Your post doesn't make really make sense -- there was a decade long coverup preventing leaders of Penn state from being prosecuted or fired.
Companies/Corporations are people . . . that is until they break the law Then they are exempt from all punishment . . . . then you only punish the 'people' in the corporation but never the corporation itself This was a criminal corporation . . . . Child Pimping Ring Rocket River
What doesn't make sense is punishing a whole bunch of people who had nothing to do with the crimes of a handful of people who are no longer around. If the people associated with the crimes are still in place, and will not or cannot be removed, then the program should be suspended until they are gone.
Thats ridiculous. NCAA investigations often take years. USC got their suspension in 2010 for the actions of Reggie Bush 2006 and OJ Mayo 2008. I say death sentence. SMU recovered, and all they were doing was paying players.
Using one bad example of crime and punishment to justify another is not a good idea. First off; this isn't an NCAA matter. This is a criminal matter. USC didn't break the law, they broke the NCAA's rules. Penn State didn't break NCAA rules (that I know of, they have no reason to have child rape rules on their books). They broke the actual law. The process will not be that slow or shallow, or at least we should hope not. In either case; punishment should be applied to those who commit crimes. The precedent set by the NCAA and its stupid, slow, corrupt, arbitrary system of regulation and sanction does not justify itself. Even in the cases you described, it was dumb to punish the school if the people who broke the NCAA rules (or covered it up) are no longer there. For example, in USC's case, I'm sure a handful of people from their cheating days were still around (administrative level, at least), so some punishment was warranted. But you know who didn't/wouldn't get punished at all despite being the main culprit? Pete Carroll. It would be like the NFL suspending the Saints from playing football while letting Gregg Williams & Co. walk free. Makes no sense and does not punish the appropriate parties.
But Penn State, as an organization, committed the crime. Members at every level of the University participated. Who would be walking free here? Sandusky and company are being charged with crimes. Everyone involved should be fired. So those people aren't walking free. In the Saints case, the Saints organization WAS punished along with the individuals involved - they lost two draft choices and were fined. The penalty was because this was an organizational problem - just as in the Penn State case. It wasn't isolated to a few people - it was the culture of the entire program, the fan base, etc. The penalty certainly wasn't "don't let the Saints play football". But the Saints' crime was not nearly on the same scale or the same time frame as Penn State either.
So get rid of those people. You're right, it's not about people walking free, it's about locking up people (metaphorically speaking) who didn't commit a crime. The point is the punishment is too broad and inappropriate. So ask yourself this. Was the two draft choices a harsher punishment than what Williams and company got? Obviously not, and with good reason. Even in the case of the Saints, who had lots of people within the organization still around that were complicit, it wouldn't have been appropriate to punish this whole nebulous concept of "the organization" harsher than the actual individuals at fault. Irrelevant. It's not about comparing the crimes. It's about comparing the methodology and fairness of the punishment. Bottom line; for the 10926712395th time -- the death penalty (provided that those associated with the crime and cover-up are punished/gone) does absolutely nothing to bring justice to this situation. It only harms those who had nothing to do with it. If those associated with the crime and cover-up are not punished or gone; then you can rightly suspend the program, as it will actually punish those responsible (despite the collateral damage) and prevent future abuse. I might also consider suspending the program while an investigation is being conducted; but that would require a little more consideration.
The fan base was part of creating that culture - how do you get rid of them? Eliminate the program. Certainly, the individuals got more punishment than the team. And Sandusky being in real jail for the rest of his life would be worse than the Penn State football program going away for a few years. That's not true. It punishes the fans, who created the culture where football was above all else (remember the riots?). It punishes a University who made lots of $$ by tolerating this stuff. And, part of punishment is deterrence. This provides a deterrent effect for other universities. If a university knows that they can do anything bad they want and get away it with by firing the people involved, that's a great motivation to just close your eyes and not see anything until you're caught. But EVERYONE involved in Penn State is involved in some way or another - either directly, or by putting Paterno on a pedestal. Just look at the janitor from the original article - they were involved in the coverup, while simultaneously being a victim of the culture. You can't get rid of that underlying culture of worshipping Penn State football by firing some coaches and assistants and janitors. And that culture is one of the culprits.
Examples of the continuing culture problem: * The BOT negotiated a behind the scenes retirement bonus for Paterno right as he was testifying to a grand jury. * The BOT now doesn't want to remove his statue. Why? Because they don't want to offend alumni - and by extension, don't want to lose the $$ that came with it. The BOT wasn't involved in the coverup and didn't know anything was going. But both before all this came out and even now today, they are beholden to the program and to Paterno because that is the culture that exists there. Penn State, as it stands, continues to benefit from the coverups and its leadership participated in - how does that make any sense? The incentive there for the organization is to create an environment where you just don't investigate things - because you know that, if caught, you can just fire any troublemakers and continue to reap the rewards that they brought.
Too vague for my taste. You're conflating NCAA punishment with U.S. criminal punishment. Sandusky's punishment isn't coming from the NCAA, it's coming from an actual court of law. In the scenario you're describing (DP), the NCAA is punishing the "organization" more than they are punishing Sandusky. You already know I don't agree with the "deterrence" argument. But, I respect and understand it more than the argument that the DP is somehow going to dismantle some "criminal culture" at Penn State. The deterrence argument just seems like a head on a pike, short-sighted strategy driven by outrage and bloodlust. But whatever, it's the same argument for the criminal death penalty that we've been over a zillion times (and it doesn't work there either). Sorry, I don't buy that replacing the people involved won't stop the abuse. I already went over that here: If I'm the NCAA, I'm handing out life-time/lengthy bans to everybody associated with these crimes and their subsequent cover-up. I'm using the Freeh report as the guideline for who I'm punishing and how I'm punishing them. Surely the NCAA can be more strategic and focused in their actions. Nobody involved in this should ever work in collegiate sports ever again, and if somebody hires them, they should immediately have their program blacklisted. There's really nothing else I can say here. It's a philosophical difference about crime and punishment. Either you think the DP works, or you don't (we have one case study that proves it doesn't). The Freeh report supports the idea that the main reason this happened was a handful of s****y people (really 3 main ones) given too much power who did too little. If you want to grab your pitchfork and burn it down after considering all the facts, that's your right, but I can't join you at this time. I reserve the right to change my mind, though, as the story continues (I just saw that about the Board of Trustees, and it pissed me off too). Hopefully it won't get to the point where I join the angry mob, because if it does, things will have gotten even worse.
So how you do feel about PSU continuing to benefit going forward from all the money, fame, etc that all these employees brought it? How do you feel about the BOT protecting Paterno now because they don't want to risk offending alumni? It seems to me that, by not punishing PSU itself, you're telling the BOT that nothing bad will happen as long as they just stay blind to whatever might be going on - even if they have no control at all of the institution. If you have a mob family that has built up all sorts of businesses, and you arrest the leadership for murder or whatever, should the organization be allowed to just continue with new leadership? Or do you shut down the whole enterprise?
There will be a loss. The report cost 6.5 million. Those lawsuit settlements that follow won't be cheap.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ark-emmert-signals-heavy-sanctions-penn-state Still reeling from the content of the Freeh report, Emmert did not dismiss the notion of issuing the so-called "death penalty" against Penn State, asserting that the unprecedented nature of the Sandusky scandal could warrant extreme punishment. "This is completely different than an impermissible benefits scandal like happened at SMU, or anything else we've dealt with," Emmert said. "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. "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." Emmert also said that he expects to hear back from Penn State "within weeks" regarding questions the NCAA has issued about the case, including the issue of institutional control. He consistently has maintained that the NCAA will not determine whether violations occurred until receiving the school's response.
I don't think many people have a lot of respect or reverence for the NCAA, especially as a governing authority. Cultural problem or not (this term is problematic because everyone's definition is different), I don't see the death penalty as a solution. So, not really persuaded by Emerett's comments. The one thing he's right about is that it is "more" than a football scandal, it's criminal. You forgot to highlight the most important part of that entire quote, fyi.
This is really silly. This equation is very simple; the institution was corrupted to its very core because it chose football & money over serial child rape. Of course the institution deserves to be punished. It's not innocent at all. It's as guilty as sin. It's like saying Goldman Sachs should jsut get to fire naughty traders like Fabrice Tourre whenever somethign bad happens and not face prosecution or fines or whatever, since your'e just hurting shareholders who had nothing to do with it. Our system of accountabilty doesn't work that way.
With a slight exception to the Baylor basketball murder cover up, this is the only college football scandal I had a problem with. The end result of other scandals is you paid paltry sums of money to players. The end result of this is several dozen children were raped. Most everything else is the same with cover ups at the highest level, meetings and plans of action from the those in charge etc. Death penalty.
Yourself. Killing it now does more harm than good. Given the benefit of hindsight, shutting it down 10 years ago would've been the right call. Now, it just seems like punishment for punishment's sake.
People keep bringing up the Baylor example, but it's actually about the exact opposite with regards to the university's response to the wrong-doings by its employees.
You keep throwing out blanket statements and vague terms like "institution" and "culture". Sorry, I don't see it that way. After having read the Freeh report, it is clear to me this is a problem that was created by having too much power in the hands of too few people who chose to abuse that power. Remove the corrupted people in charge (i.e. have a Uni President with the balls to stand up to Paterno, have a coach who isn't overly revered and feared, etc), and this never happens. Spanierd, Paterno, etc and the handful of people in power who failed to act, or worse, actively covered Sandusky's ass are gone and/or going to jail. Shutting down the football program at this juncture does more harm than good, period. Um, often times it does. We try to avoid punishing people who have nothing to do with crimes. We don't go around dropping atomic bombs on a city of people to try and kill a few criminals. Worse yet, we sure as **** don't carpet bomb a place when we know for sure the criminals are already dead or have left town. You example is flawed because what I'm asking for goes beyond "firing" these people. They deserve to be jailed by the government and/or sanctioned by the NCAA. If you want to punish Penn State, fine, but dropping the hammer of god on everyone there is far too heavy handed. Punish the people first and foremost.
