Online Now 3444

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2450
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3452
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Penn State and NCAA

  • GPie said...

    No shit thats the backlash.

    Penn State's coverup allowed kids to be raped for another decade.

    No one is disputing that, it's the "why" part that we are discussing. Try to keep up.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • yellowfin said...

    What are your feelings on Penn State and the NCAA? [b]Should the NCAA punish them for massive coverups of criminal activities to protect football program even if it did not involve cheating within the program?[b]

    Everyone I have talked/listened to thinks Death Penalty would be just of not going further and closing the university down. I don't know how far I would go but, do believe at least a 1 year ban on football needs to be placed. If no punishment occurs, it pretty much sends the message do whatever

    Yes, even if the coaches/administration claims they didn't know what was going, they should have known.

    Last time I checked, the NCAA was giving out two year bowl bans and 30 schollies revoked over ”should have known” charges.

    signature image

    What sanctions? Our 75 are better than your 85.

    Action Figure ●

  • jgdomino said...

    why else would you protect a pervert unless you had something to gain? Common sense...

    I'll ask again - how was it going to hurt the football program to turn Sandusky in? Also, where's that proof?

    Maybe it was to protect the name of the whole university. Maybe it was because they (like the HS guidance counselor who laughed at one of the victims who came forward) didn't believe it at first. Maybe it was because they were friends with Sandusky and were protecting him. There's a hundred more possibilities than just "protecting the football program." Stupid to assume "facts."

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • answered that on page 3.

    Pic Sigs are for losers.

    jgdomino

  • The only good that comes out of these threads is that you see who the real dumbasses are.

    No wonder this country is going to shit with the critical thinking displayed ITT.

    F the NCAA F the BOT F ESPN F Sandusky

    PSU42Fan ●

  • Action Figure said...

    Yes, even if the coaches/administration claims they didn't know what was going, they should have known.

    Last time I checked, the NCAA was giving out two year bowl bans and 30 schollies revoked over ”should have known” charges.

    Well, that will probably work out in favor of PSU... seems like the programs that "did know" are getting slaps on the wrist these days. If you're basing it off of knowing, PSU would get 10 added scholarships and a roster limit of 95. coffee

    signature image

    ProUSC

  • jgdomino said...

    so you would be ok with an adolph hitler building until someone with more money came along to buy the naming rights. This is why people think PSU folks are crazyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

    Ah, right. Because Joe Paterno = Adolf Hitler. Good one.

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • jgdomino said...

    REPUTATION for having a child molester on staff. To me Joe Paterno and the school thought they would never need to turn him in because it would never get as far as it did. We shall see, but to think it had NOTHING to do with football is crazy. I am sure there were other factors but football is/was the driver.

    Reputation? Bull. If they weren't aware of his molestation issues then where's the hit to reputation? The whole issue is the coverup. Turning him in then would have resulted in an extremely minor hit at the worst.

    Love when people try to push their opinion as fact. lol Let me know when you turn up the proof and all.

    One more thing: doing something with the intention of helping the football program does NOT mean it's the FAULT of the football program. So even if you are right (don't think you are), is the football program the one who should be punished, or is it Spanier and co. who should be punished?

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Now 2001 rolls around and they turn him in. How exactly is PSU at fault in that scenario?

    If they turned him in in 2001 they wouldn't be.

    Can't tell if you're still in a hypothetical or just living in a parallel universe.

    GPie

  • GPie said...

    If they turned him in in 2001 they wouldn't be.

    Can't tell if you're still in a hypothetical or just living in a parallel universe.

    We're talking hypothetically. People are arguing that the PSU officials covered this up because it would hurt the football program. We're trying to figure out how exactly turning him in in 2001 would have hurt the program.

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • psubills62 said...

    . We're trying to figure out how exactly turning him in in 2001 would have hurt the program.

    You'd have to ask Schultz, Spanier, Curley, and Paterno. Now one knows what they thought they had to gain by abetting and harboring a child rapist but them.

    Anytime anyone in any program gets caught breaking the law there is bad publicity for the school. For some reason the above four thought this would be bigger/worse than they wanted to handle. Maybe because a lot of incidents took place on campus, in the football facilities, and by the second biggest coaching figure in Penn State.

    The fact they was they obviously did think they had more to gain by covering it up than their souls lost by what they were allowing, or they wouldn't have done so.

    GPie

  • I say fire everyone that was even within sniffing distance of this situation within the coaching staff, administration, etc. But the death penalty? What good does that do? Sure, it does what I just mentioned, but it also takes away a major activity for the Penn St student body and leaves a large number of young men out from playing the sport they love and came to Penn St to play. Neither of those groups had anything to do with this Sandusky abomination. Why should they be punished?

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4 ●

  • GPie said...

    You'd have to ask Schultz, Spanier, Curley, and Paterno. Now one knows what they thought they had to gain by abetting and harboring a child rapist but them.

    Exactly, so how can anyone say that it is definitely to protect the football program when no one knows what the reasons were except for those select few? Spanier and Sandusky were very tight, why is everyone just assuming that this was to protect football and just a friend? Because they are hoping that is the case, plain and simple. You don't talk about covering something up in an email to protect a program and say that would be "the humane thing to do" for the accused. That doesn't make sense at all.

    Let's just see what was in those emails before making claims of a football coverup. At this point, there is zero real evidence to suggest that was the case.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • GPie said...

    You'd have to ask Schultz, Spanier, Curley, and Paterno. Now one knows what they thought they had to gain by abetting and harboring a child rapist but them.

    Anytime anyone in any program gets caught breaking the law there is bad publicity for the school. For some reason the above four thought this would be bigger/worse than they wanted to handle. Maybe because a lot of incidents took place on campus, in the football facilities, and by the second biggest coaching figure in Penn State.

    The fact they was they obviously did think they had more to gain by covering it up than their souls lost by what they were allowing, or they wouldn't have done so.

    Paterno wasn't charged with anything and there's no reason to include him in that list. For now, there's only evidence that Spanier, Curley and Schultz are the ones who covered this up.

    It's true, we don't know their reasons. But to assume they did it for the football program and then claim it's fact is bull. It's also true that anything like this brings some bad publicity, but not nearly the amount a coverup would. If they knew the extent, how could they think they could cover something like this up?

    I didn't follow all the counts or anything, but I don't think that many of the incidents occurred at Penn State facilities. Obviously the McQueary one, and maybe one or two others (that we know of), but certainly not "a lot."

    signature image

    psubills62 ●

  • sounds like Mark Emmert sees this as potentially a NCAA issue.

    http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf

    (link wouldn't load for some reason)

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by JPX800176115 on 6/25/2012 at 3:34 PM

    JPX800176115

  • JPX-800 said...

    sounds like Mark Emmert sees this as potentially a NCAA issue.

    http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf

    (link wouldn't load for some reason)

    Looks like someone created another name. lol

    Jeff4SC ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports