That was a bull**** defense anyway. Wasn't there a statute of limitations issue with any cases that went back that far? Of course prosecution couldn't present those.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Sandusky update (more evidence against Joe P)
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
That was a bull**** defense anyway. Wasn't there a statute of limitations issue with any cases that went back that far? Of course prosecution couldn't present those.
Are you sure about the SoL? It seems like they've been able to go after priests, for instance, long after the crime.
The **** people will argue when they don't have a chance is pretty amazing.
This is true but that's why the fallout from the NCAA should be so much more devastating. The message should be that a football program should fear the consequences of not doing the right thing more than the fallout from doing the right thing.
Oh my God, nik! You do not really believe that how I feel is it? Man, that really hurts. That wasn't my point at all. Holy ****. I have kids and this story and those like it tear me apart. Guys like JS should be locked away forever, IMO. When I was 8 to 10 years old I had a baseball coach. His name was Mike Bowman. When I was in my forties, I guess, I found out he was arrested for child porn. I am not aware, personally, of anyone who had been a victim. But it creeped me out to find out that a guy coaching kids was a perv.
You know, I should have used better judgement in posting that topic. I kind of knew in the back of my mind that some would take it wrongly. Your post really hurt, nik. :sad1:
the paternos are trying to cover the ass of errrrrrrrrrrm protect joepa's legacy
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-lions-paternos-conduct-own-review-freeh-data
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-lions-paternos-conduct-own-review-freeh-data
:lol: :sad1:
Awesome. That was ****ing hilarious. I'm evil.
:finger2:
Very well stated. Three more victims came forward today, but from earlier than 1998.
Figured they would do something like this, but his uh, legacy, has been destroyed and can not be recovered except in the minds of the Paterno family.
Here I go again. I would like to see psu get nailed by the NCAA. But on what grounds can the NCAA impose penalties? I know there is the "lack of institutional control" thing. But that applies to recruiting/cheating/breaking NCAA bylaws. So, can the NCAA make the argument that psu was covering this thing up in order to protect their reputation, in part, so that recruiting and fund raising for football would not be damaged? Thus, a de facto violation? Or do they just say, "Screw it. PSU gets the penalty?" They will have to be creative.
Oh, and one more thing: How would dropping football for two years affect Title IX? I guess, in a way, it would help the Title IX ratios.
Oh, and one more thing: How would dropping football for two years affect Title IX? I guess, in a way, it would help the Title IX ratios.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...2/07/ncaa-statement-penn-state-freeh-report/1
Basically, under a generic/general ethics clause, NCAA could do something if it felt aggressive. It would be a stretch, but it could.
If it was my dad, I'd support him too. I've got enough anger to go around without needing to focus on the most public name (who happens to be dead) that everyone is trying to use as the focus of this story now.
Media treats it like a bigger story if they hear the name "Paterno" so prosecutors/ investigators drop his name.
The guilty administrators love that we're all too willing to focus on Paterno's iron-handed grip on the program and university because it almost makes them look like victims who were only doing their jobs.
Agree.
^^This^^
At some point in the future some other program is going to be faced with the decision to report something that could be damaging to their reputation and cost them revenues and donations or to keep quiet and put innocent people in danger. The Penn State case has to send a message that failure to protect innocent victims is not an option for the future of a program.
OUBuff
American
If PSU can demonstrate that they provided equal "protection" to evildoers throughout the faculty, then it is a university issue. If they can't do that, I think this can reasonably be considered driven by the football program. Welcome in NCAA. Now isn't that being on the horns of a dilemma.
Good point. Let's not pretend it was an institution-wide problem or even an AD-wide problem rather than special treatment for the football program in protection of the football program.
Which people at the highest level of the Univ covered up to ensure that the football program was not tarnished. That is the definition of an institution that is out of control. It all came down to football, power and trying to protect it. The NCAA needs to hammer them so no school is ever tempted to protect a program this way again. No mercy here.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ill-not-rule-out-death-penalty-for-penn-state
Wow. Those are pretty aggressive statements.
Wow. Those are pretty aggressive statements.
L Buff
Commissar of the Albuffs Collective Left
The NCAA might just throw any concerns about "jurisdiction" to the winds, and clamp down on Pedo State hard in order to send a message. They would be virtually daring PSU to fight it in court, which would put them in a tricky position. Can you imagine their argument?:
"Yeah ... this whole mess was a sick situation, and an unprecedented **** up ... but you are constrained by your own by-laws from doing anything to us."
That argument might fly in a court of law ... but it will bring outrage upon their heads in the court of public opinion.
You bring up an interesting point. Penn State under almost any other situation probably would have a very good argument in court. In this case however they are trying to defend the indefensible. No matter how right they may be legally any action on their part would only extendthe damage to the school and the program in the court of public opinion. At some point they have to decide to take their beating on move on.
I honestly hope they get the death penalty. This is the exact situation that it would really be applicable. They need to shut down the program for a while to clear the air and also send a message that firing a few people and settling a few lawsuits is not acceptable and that football is not more important than destroying the lives of innocent victims.
All this talk about the death penalty has concentrated on the impact it will have on Penn St. Remember, Penn St is a member of the Big 10 conference and as such, has certain contractual obligations that need to be met.
The only time the death penalty was ever imposed, it was a contributing factor to the collapse of an entire conference. While I think the Big 10 is strong enough to withstand something like this, it would be hard to overcome. I suspect Penn State would just be kicked out of the conference altogether, with somebody like Pitt, ND or Syracuse taking their place.
The only time the death penalty was ever imposed, it was a contributing factor to the collapse of an entire conference. While I think the Big 10 is strong enough to withstand something like this, it would be hard to overcome. I suspect Penn State would just be kicked out of the conference altogether, with somebody like Pitt, ND or Syracuse taking their place.
I suspect that they would be smart enough to not fight it. Fighting it would lead to public backlash, and there would be very few outlets for that backlash. Athletically, I could see the rest of the B1G's supporters moving to expel them from the league, and they could forget about getting non-conference opponents for other sports. And it would wreak havoc in recruiting/employment even for normal students "oh, you go/went to that school that put its football program ahead of seeking justice for sexually abused kids."
On the other hand, if they didn't fight it, and just accepted the penalty, the public's attitude would probably tend towards sympathy. I don't think many would say they were treated "unjustly," some of course would, but they would likely be a minority, most people would be on the "yeah, that's tough - I feel bad for some of the players, coaches and students, but I feel worse for the kids. The former will be back soon, the latter may never get all the way there." And, when the program started back up again, most would probably accept that they had paid the penalty, and would probably be willing to wish well upon the new program.
If they were to fight it though - they would become the villains of the NCAA. They would come out on the losing end of every transaction for 20 years: sponsorship, scheduling, poll votes, tv slots, bowl invitations; the list is endless.
The more I think about it, not only do I think that the "right" thing to do for them is to voluntarily shut down the football program (as I said about 40 posts ago), but I also suspect that in the long term it would also be the more profitable course of action. The next two years would suck financially for them, but it's going to suck no matter what happens; and if they don't figure out some way to bring closure to this, it will permanently impair their financial performance. Shutting down the program for a couple years would let them start over - this is America, we believe in second chances, but only after you've paid the price for your ****-ups. Skip paying the price, and the general answer is **** you.