Penn State football deserves death penalty for cover-up

Mean Green 93-98 · July 18, 2012

The letter clearly outlines the statements in the by-laws, and addresses where Penn State failed them.

No it doesn't. It merely asks whether Penn State failed them. Obviously some insinuating is going on, but Emmert never directly says that PSU is guilty of violations, much less "addressing where Penn State failed them."

Mean Green 93-98 · July 18, 2012

1) So do these
2) So did these
3) OSU didn't get it for LOIC, and neither one covered up for child molesters (regardless, no punishment has been dealt yet)
4) Still doesn't cover the fact that they "punished the innocent" after the guilty were no longer at the University

1. No, they aren't.

2. No, they didn't.

3. LOIC? I have no idea what you're talking about.

4. No comparison.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Mean Green 93-98

Monkeypox · July 18, 2012

1. No, they aren't .
2. No, they didn't.
3. LOIC? I have no idea what you're talking about.
4. No comparison.

And yet you make such definitive statements.

I agree, though, there's no comparison to kids getting paid and kids getting raped and having a university cover it up and profit from it.

Monkeypox · July 18, 2012

No it doesn't. It merely asks whether Penn State failed them. Obviously some insinuating is going on, but Emmert never directly says that PSU is guilty of violations, much less "addressing where Penn State failed them."

To quote: "The behaviors and failures described in the allegations set forth by the grand jury try not only the integrity of the university, but that of intercollegiate athletics as a whole and the NCAA member institutions that conduct college sports..."

It asks Penn State to show how they DIDN'T fail them. They didn't send a letter saying "Hey, did you guys break the rules? Yes or no?"

The four questions it poses are 4 ways in which Penn State has to address these alleged failures. IOW, Penn State has to prove that the allegations are wrong.

Also, does anyone here really think that Penn State showed institutional control over the goings on of the football program?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Monkeypox

UNT90 · July 18, 2012

Back on topic: http://abcnews.go.co...enn-st-16793686

"This is completely different than an impermissible benefits scandal like (what) happened at SMU, or anything else we've dealt with. This is as systemic a cultural problem as it is a football problem. There have been people that said this wasn't a football scandal," Emmert said.

"Well, it was more than a football scandal, much more than a football scandal. It was that but much more. And we'll have to figure out exactly what the right penalties are. I don't know that past precedent makes particularly good sense in this case, because it's really an unprecedented problem."

Looks like Emmert gets it, but will he have the stones to do the right thing.

My money (literally) says no.

LongJim, it looks like you may have a shot, though.

No it doesn't. It merely asks whether Penn State failed them. Obviously some insinuating is going on, but Emmert never directly says that PSU is guilty of violations, much less "addressing where Penn State failed them."

Emmert's feelings are pretty clear with this quote I posted earlier.

It is a violation,

Emmert considers it a horrible violation of lacjk of institutional control.

Emmert says they have to figure out exactly what the right penalties are, not whether this is a violation.

His opinion is more important than mine, yours, or anyone elses on here, don;t you think?

UNT90 · July 18, 2012

Emmert is fighting a reputation the cold, hard fact that the NCAA looks the other way for large schools. This is a way for him to look like the NCAA would actually punish a BCS traditional top 25 program.

Fixed.

Which is why, as much as Penn St. deserves it, they will not get anything close to the death penalty.

UNT90 · July 18, 2012

Also, does anyone here really think that Penn State showed institutional control over the goings on of the football program?

Well, many people did think JoePa was an institution, and there is no doubt he was in complete control of that university...

meangreendork · July 23, 2012

Here's the verdict. Penn State won't appeal, either.

• A $60 million fine, with the proceeds going to an endowment fund for victims of sexual abuse.
• A four-year bowl ban.
• Vacated all Penn State victories from 1998 to 2011.
• A reduction of annual scholarships from 25 to 15 for four years. Current players will be permitted to transfer and have immediate eligibility elsewhere.
• Five-year probation in which the university will have to work with an NCAA monitor.

http://deadspin.com/5928203/penn-state-ncaa-sanctions-four+year-bowl-ban-vacated-wins-60-million-fine-scholarship-reductions

This may hurt more than the death penalty. All of these hits last for 4 or more years, not including the damage already done by the story alone.

greenminer · July 27, 2012

ESPN

[Dottie] Sandusky stood by her husband since allegations first came out last year that he sexually abused boys. She posted his bail, accompanied him to court proceedings and issued a statement in December that proclaimed his innocence and said that accusers were making up their stories.