What's new
By:
Filters

Penn State

gregbroncs

gregbroncs

Well-Known Member
Does it bother anybody else that the students at this school are chanting for the statue of a guy that knowingly allowed the rape of children under his reign?
.
It's troubling to me that they feel having the statue of Joe Paterno back on their campus after what went on during his tenure would be acceptable.
.
I'd want to go visit Penn State to piss on and tag up that statue if they did put it back (Too lazy but I'd want to). Maybe it's just me.
.
Also this is just further proof that the NCAA has no power left. They caved in on this issue with a weak punishment then took it one step further by not even upholding their original punishment.
 
This is why it makes me laugh when people say Ray Rice will be banned from football permanently.

3 years ago there were discussions about discontinuing Penn State's Athletic Program - now they're fully re-instated. Whoever the people were at the NCAA who made this decision should take a moment to re-read the grand jury indictment against Sandusky.
 
I love how the NCAA sees all the controversy with Ray Rice and the owner of the Hawks and tries to slip this in unnoticed.
 
The joke at the time was to move the Paterno statue in the library...as a reminder to keep quiet.
 
Different issue.

Joe Pa probably allowed these horrendous crimes to continue by allowing this monster on campus. But it hasn't been proven to many that he "allowed" crimes to continue. He reported it. The university and police didn't take care of Sandusky. While Rice actually hit his wife.

I don't agree with this this reasoning necessarily, but I'm guessing that a lot of alumni and community members who believe that Joe Pa either didn't know or did "all that he could." I remember Joe Pa or his family writing a letter saying basically, "well shucks, I reported it to the university. The ball was in their court. Shucks, nothing happened? Well... That's life. All well."

Many will rationalize for their sports and community heroes. Again, not saying that I agree with this but I'm guessing a lot at Penn St still feel that the university was more at fault than their coach (even though the coach was more powerful than anyone at the university).
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
Different issue.

Joe Pa probably allowed these horrendous crimes to continue by allowing this monster on campus. While Rice actually hit his wife.

I don't agree with this this reasoning necessarily, but I'm guessing that a lot of alumni and community members who believe that Joe Pa either didn't know or did "all that he could." I remember Joe Pa or his family writing a letter saying basically, "well shucks, I reported it to the university. The ball was in their court. Shucks, nothing happened? Well... That's life. All well."

Many will rationalize for their sports and community heroes. Again, not saying that I agree with this but I'm guessing a lot at Penn St still feel that the university was more at fault than their coach (even though the coach was more powerful than anyone at the university).
Click to expand...
What?
 
Paterno failed the greatest and most important test of his life miserably, and in doing so, is arguably complicit and at least somewhat culpable to subsequent abuses. I would argue that. But, NBD I guess.

That would break my heart to death too if I was him.
 
One thing that bothers me about these types of sanctions is that they unfairly penalize student athletes who had nothing to do with the incident and weren't there (probably not even born yet in this situation) - they chose a school based upon its current reputation with an expectation that if the team does well, they may be "rewarded" with post-season bowl games (or whatever)


Seems like it would be more fair to have some of these sanctions against the school go into effect three years later, so that those who sign to play at the school know there's no chance they'll be eligible for bowl games no matter how well the team does.
 
moevillini said:
One thing that bothers me about these types of sanctions is that they unfairly penalize student athletes who had nothing to do with the incident and weren't there (probably not even born yet in this situation) - they chose a school based upon its current reputation with an expectation that if the team does well, they may be "rewarded" with post-season bowl games (or whatever)


Seems like it would be more fair to have some of these sanctions against the school go into effect three years later, so that those who sign to play at the school know there's no chance they'll be eligible for bowl games no matter how well the team does.
Click to expand...

But this happens all the time. If management at a corporation engage in illegal activity, the penalty (legal and market) imposed is likely to affect employees and shareholders who had nothing to do with the law breaking. Arthur Anderson, for example, was complicit with Enron leading to the destruction of what was to that point one of the biggest, most successful firms in accounting/management consulting. Lots and lots of people suffered who had nothing to do with the criminal or immoral acts of the few.

When institutions engage in bad behavior, there's no way to levy a punishment on the institution without hurting innocent people. The athletes at PSU who were there when sanctions were imposed were given the opportunity to transfer, and not lose any eligibility, and new recruits came on board fully aware of what the status was. Each of these individuals made a conscious choice to associate themselves with a tainted institution and in full knowledge of what the punishments for institutional malfeasance were, and, quite frankly, I feel no sympathy for them.
 
moevillini said:
One thing that bothers me about these types of sanctions is that they unfairly penalize student athletes who had nothing to do with the incident and weren't there (probably not even born yet in this situation) - they chose a school based upon its current reputation with an expectation that if the team does well, they may be "rewarded" with post-season bowl games (or whatever)


Seems like it would be more fair to have some of these sanctions against the school go into effect three years later, so that those who sign to play at the school know there's no chance they'll be eligible for bowl games no matter how well the team does.
Click to expand...
They allowed the players to transfer without a normal penalty year. It's not exactly fair to the players but better than it could have been. I was all for shutting down the entire football program at this school.
.
****ing forget it. I can't stand to type anymore at 5 words per hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top