, you are complicit in the same way at Oregon since fans liking football create the circumstances under which some administrators might be compelled to cover up crimes. It's like arguing that kids should be punished because they motivated their father to rob a bank so that he could buy them Christmas presents. People need to be afforded the ability to decide for themselves: "I love football. But, I wouldn't break the law for it." You seem to be ok with taking that choice away from people.

What happened at Penn State is already a crime with serious punishments for anyone involved. It's already the subject of a federal investigation.

Lets hold those responsible accountable. But, lets also recognize that football is only a backdrop that could be replaced by any number of other circumstances (protecting a business, protecting a political campaign, etc.). Should Obama be thrown out of office because John Edwards lied for political reasons? Should roads be closed because some people drive drunk on them? Should coffee be banned because McDonalds burned somebody with theirs? The crime belongs to the individuals who choose to commit them (for whatever reason). Not to the backdrop within which they were committed.

[JIDuck97]

I have seen the whole punish those responsible comment a lot, and while I understand the sentiments, that isn't how anything else in life ever works, so why should Penn State be any different? Just to use a real example, my wife once worked for a bank called Wilshire. The guy that owned and created/ran that company was found guilty of fraud if I remember correctly. A ton of people lost their jobs and my wife was one of them. While it sucks a lot, Penn State is no different and should be treated no differently. The results are now in place and the NCAA levied heavy fines and sanctions against them. If anyone loses their job from this (which they likely will) and they did nothing regarding what had happened/knew nothing about it, that is still the way the world works. When a corporation or entity such as a Penn State have to go down in some fashion, people lose their jobs. Complaining about it will never change that. It sucks a lot, but it's the reality of how penalties work against businesses. Penn State is most certainly a business as are all colleges.

[squintsdd]

You're right, not everyone at the school knew nor were involved in this, but very high ranking people did. The school president and vice president knew about it, the AD, and a coach with a major name all knew. How do you not punish a school when arguably 4 of the most recognizable people at it played major roles? But what really gets me is that there are probably more people involved, and while those 4 mentioned were undoubtedly involved, they were most likely used as scapegoats to protect whoever else knows about this. Hell, a janitor, his boss, an engineer, and the campus police knew about it, and I seriously doubt they didn't pass along any information to people.

Because the people responsible weren't recognizable to others for their crime. The vast majority of people at the school had no idea and do not deserve to be punished for things that they had nothing to do with.

If punishing innocent people is acceptable, why have criminal investigations at all? Someone commits a crime? No need to find out who was involved. Just ask who their friends were and throw them all in jail. Throw their entire family in as well since some of them might be guilty.

Finding out who is responsible for what specifically is an important part of justice.

How do you say this is not a football issue? While there are no rules within the NCAA rule book for this type of thing, probably because noone would think it would need to be mentioned that this a major f*** up, the whole coverup happened because the school was trying to protect it's football program and image. This is directly related to Sandusky's connection to the football program and an attempt to protect it. The image of a prestigious school and football program were deemed more important by these people than the well being of children.

Liking football is not a crime. If the conditions that motivated individuals to cover this up are wrong, you are complicit in the same way at Oregon since fans liking football create the circumstances under which some administrators might be compelled to cover up crimes. It's like arguing that kids should be punished because they motivated their father to rob a bank so that he could buy them Christmas presents. People need to be afforded the ability to decide for themselves: "I love football. But, I wouldn't break the law for it." You seem to be ok with taking that choice away from people.

What happened at Penn State is already a crime with serious punishments for anyone involved. It's already the subject of a federal investigation.

Lets hold those responsible accountable. But, lets also recognize that football is only a backdrop that could be replaced by any number of other circumstances (protecting a business, protecting a political campaign, etc.). Should Obama be thrown out of office because John Edwards lied for political reasons? Should roads be closed because some people drive drunk on them? Should coffee be banned because McDonalds burned somebody with theirs? The crime belongs to the individuals who choose to commit them (for whatever reason). Not to the backdrop within which they were committed.

I can twist words too. You seem to be ok with a school that chose football and face over kids well being. There are so many more people involved in this than just those 4 people mentioned, but they are not being punished in any way accept by the NCAA. If the legal system said they were going to punish everyone at the school I would say otherwise, but it is only the NCAA putting up temporary penalties. People who argue that mom and pop shops rely on the program for income because it brings people in, don't realize that Penn State's fan base really isn't going anywhere. They will continue to sell out the stadium and they can continue to be on TV. Besides the $60 million, which the school should've offered in the first place,the penalties that were imposed do not punish anyone outside of the football program itself

But like I said, we're going to have differing opinions, no ammount of arguing is going to change that. We will agree to disagree.

[wheaton4prez]

I have seen the whole punish those responsible comment a lot, and while I understand the sentiments, that isn't how anything else in life ever works, so why should Penn State be any different? Just to use a real example, my wife once worked for a bank called Wilshire. The guy that owned and created/ran that company was found guilty of fraud if I remember correctly. A ton of people lost their jobs and my wife was one of them. While it sucks a lot, Penn State is no different and should be treated no differently. The results are now in place and the NCAA levied heavy fines and sanctions against them. If anyone loses their job from this (which they likely will) and they did nothing regarding what had happened/knew nothing about it, that is still the way the world works. When a corporation or entity such as a Penn State have to go down in some fashion, people lose their jobs. Complaining about it will never change that. It sucks a lot, but it's the reality of how penalties work against businesses. Penn State is most certainly a business as are all colleges.

You are ignoring the distinction between punishments and consequences. There are sometimes consequences to others when one person is punished. That isn't the same thing as punishing a group of people that did nothing wrong.

[wheaton4prez]

I can twist words too. You seem to be ok with a school that chose football and face over kids well being.

I clearly stated that the individuals responsible should be punished.

What I am not ok with is punishing "a school" for things that individuals are responsible for.

There are so many more people involved in this than just those 4 people mentioned, but they are not being punished in any way accept by the NCAA.

The investigation is ongoing. You have no idea whether or not anyone with any responsibility is getting off the hook. You're willing to punish innocent people based on speculation that there could be someone guilty who wont be punished.

[Duck07]

What innocent people are being punished and how?

[squintsdd]

I can twist words too. You seem to be ok with a school that chose football and face over kids well being.

I clearly stated that the individuals responsible should be punished.

What I am not ok with is punishing "a school" for things that individuals are responsible for.

There are so many more people involved in this than just those 4 people mentioned, but they are not being punished in any way accept by the NCAA.

The investigation is ongoing. You have no idea whether or not anyone with any responsibility is getting off the hook. You're willing to punish innocent people based on speculation that there could be someone guilty who wont be punished.

I think I mentioned that nobody is actually being punished by this. The football program is getting punished, but people are not. Loss of scholarships and forfeiting wins does not do anything to anybody. They only represent numbers that really hold no meaning

[wheaton4prez]

What innocent people are being punished and how?

A) The people who have invested financially in the program to support student athletes. Their efforts are significantly diminished by the fine.
B) The student athletes who will not benefit from $60 million that would otherwise be available to them for facilities, staff, etc.
C) The staff that will not benefit from the $60 million that would otherwise be available for compensation, support staff, recruiting incentives, etc.
D) The student athletes who would otherwise have an opportunity of an education at Penn State if not for scholarship restrictions.
E) The student athletes who are already on the team but are now banned from post-season play.
F) All of the administration not aware of the crime whose careers will be impacted by the above punishments.

I think I mentioned that nobody is actually being punished by this. The football program is getting punished, but people are not. Loss of scholarships and forfeiting wins does not do anything to anybody. They only represent numbers that really hold no meaning

A football program is an organization that includes staff and athletes. All of the NCAA punishments directly apply to staff and athletes.

If it's only numbers and holds "no meaning", then why do it at all? What is it supposed to accomplish?

[squintsdd]

What innocent people are being punished and how?

A) The people who have invested financially in the program to support student athletes. Their efforts are significantly diminished by the fine.
B) The student athletes who will not benefit from $60 million that would otherwise be available to them for facilities, staff, etc.
C) The staff that will not benefit from the $60 million that would otherwise be available for compensation, support staff, recruiting incentives, etc.
D) The student athletes who would otherwise have an opportunity of an education at Penn State if not for scholarship restrictions.
E) The student athletes who are already on the team but are now banned from post-season play.
F) All of the administration not aware of the crime whose careers will be impacted by the above punishments.

I think I mentioned that nobody is actually being punished by this. The football program is getting punished, but people are not. Loss of scholarships and forfeiting wins does not do anything to anybody. They only represent numbers that really hold no meaning

A football program is an organization that includes staff and athletes. All of the NCAA punishments directly apply to staff and athletes.

If it's only numbers and holds "no meaning", then why do it at all? What is it supposed to accomplish?

What's the point of punishing any program under your logic. There will always be staff and athletes that are effected that had nothing to do with whatever someone did to screw up. Why punish USC, or Ohio state, or look into Miami? There are people there who weren't involved with the violations. We should let them all get off Scott free

[wheaton4prez]

What's the point of punishing any program under your logic. There will always be staff and athletes that are effected that had nothing to do with whatever someone did to screw up. Why punish USC, or Ohio state, or look into Miami? There are people there who weren't involved with the violations. We should let them all get off Scott free

Those programs broke NCAA rules regarding student athletes. Rules that are not part of criminal law. That's a reasonable jurisdiction for the NCAA to enforce.

And I do think that their punishments have been flawed in many ways, including being too harsh and hurting innocent people more than the offenders. USC is a good example considering that the problems happened under Pete Carroll's watch. But, others were left paying the penalty after he left.

[squintsdd]

What's the point of punishing any program under your logic. There will always be staff and athletes that are effected that had nothing to do with whatever someone did to screw up. Why punish USC, or Ohio state, or look into Miami? There are people there who weren't involved with the violations. We should let them all get off Scott free

Those programs broke NCAA rules regarding student athletes. Rules that are not part of criminal law. That's a reasonable jurisdiction for the NCAA to enforce.

And I do think that their punishments have been flawed in many ways, including being too harsh and hurting innocent people more than the offenders. USC is a good example considering that the problems happened under Pete Carroll's watch. But, others were left paying the penalty after he left.

I bet if you look somewhere in the NCAA rule book you will find that ethical and moral conduct from coaches is a rule.

The NCAA rules don't just apply to student athletes, they apply to coaches and anyone within the athletic department too.

[squintsdd]

Look, we can argue our points all day long, going back and forth shooting down each other's arguments, but it's not going to change anything. PSU got penalized, they signed off on it and so did the presidents from the other universities. You can continue arguing if you want, but it really is getting old now. I'll say it one last time, we will agree to disagree.