Crafty Spiker why punish the program now. Will that undue what Sandusky did 15 years ago...

Why? Everyone involved in this is gone. Why hurt the current players/students for something they had nothing to do with?

Agree w/ Crafty....Why punish the program now? It's like asking "why punish a murderer...it won't undo what was done" Dumb argument. The institution and those who run it were responsible for not ending this. It has nothing to do with the players, they can go elsewhere. Unfortunatley, they do feel some hurt here. However, if Penn State continues to play football, they continue to make millions and millions of dollars. Since the players don't get any of it, they are not affected financially. You have to punish the university where it hurts them the most - in the wallet.

Crafty is correct. The punishment must be levied against PS. PS must be held accountable so other Universities see what are the consequences for placing any sports program above victims of abuse. The sanctions are effectively a death penalty.

let's see, the same church that condoned child abuse for years?

I'm Anglican (the American branch is called the Episcopal Church) I'm not certain what other denominations do, say, or pray.

It's nice to see a rational response.

My thoughts exactly. There is NO reason to punish people and players now that had NOTHING to do with all of the things that happened then!

Talented players will transfer and play football elsewhere. Real talent will end up in the NFL. The players will be fine. They all wanted to transfer anyway so the NCAA has now created a process to allow them to transfer to other Universities. Playing at PS under this cloud of scandal was a no win for any football player.

Edmond Burke:
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
(This is a paraphrase of his statement. It is one of my favorite quotes.

I agree. And we need to change the attitudes of this school where football is king, and untouchable. I've heard the alumni still doesn't get how serious the damage that was been done to the children, many who are now adults. And as a society we have to start believing and protecting our children instead of looking the other way.

Football really isn't king, cash is king and the NCAA and Penn State are going the easy route to protect the cash flow. Really sucks what they are doing.

If you knew or should have know, you are just as quilty.
Do you want your children to be safe in college? Send them to our state schools; such as RUTGERS. RUUUUU!!!!

They really should also hurt the school in the pocketbook by banning them from TV for a few years. Make them spend the millions of dollars a year to run that football team w/ no TV revenues to fund the team, fund the athletic department and fund the rest of the school. But they won't do that b/c the NCAA cares more about cash than sending a message. Football brings in a ton of money into Penn State and it seems like the NCAA is going to go out of their way to not take that away from the school and that is a real shame.

Incorrect. "Death Sentence" means no football whatsoever. They will be penalized significantly but get to keep playing D1 football - so they are not getting the "Death Sentence".

We know that, they aren't doing anything really. The school will still have football and make a fortune off the TV contracts, boosters & ticket sales.

Penn State football is finished for at least 5 to 8 years and funding will dry up. No TV station will carry them and sponsors will flee, as State Farm Insurance has done. Admissions will suffer a significant decline. Jerry Sandusky will be showering in prison soon enough...enough said.

"past alum" ? as opposed to a "present alum" ?

someone didnt get in...

John, you're correct, I went to Bucknell instead.

As a "past alum" I resent that. Do you think we are all so clouded that we are not both devastated and disgusted by the lack of leadership at our alma mater? From someone who went to Bucknell, that was a rather unintelligent comment.

I agree, Jennifer. Many Penn Staters responded to this very positively - condemning the University officials who took part in this action. Some are still sadly defending those who enabled Sandusky. To say a whole university sucks, however, based on the actions of so few is short-sighted and ignorant. Penn State does so much for so many and should continue to be allowed to do that.

As you said, I am completely devastated and disgusted by what has happened. We have a great alum/current student body though and I know the University will grow from this and continue to do work that benefits people everywhere. Most people know Penn State for its football program, but if you went there, you know the Penn State name is about so much more and, at the forefront, helping others.

I don't believe everything about Penn State sucks, just the current state of affairs. Penn State has long been and outstanding university of learning and higher education. The non actions of top officials Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno were immoral. The thought of protecting a football program or university over sexually abused children is just unimaginable. I cannot get the thought out of my head . How four grown men all with children could decide that this would somehow go away and everything would be fine in "Happy Valley". They should have turned that deviate of a man over to the state police in a heartbeat, but they didn't. It wasn't like they were covering up someone stealing a few thousand dollars from the university , or who had a gambling problem, this guy raped innocent children. In my eyes they are just as guilty of the crime as Sandusky is of the act.I can't wait to see what becomes of Spanier, Schultz, and Curley. Paterno got off easy he went and died.

Hoboken Owl, they are all gone (or dead). If there are more that knew, which I hope not, they have not come forward or been discovered. And yes, they should be gone too.

But the mentality that the administration must at all costs protect Penn State Football and the massive amounts of cash Penn State Football pours into Penn State to support the rest of the athletic department is not gone. The slap on the wrist that the NCAA is about to deliver is proof of that. A real punishment for Penn State would be to kick them off TV for a period of years and deny Penn State the many millions that paid them each and every year. The coverup and this slap on the wrist the school is about to get is all about protecting the cash flow.

Paterno was complicit in the decision to not report Sandusky to the authorities. Because of this decision of his and other officials at the school, other children suffered abuse at the hands of Sandusky. That’s inexcusable.

Knowledge of a crime is as punishable as the crime itself. He was complicit in his actions and took further steps to assure his financial stability by seeking working on his contract after the investigation into Sandusky began. He knew what was going on and did nothing to protect innocent children from a violent sexual predator. The football program created an air of superiority whereby those who did know felt like THEY would be the ones who would be punished if they reported Sandusky's disgusting actions. The football program at Penn State should be given a 3 year death penalty, lose scholarships, any wins while Sandusky was part of the program should be taken off the record books, all titles and bowls won while he was there should be stricken from the records, the statue should be melted down, and his name should be removed from the library. Penn State, the coaches, the administration, should all be held accountable and be brought to justice for what they didn't do to protect innocent children. They should be made an example of.

If Paterno and the others involved had put those kids first and football second, none of this would be an issue. How many more innocent boys were molested because Paterno did not have the decency to do what was right? Let Penn State serve as a cautionary tale and bury the statue (along with their wins).

Sir
Part of the NCAA sanctions is the establishment of an Independent Monitor who will effectively run the school for a period of time. Also the civil suits may will be costly beyond belief. The statue will never see the light of day as the Monitor and the school's deep concern over trying to settle the civil legal claims of the victims will be the major concern, not the statue.

MMH, you are wrong. Sandusky was retired and NOT working for/with Paterno when the 2001 incident witnessed by McQueary happened. Should Paterno have done more, yes. But this predator was no longer and employee of the university.

ASW, you are wrong. Sandusky retired as defensive coordinator in 1999, but stayed on as a coach emeritus. Since he was drawing a salary from Penn State, he certainly was an employee, and as a coach, he was under the supervision of Paterno.

Nowhere near harsh enough. The football team generates $60mm a year in revenues and the athletic department as a whole had a $15mm profit last year. That fine is pocket change to a school w/ fat endowment and one of the most profitable athletic departments in the NCAA.

Those are all the right moves.

back to SMU..the ncaa will never impose that penalty again but the penalties laid down today could have been a little harsher.Vacating wins since 08 is the money the school earned for reaching those bowls a part of the 60 million?if it isint thats more money to take from them but like RR said they are a cash machine.at least 5 yrs would have been a better post season ban.

TomW - You bring up an interesting point by saying PSU didn't take enough action on its own. Do you think if the University imposed its own sanctions the NCAA would have been more lenient with what it handed down today? A preemptive strike, so to speak?

As a PSU alum, I felt the best move was to let the NCAA hand out the sanctions as well as the various of courts of law that will have their say before this is all over. PSU has fired many, brought down the statue, and begun to institute significant change over how its programs are monitored. For it to hand down its own fines would, in my opinion, have been PSU standing as its own judge/jury/executioner and the public would not have responded favorably.

This is the way it should be. The public/courts/etc hand out the judgments -- the University will strive for improvement and accept the judgments handed down.

It should also be noted that PSU has basically indicated that it will not hotly contest any civil law suits brought against it by the victims and instead will attempt to work together with those victims to do whatever it can for them.

Jason,
As a parent of a potential student athlete currently going through college recruitment, I believe the role of NCAA is to protect the student athlete and to help make their recruitment and experience playing a sport while getting a life/career education is their main objection. What has happen, had nothing to do with student athletes, the sports programs nor the education program at PSU. It was greed, selfish egos and lack of morals that created this tragic situation we have today. I would like to believe NCAA had no involvement in this cover up and no, I do not believe NCAA should be any more or less lenient. NCAA’s ruling should be secondary to PSU’s preemptive ruling/handling of the situation. PSU should do what is necessary to protect the institution on its core values on what the university was built on and NCAA should do what is necessary to protect the student athlete. I have no ties or legacies at PSU but my respect for the university has hit a low with the way they have handled the situation. Of course money has everything to do with it all. Everyone is out looking to make $$, but people, are we that shallow that we turn a blind eye to the innocence of our future?

Covering up the ongoing rape of children for personal gain doesn't make one a monster?

The difference is that McQueary, Spanier, Schultz, et al. do not have a statue and library named after them at Penn State. Paterno is NOT the innocent guy who did the right thing and is now being made a scape goat, we now know that he was complicit in covering up the atrocity that Sandusky committed. Monster or not, he does not deserve the demi-God status that he previously enjoyed at Penn State.

McQueary did report it and was interviewed by the guy in charge of the campus police department as well as by other PSU officials.

McQueary should have beaten Sandusky within a inch of his life and reported the crime to the police, not campus police. This was not a bunch of kids drinking beer. How can you all just give McQueary and the Janitor a pass????? I guess you all would have done the same without physically stopping Sandusky and then report it to campus police. Pathetic. If he had done that then Sandusky would have been in prison the next day.

I don't give the man a free pass but at the same time he is the only person who did anything and there never would have been a coverup of any kind if he hadn't reported something. He reported the man, it went to all the higher ups and they did nothing but obstruct, delay and hide the truth.

Who says we're giving McQueary a free pass??? They all failed miserably.... McQueary, Paterno, Spanier, Curley, Shultz. All these Penn State guys who knew this was going on, and not one of them did the right thing. Why does it have to be a contest of who is more responsible??? They all bear responsibility for this travesty.

You need to understand that the only person to provide testimony to a crime is the witness of that crime, That would be McQueary and the Janitor. So yes you are giving these people a "free pass". Obviously, you still haven't read the Freeh Report so until you do you are just uninformed. Has McQueary or the Janitor received any scrutiny. NONE. As I have said, I hold Paterno responsible for his coverup; however, the media needs to focus their attention on everyone. Somebody mentioned Sandusky's wife should be questioned. I agree.

As I said, Paterno should suffer the consequences of his coverup. FYI Sandusky wasn't working employed at PSU in 2001 when McQueary witnessed the rape. Also, he admittedly was vague in his description to Paterno. Please people read the full Freeh Report so you can get the full investigation and be informed.

Again by McQueary and the Janitor primarily.

...and Paterno and Schultz, and Curley, who all met and specifically decided not to report Sandusky.

Exactly, TCG.
William McGurn also writes: It's equally plausible, however, that the result will be new bouts of sensitivity training, new guidelines and regulations, and new compliance requirements that will allow leaders to insulate themselves from legal and financial liability by checking off boxes instead of resolving problems.

And finally - let Cael Sanderson (greatest American wrestler of all time and regrettably now calling State College "temporary home") rear naked choke the 5h!t out of the next PSU fan that claims "how does punishing the fans and players and students fix anything?".

ITS WHAT THE NCAA DOES!!! You morons!!! When in the history of the NCAA has it actually acted directly against the specific individuals who committed a violation. Almost never. Its ALWAYS after the fact. Its ALWAYS "institutional" punishment. Clearly, you have not paid attention to what happened at OSU, USC, Memphis State, Miami, etc., etc., etc....

Let those who cry over being thrown out with the bathwater get their heads WIZZERED into the concrete by Coach Cael. Maybe the loss of teeth and concussion will knock some sense into their sorry skulls. CHUMPS!!!!

Indicting and sanctioning the whole institution does not address the problem. Nothing will improve until the institution is willing to expel and prosecute deviants. There are a lot of retired CEOs, bishops and other authority figures who should be in jail.

The sanctions will motivate the institution (and other institutions) to put policies in place to make sure this never happens again.

Institutions unwittingly insulate and cover bad actors. The immoral individuals only sometimes get their comeuppance while the institutions get their reputations destroyed. I say the focus should be on individuals.

I might agree with you if it was just one individual at a low level who failed to report it upward. But as we know, the knowledge went all the way up the ladder to the president of the university. At that point, the whole institution bears the responsibility. It's no different if a corporation is criminally negligent. You can't just make it all go away by firing the people who are responsible.

Is that the same as the rationale for the indiscriminate obliteration bombing of WWII? It sounds like collateral damage and casualities are of no concern.

I think sanctions against countries, such as on Iran or Cuba, would be a more appropriate analogy.

I'm sorry, Richard, but blaming liberals for what has gone on in the Catholic Church just isn't going to fly. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia, nor does premarital sex. Child abuse has gone on in the church for a long tiime, long before gay marriage in the pill. What I'm gleaning from your post is that you long for a day when abusive priests and other pedophiles did what they did behind closed doors and their victims never came forward because society would have blamed THEM (whcih is still attempted, look at the things Mrs. Paterno said). Blaming liberals and "the breakdown of morality" in society makes it very easy, but keeping the abuse of children behind closed doors because it offends your delicate ears is reprehensible.

You need to take a hard look at YOURself. Conflating Sandusky's mental illness with the expansion of gay rights is flat-out stupid. There was not the slightest expectation or implication anywhere ever that his conduct had become "morally acceptable." What bullshit.

Moreover, if you really want to talk about the "conditions" whereby they fine folks at Penn State kept this under wraps, you will need to be honest enough to talk about financial incentives; not your beleaguered sexual politics.

I get why you prefer the easier answers though.

There is a big difference between pedophilia and sexual orientation. How come when an adult male molests a little girl, we don’t blame it on the acceptance of heterosexuality in our society???

Art,
I could not agree more. The real estate bubble was caused by sub credit worthy lending, which was caused by the bill in congress called the Home Affordability Act sponsored by Barney Frank and signed into law by President Clinton. It forced the banks to lend to people who could not afford to own a home. The banks then created credit default swaps which were insured by AIG. the house of cards came down as these sub credit mortgages defaulted. A bad law started it all. Then lack of regulation allowed it to spread. lets hold congress accountable for bad laws that mean well but ruin our economy. now back to this blog, PSU received the proper sanctions and now the civil law suits will follow and of course the sentencing of Sandusky.

I think it could be helped. Apparently, less than a half dozen individuals were responsible for the crimes and their cover-up. Can less than six individuals really be said to constitute the "culture" of Penn State's tens of thousands of students, staff and faculty, or even only its football program?

I guess you haven't read this recent story about a Philadelphia priest who was convicted for concealing child abuse;

http://ncronline.org/news/lynn-serve-six-years-prison

However, I agree that there were too many years where the church failed children who were being abused.

HobokenOwl,

Been there, done that. There is no such thing as a recovering Catholic. Go through enough pain and heartache and you will be back to the Church. Two great writers were walking down a river walk in Northern Europe. You may know them. Tolkien and Lewis (Lord of the rings?) It was something they did frequently to chat about the world around them. One had grown tired of the Church and turned atheist. During that walk, one said to the other, "So how does it feel to be an atheist?", the other responded and said, "You know what, I miss him". Following that talk, Lewis became one of the greatest defenders (apologetics) of the RC Church.True story.

C.S. Lewis grew up in the Church in Ireland and later was a devout Anglo-Catholic. He was not Roman Catholic. Both the Church in Ireland and Anglo-Catholisim are a part of the World Wide Anglican Communion. The American branch is called The Episcopal Church of the United States (the Episcopalians).

HobokenOwl, getting a tax break is not public funding. Sheesh! You sound like Obama and his ilk who think that all the money belongs to the government and you should be grateful for whatever you are allowed to keep.
John Lee, C.S. Lewis is really popular among conservative Catholics which is probably why some Catholics don't even realize he's not one.
Anyway, it's a somewhat different age. I just don't understand how people are still so gullible and trusting when it comes to big government, when the Catholic Church and prestigious educational institutions have been exposed for their fallibilities.

Hookerman, in what way does a church's tax exempt status increase the burden on the rest of us? (P.S. I think the tax code should be flattened so that the bottom 50% pay a little, too. I mean, if you want to talk about who's creating a burden on the rest of us, you ought to consider those who consume services without paying for them.)

My comment is that your comment is nonsense. The only two commandments that are even forbidden by law are killing and stealing, which just about every religion has rules against. Secondly, the decalogue misses some pretty big moral indignities, such as slavery and rape, which were accepted practices during the time the bible was written. Therefore, based on the ten commandments, I can enslave my neighbor and rape his wife, as long as I don't use the lord's name in vain, or miss church on Sunday. Where would we be indeed!

Hookerman, I am impressed that you used the word "decalogue". But you should also understand that a lot of moral teaching is corollary to the Ten Commandments. See paragraph 2414 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on slavery (under Seventh Commandment). See paragraph 2356 on rape (under the Sixth Commandment).

A lot of "former" Catholics only ever had a superficial experience of it in the first place. Their parents and teachers will have to answer for their failure to expose them to substantial Catholicism.

That may be true Monk, but giants'fan's post was not about Catholic Catechism, but about the ten commandments. One of the biggest criticism of Catholicism among Christian Fundamentalists is how much it diverts from the literal bible. Catholic interpretation of the ten commandments does not speak for all of Christianity.

Oh, I didn't see where giants-fan's post limited the ten commandments to fundamentalist interpretation. It's only "diversion" when one lacks the patience to trace the teaching through the history of doctrinal development. It's not as if slavery and stealing, and rape and adultery are completely unrelated.

He said, "without the ten commandments, where would we be? There would be no limits on what mischief we could get away with because there would be no rules to live by."... implying that the ten commandments are the basis for our laws, which is total bunk. And if you believe that to be true, and slavery is forbidden through ONE interpretation of the decalogue, then how would you explain why we allowed slavery in this country for almost 100 years? Can you think of any "mischief" worse than enslaving another human being???

Hookerman, you seem like an intelligent guy. OK, giants-fan didn't expound on the ten commandments, but can't you understand that law implies morality, and both law and morality require interpretation, and interpretation occurs in historical circumstances? Requiring a 3,000 year-old document to explicitly address modern incidents in their modern context is a little ridiculous. It seems natural to me that prosperity is required before savagery can be repudiated. Judging your forebears guilty of violating current moral standards is kind of low. Is modern day slavery permissible? Of course not! Was it permissible in other eras? Apparently, a lot of people thought so, and maybe you would have, too, without you modern sensibilities.

Then you’re debunking the same notion that you’ve been trying to support, ie; that our laws are all based on a set of static rules that were written thousands of years ago. There is absolutely nothing to support that. And it’s funny that you would mention the Catholic Catechism, since Catholicism was suspected in the 18th century more than Islam is suspected today. There is no way our forefathers would have turned to Catholic writings as the basis for our laws.

Any student of American history knows that our laws have more to do with the writings of philosophers than religious leaders. In fact, dismantling the shackles of religious doctrine is one of the reasons we declared our independence from Great Britain in the first place.

I think you're misunderstanding, Hookerman. From whence did philosophers come up with their ideas? No one pulls anything out of thin air. You have to believe that Enlightenment philosophers were aware of religious principles, and as far as there was agreement, the religious doctrine was not considered shackling. I mentioned Catholicism's Catechism to show how teachings on slavery and rape can easily be developed from the Ten Commandments. I never characterized the Ten Commandments as static, either. "For the word of God is alive and active." (Heb 4:12.) Also, the colonists and Founders certainly did not leave or declare independence from England as a repudiation of religion. Religious liberty was one of the most important rights in the minds of the colonists and Founders.

It seems like you are trying to dismiss the importance of the Ten Commandments for no good reason. You can appreciate the Ten Commandments and still not practice any religion.

I'm not trying to dismiss the importance of the ten commandments, I'm dismissing the notion that our laws are based on them. You've shown nothing in this thread to support that notion at all. You've totally ignored my earlier comment that the majority of the commandments are not even illegal, and in fact, any laws based on them would be unconstitutional. In that respect, someone can just as easily argue that our laws are contrary to the ten commandments.

Our founders did not repudiate religion, they repudiated the marriage of religion and government, as was the case with parliament and the church of England. Attempting to base the government on a single religion would have been impossible because of the diversity of religious beliefs. Prior to certain opinions, the forefathers did not have one single religious belief. They had quite a variance of beliefs, some so radical that it would probably be impossible for them to be elected today

James Madison wrote, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Hookerman, I'll cede that the Left in the United States of America is furiously chopping away at the roots of our culture and our laws, if that is your point.

And George Washington said; "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion."

But I thought you were smart enough to know that random quotes from forefathers are meaningless. I also thought you were smart enough not to turn this into yet another clichéd political debate. Guess I was wrong.

Hookerman, I don't agree with you on the irrelevance of Christianity vis-a-vis the founding of our nation. That is all.