How could American culture grow so corrupt as to value a game over protecting children?

DSGamer wrote:

Of course, stuff like this is why I thought they deserved the death penalty.

Some random Penn State fan on a message board wrote:

while i understand the punishments, they are punishing not only the student athletes, but they are punishing marching bands, cheerleaders, students, the entire university, and the entire state of Pennsylvania all because of the acts of 4 people. I think that punishment should only be given to those who were responsible.

Another clueless football or Penn State fan wrote:

The men responsible for allowing the 'situation' at Penn State have either been fired or are dead. The living will be prosecuted and sued and the dead is dead. The football program itself did NOTHING wrong. The student athletes and coaches there now are innocent. This is public relations for the NCAA who are trying to look stern in the face of public outcry. They are wrong.

Fact of the matter is that there is no right to football. It's not in the Constitution the last time I checked. Comments like these highlight the lack of perspective on the game. They should feel lucky that football wasn't entirely taken away while they were told to go focus on getting their house in order. Now they've been asked to get their house in order while they'll inevitably "rally" around the football team, marching bands, cheerleaders, etc. So I guess I'm still bummed they didn't get the death penalty. Seems like they're not getting it yet.

I still don't know what 'get their house in order' means or how shutting down the football team has anything to do with that. I certainly see how punishing the institution creates deterrence for this every happening again, but that's a different issue. Like Another clueless football or Penn State fan wrote: "The men responsible for allowing the 'situation' at Penn State have either been fired or are dead" so what does 'getting their house in order' involve? (edit: if they haven't gotten everyone responsible, then fire them too--heck, I think this requires the FBI to get involved considering how tight local law enforcement was with Penn State).

I feel like what people are trying to say is that the culture of football at Penn State must be destroyed. But that's not "getting their house in order." That's about a fundamental change in how everyone associated with Penn State views the football program. And hey--maybe that's what should be done, but I think the reason for some of the misunderstanding (and even the acrimony) in this debate is due to this miscommunication.

What's being called for here is unprecedented. All the other cases of the 'death penalty' had to do with direct violations of NCAA rules designed to create a level playing field between colleges. This is not a call for them to 'get their house in order'. This is a call to knock the house down. Maybe that's within the NCAA's powers (or should be), maybe it isn't. Maybe Penn State football culture should be destroyed, maybe it shouldn't. The first step, though, is to realize we've gone beyond punishing the institution, and are talking about punishing the community.

The death penalty would have been a lighter sentence. This will destroy athletics at Penn State (football money supported the whole department.

What is left to be determined is where the $60 million will come from. Tuition hikes and salary cuts most likely.

I'm kind of okay with the penalty. Even though it doesn't appear that the NCAA came out and said it, the implication is that college sports should never supercede basic humanity.

PSU also took down the statue.

@ESPNMichele wrote:

Per ESPN research, w/ Penn State's '98-'11 wins vacated, the last QB to win a game at PSU was Mike McQueary on 11/22/97

Jayhawker wrote:
@ESPNMichele wrote:

Per ESPN research, w/ Penn State's '98-'11 wins vacated, the last QB to win a game at PSU was Mike McQueary on 11/22/97

Ouch.

Jayhawker wrote:
@ESPNMichele wrote:

Per ESPN research, w/ Penn State's '98-'11 wins vacated, the last QB to win a game at PSU was Mike McQueary on 11/22/97

Talk about a lifelong reminder!

Nevin73 wrote:

I'm kind of okay with the penalty. Even though it doesn't appear that the NCAA came out and said it, the implication is that college sports should never supercede basic humanity.

PSU also took down the statue.

They definitely came out and said it.

Excerpted from the NCAA statement about the sanctions

According to the NCAA conclusions and sanctions, the Freeh Report “presents an unprecedented failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem than the values of the institution, the values of the NCAA, the values of higher education, and most disturbingly the values of human decency.”
CheezePavilion wrote:

I feel like what people are trying to say is that the culture of football at Penn State must be destroyed. But that's not "getting their house in order."

Yes, that is what we're saying because it was the culture of football that allowed all of this to happen. Destroy that and Penn State will be able to get its house in order so that if anything remotely like this happened again they would make sure the responsible parties were dealt with immediately, not cover up the incident for years to protect the football program.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I feel like what people are trying to say is that the culture of football at Penn State must be destroyed. But that's not "getting their house in order."

Yes, that is what we're saying because it was the culture of football that allowed all of this to happen. Destroy that and Penn State will be able to get its house in order so that if anything remotely like this happened again they would make sure the responsible parties were dealt with immediately, not cover up the incident for years to protect the football program.

That doesn't make sense. It wasn't the culture of football that lead the Catholic Church to hush up abuse, it wasn't the culture of football that hides abuse in many families. There is nothing intrinsic to football that caused this.

I would think it was more a culture of "what we love is important enough to ignore wrongdoing" We see that in police coverups, military coverups, etc. People get the idea that somehow the institution is more important that normal values.

Will punishing Penn State really help to change this pretty common human failing?

farley3k wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I feel like what people are trying to say is that the culture of football at Penn State must be destroyed. But that's not "getting their house in order."

Yes, that is what we're saying because it was the culture of football that allowed all of this to happen. Destroy that and Penn State will be able to get its house in order so that if anything remotely like this happened again they would make sure the responsible parties were dealt with immediately, not cover up the incident for years to protect the football program.

That doesn't make sense. It wasn't the culture of football that lead the Catholic Church to hush up abuse, it wasn't the culture of football that hides abuse in many families. There is nothing intrinsic to football that caused this.

I would think it was more a culture of "what we love is important enough to ignore wrongdoing" We see that in police coverups, military coverups, etc. People get the idea that somehow the institution is more important that normal values.

Will punishing Penn State really help to change this pretty common human failing?

Funny thing is, this is the point OG and I were getting to in our earlier conversation before the peanut gallery showed up to derail the thread with personal attacks on me. If I'm hearing (some of) the people calling for the destruction of Penn State football correctly, they're asking for this...'fertile soil' (I guess you could call it) for that common human failing to take 'root' in to be eradicated, the 'fertile soil' being Penn State football culture?

I can understand that kind of thinking once it's expressed clearly. Killing the football program will kill the football culture: it's an indirect way of solving the problem, but the logic of it as a solution is valid.

On the other hand, what you say (and which I brought up before the derail) raises the question of whether we should dismantle anything that resembles Penn State football culture. If the 'soil' is 'fertile' it's just a matter of time before this kind of thing happens, isn't it?

farley3k wrote:

That doesn't make sense. It wasn't the culture of football that lead the Catholic Church to hush up abuse, it wasn't the culture of football that hides abuse in many families. There is nothing intrinsic to football that caused this.

It's the worship of all things football that is the culture of football. Penn State fans rioting in the streets after Paterno gets the heave-ho? That's the culture of football.

farley3k wrote:

I would think it was more a culture of "what we love is important enough to ignore wrongdoing" We see that in police coverups, military coverups, etc. People get the idea that somehow the institution is more important that normal values.

Exactly. Every institution naturally wants to cover up or ignore things that are embarrassing or threatening to it. This is exactly why the Catholic Church is slowly killing itself over the abuse scandal. There's no independent report detailing their many failures to protect innocent children and place the blame squarely at Church leadership and there's no NCAA punishing the organization.

farley3k wrote:

Will punishing Penn State really help to change this pretty common human failing?

Yes. And it will do so because it punishes the institution. Penn State the institution will now radically overhaul its entire organization and reporting structure. It will institute new policies and procedures. It will implement new training programs. It will do all that and more out of the fear that something else like this might happen and further damage the organization. Punishing institutions works because they are so conservative by nature.

Will it change the chuckle-heads that worship sports? No. They'll continue to act like idiots.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Funny thing is, this is the point OG and I were getting to in our earlier conversation before the peanut gallery showed up to derail the thread with personal attacks on me. If I'm hearing (some of) the people calling for the destruction of Penn State football correctly, they're asking for this...'fertile soil' (I guess you could call it) for that common human failing to take 'root' in to be eradicated, the 'fertile soil' being Penn State football culture?

I can understand that kind of thinking once it's expressed clearly. Killing the football program will kill the football culture: it's an indirect way of solving the problem, but the logic of it as a solution is valid.

On the other hand, what you say (and which I brought up before the derail) raises the question of whether we should dismantle anything that resembles Penn State football culture. If the 'soil' is 'fertile' it's just a matter of time before this kind of thing happens, isn't it?

In the case of Penn State's football program that fertile soil had sprouted a Garden of Child Rape. The plants in that garden need to be chopped down, burned, the ashes scrapped away, and fresh new soil brought in to replace the old, contaminated soil.

It's not quite that any institution is fertile soil for this stuff, it's any institution that doesn't have the right policies, procedures, and environment in place. The independent report about this scandal detailed all the ways the university and the people in it failed and what changes in policies and procedures could, hopefully, prevent future scandals.

Institutions don't have to be fertile soil for scandal. But that requires a mix of the right procedures and policies--ones that are crystal clear and can't be violated or ignored without someone else quickly finding out about it--and the right environment, which is a blend of the policies and procedures and the institutional culture of the people.

In the case of Penn State, the university will likely never allow its football program to be an independent fiefdom ever again (hopefully), one that valued its own reputation above everything. Preventing that from happening will likely go a long way in preventing another similar scandal. Of course, that doesn't mean that something else will happen. But we humans are horrible about preventing new disasters. The only thing we're kinda OK at is closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Funny thing is, this is the point OG and I were getting to in our earlier conversation before the peanut gallery showed up to derail the thread with personal attacks on me. If I'm hearing (some of) the people calling for the destruction of Penn State football correctly, they're asking for this...'fertile soil' (I guess you could call it) for that common human failing to take 'root' in to be eradicated, the 'fertile soil' being Penn State football culture?

I can understand that kind of thinking once it's expressed clearly. Killing the football program will kill the football culture: it's an indirect way of solving the problem, but the logic of it as a solution is valid.

On the other hand, what you say (and which I brought up before the derail) raises the question of whether we should dismantle anything that resembles Penn State football culture. If the 'soil' is 'fertile' it's just a matter of time before this kind of thing happens, isn't it?

In the case of Penn State's football program that fertile soil had sprouted a Garden of Child Rape. The plants in that garden need to be chopped down, burned, the ashes scrapped away, and fresh new soil brought in to replace the old, contaminated soil.

It's not quite that any institution is fertile soil for this stuff, it's any institution that doesn't have the right policies, procedures, and environment in place. The independent report about this scandal detailed all the ways the university and the people in it failed and what changes in policies and procedures could, hopefully, prevent future scandals.

Institutions don't have to be fertile soil for scandal. But that requires a mix of the right procedures and policies--ones that are crystal clear and can't be violated or ignored without someone else quickly finding out about it--and the right environment, which is a blend of the policies and procedures and the institutional culture of the people.

In the case of Penn State, the university will likely never allow its football program to be an independent fiefdom ever again (hopefully), one that valued its own reputation above everything. Preventing that from happening will likely go a long way in preventing another similar scandal. Of course, that doesn't mean that something else will happen. But we humans are horrible about preventing new disasters. The only thing we're kinda OK at is closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

Well that's the thing: if changes in policies and procedures can prevent this, then destroying the program is redundant.

I feel like you're saying one thing ('Penn State fans rioting in the streets...') but then saying something that doesn't square with that ("...a blend of the policies and procedures and the institutional culture of the people."). The "policies and procedures and the institutional culture" didn't produce the kind of fanaticism we're seeing out of Penn State. That's something that developed outside the institution, in the students and the alumni and the surrounding community.

All I can think is that you're arguing that until that culture is destroyed, those changes in policy and procedure can't happen. That institutional reform is impossible unless there is first cultural reform.

Yes. Getting rid of the football program, even temporarily, would have the effect of forcing folks at Penn State to find something else to do with their time, for lack of more elegant phrasing. And hopefully this would have the effect of reforming the culture that had so corrupted the mission of the school as to allow this to happen.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Well that's the thing: if changes in policies and procedures can prevent this, then destroying the program is redundant.

As DSGamer pointed out, you also need to change the fans as well. Think of the fans as an attached patch of land that is choked with seeds of the Garden of Rape. You need to sterilize that land as well if you want to keep your new football program clean of weeds.

Destroying the program (I wouldn't say the NCAA's decision is remotely like this) means the fans and alumni have four years to fill their lives with something more productive than obsessing about college football bowl games. That means they'll be fewer rabid fans, which means the Penn State administration won't feel so pressured to hide things in their football program for fear of how those fans would react.

CheezePavilion wrote:

All I can think is that you're arguing that until that culture is destroyed, those changes in policy and procedure can't happen. That institutional reform is impossible unless there is first cultural reform.

Not quite. The culture of an organization can be greatly changed by getting rid of a single individual. Ever had a boss or co-worker that made everyone's lives a living hell and had them get fired or leave? It changes the entire balance in the office.

If Penn State follows the recommendations of the independent report, every senior member of the football program is history. That's a cultural game changer. Beyond that, the report recommended that the athletic department be brought under much stricter oversight, required to go through extensive HR training, and other things specifically designed to make sure that everyone in the athletic department and, specifically, the football program keenly understands that they are not an independent fiefdom that can essentially do whatever the f*ck they want because they are the rainmakers. Again, all of those are huge cultural game changers.

Sadly, the NCAA can't do anything about Penn State football fans. Well, the only real thing they could have done was to really kill the program off so that the fans had nothing to obsess over.

But that's where the meta game kicks in as the NCAA's ruling was calculated to be just enough to protect the reputation of the NCAA and head off any deeper investigation into the racket it has going of exploiting college athletes.

DSGamer wrote:

Yes. Getting rid of the football program, even temporarily, would have the effect of forcing folks at Penn State to find something else to do with their time, for lack of more elegant phrasing. And hopefully this would have the effect of reforming the culture that had so corrupted the mission of the school as to allow this to happen.

Penn State's fans have helped create that culture by believing they have been part of a truly special place; they bought into the hero worship of Paterno, and revered their football program. Their legacy has been gutted, their school will be vilified for decades, and the NCAA's penalties were severe enough that, even if they continue to follow the program, it's not going to have a chance to be successful for years to come. Recruits will avoid that place like the plague for a while.

The culture will change, because the culture is based on reverence of a now-tarnished legend and also because PSU's football program has been so successful over the years. The legend and the success are gone. Sure, there will continue to be fans, but there won't be as many, and it's not going to be the same. I think this is a bigger culture-changer than a one-year suspension of the program would be. If it's one year, you go through it, and boom, you start building again. Instead, there's a four-year agonizing process, only after which will they have a real chance to recruit again.

Destroying the program (I wouldn't say the NCAA's decision is remotely like this) means the fans and alumni have four years to fill their lives with something more productive than obsessing about college football bowl games.

Like playing video games.

DSGamer wrote:

Yes. Getting rid of the football program, even temporarily, would have the effect of forcing folks at Penn State to find something else to do with their time, for lack of more elegant phrasing. And hopefully this would have the effect of reforming the culture that had so corrupted the mission of the school as to allow this to happen.

How was the mission of the school corrupted though? A college campus is one of the most child-free places in America. You could say they have a mission to not help people rape children, but that's like, the mission of *everything* I would hope and has nothing to do with being a college.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Well that's the thing: if changes in policies and procedures can prevent this, then destroying the program is redundant.

As DSGamer pointed out, you also need to change the fans as well. Think of the fans as an attached patch of land that is choked with seeds of the Garden of Rape. You need to sterilize that land as well if you want to keep your new football program clean of weeds.

Destroying the program (I wouldn't say the NCAA's decision is remotely like this) means the fans and alumni have four years to fill their lives with something more productive than obsessing about college football bowl games. That means they'll be fewer rabid fans, which means the Penn State administration won't feel so pressured to hide things in their football program for fear of how those fans would react.

CheezePavilion wrote:

All I can think is that you're arguing that until that culture is destroyed, those changes in policy and procedure can't happen. That institutional reform is impossible unless there is first cultural reform.

Not quite. The culture of an organization can be greatly changed by getting rid of a single individual. Ever had a boss or co-worker that made everyone's lives a living hell and had them get fired or leave? It changes the entire balance in the office.

If Penn State follows the recommendations of the independent report, every senior member of the football program is history. That's a cultural game changer. Beyond that, the report recommended that the athletic department be brought under much stricter oversight, required to go through extensive HR training, and other things specifically designed to make sure that everyone in the athletic department and, specifically, the football program keenly understands that they are not an independent fiefdom that can essentially do whatever the f*ck they want because they are the rainmakers. Again, all of those are huge cultural game changers.

Sadly, the NCAA can't do anything about Penn State football fans. Well, the only real thing they could have done was to really kill the program off so that the fans had nothing to obsess over.

But that's where the meta game kicks in as the NCAA's ruling was calculated to be just enough to protect the reputation of the NCAA and head off any deeper investigation into the racket it has going of exploiting college athletes.

Well, if you need to change the fans, and the NCAA can't do anything about the fans, then the NCAA can't do anything. On the other hand, if following the recommendations of the independent report is enough, and you can follow those recommendations even with this rabid fan base around, then there's no need to (edit) get the rabid fan base to lose their steam by killing off the football program.

Greg wrote:
Destroying the program (I wouldn't say the NCAA's decision is remotely like this) means the fans and alumni have four years to fill their lives with something more productive than obsessing about college football bowl games.

Like playing video games.

College football video games.

Greg wrote:
Destroying the program (I wouldn't say the NCAA's decision is remotely like this) means the fans and alumni have four years to fill their lives with something more productive than obsessing about college football bowl games.

Like playing video games.

Remember, other people's hobbies are a complete waste of time. Ours are always AWESOME.

CheezePavilion wrote:

How was the mission of the school corrupted though? A college campus is one of the most child-free places in America. You could say they have a mission to not help people rape children, but that's like, the mission of *everything* I would hope and has nothing to do with being a college.

It's an institution of higher learning. Not an institute of throwing and catching a ball. What happened at Penn State was that throwing and catching a ball became more important to the university than it's primary mission as witnessed by the cover up.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Well, if you need to change the fans, and the NCAA can't do anything about the fans, then the NCAA can't do anything. On the other hand, if following the recommendations of the independent report is enough, and you can follow those recommendations even with this rabid fan base around, then there's no need to (edit) get the rabid fan base to lose their steam by killing off the football program.

I meant that the NCAA couldn't directly do anything to the fans, such as fine season ticket holders or anyone who went to a Penn State game from 1998 on. The NCAA's actions will hopefully temper the rabid nature of Penn State football fan since they are banned from bowl games for a while and have lost some bragging rights, but only time will tell. The best solution--the one guaranteed to prevent this from happening again--was something that neither the NCAA nor Penn State had the balls to do: kill off the football program.

As I mentioned before, there are multiple things that feed into these institutional scandals. Policies and procedures are only part of the solution. The recommendations of the report should go a long way to correcting the organizational elements that failed and replacing senior folks throughout the university and the athletics program should help change the culture. What's up to the university is to grow the pair needed to resist its fans, especially the alumni that donate lots of money because of football.

I didn't really see any recommendations in the report for how the university can tell its alumni to grow up and stop obsessing over college football. That's also why I was disappointed in the small size of the fine. One of the best ways for Penn State to resist all the alumni waving donations around that come with the caveat that anything and everything must be done to get a winning football team is if the penalty for them doing so far exceeds what the alumni are willing to donate and what the football program itself brings in. I'm hoping that all the civil suits stemming from this scandal will come close to financially crippling Penn State. That's the only way for them to grow a spine and resist the wishes of their fans.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Greg wrote:
Destroying the program (I wouldn't say the NCAA's decision is remotely like this) means the fans and alumni have four years to fill their lives with something more productive than obsessing about college football bowl games.

Like playing video games.

College football video games.

But only college football video games released before 1998.

I kinda wish Joe Paterno was alive to see his record and legacy stripped away. I do wonder, however, if the NCAA would have had the balls to impose such penalties if he were alive.

Nevin73 wrote:

I kinda wish Joe Paterno was alive to see his record and legacy stripped away. I do wonder, however, if the NCAA would have had the balls to impose such penalties if he were alive.

I saw a tweet a while back that said he's the only person to get off easy by dying of cancer.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

How was the mission of the school corrupted though? A college campus is one of the most child-free places in America. You could say they have a mission to not help people rape children, but that's like, the mission of *everything* I would hope and has nothing to do with being a college.

It's an institution of higher learning. Not an institute of throwing and catching a ball. What happened at Penn State was that throwing and catching a ball became more important to the university than its primary mission as witnessed by the cover up.

I'll agree it became more important, but the primary mission was never corrupted--they never failed in that mission of higher education because of football.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Well, if you need to change the fans, and the NCAA can't do anything about the fans, then the NCAA can't do anything. On the other hand, if following the recommendations of the independent report is enough, and you can follow those recommendations even with this rabid fan base around, then there's no need to (edit) get the rabid fan base to lose their steam by killing off the football program.

I meant that the NCAA couldn't directly do anything to the fans, such as fine season ticket holders or anyone who went to a Penn State game from 1998 on. The NCAA's actions will hopefully temper the rabid nature of Penn State football fan since they are banned from bowl games for a while and have lost some bragging rights, but only time will tell. The best solution--the one guaranteed to prevent this from happening again--was something that neither the NCAA nor Penn State had the balls to do: kill off the football program.

As I mentioned before, there are multiple things that feed into these institutional scandals. Policies and procedures are only part of the solution. The recommendations of the report should go a long way to correcting the organizational elements that failed and replacing senior folks throughout the university and the athletics program should help change the culture. What's up to the university is to grow the pair needed to resist its fans, especially the alumni that donate lots of money because of football.

I didn't really see any recommendations in the report for how the university can tell its alumni to grow up and stop obsessing over college football. That's also why I was disappointed in the small size of the fine. One of the best ways for Penn State to resist all the alumni waving donations around that come with the caveat that anything and everything must be done to get a winning football team is if the penalty for them doing so far exceeds what the alumni are willing to donate and what the football program itself brings in. I'm hoping that all the civil suits stemming from this scandal will come close to financially crippling Penn State. That's the only way for them to grow a spine and resist the wishes of their fans.

Yeah, but that doesn't change the equation--if you need to change the fans, you need to change the fans. That said, I understand that maybe every little bit helps, but at least now there's a context for talking about punishing Penn State beyond deterrence and beyond institutional reform to the point of changing the fan culture.

And the issue here is Penn State's rabid fans don't care about winning. Penn State football SUCKED at the time of the events, and everyone blamed Paterno for not being able to adjust with the times. It's not an obsession with winning that did this. It was an obsession with Penn State football. Those alumni didn't wave those donations around with the caveat that anything and everything must be done to get a winning football team, and that's the sad irony of this: if they were those kind of alumni, the administration would have been more likely to have gotten rid of Paterno when all this was happening, and bring in a new coach. Without Paterno to protect Sandusky, and without alumni checks to protect Paterno, maybe the Penn State administration would have done the right thing.

The football program itself did NOTHING wrong.
I think that punishment should only be given to those who were responsible.

They aren't being punished because these fans were directly responsible. As soon as they realize this punishment needed to happen, they will no longer be punished because they are no longer a big part of the problem. How one cries over Bowl ineligibility and transferring athletes as too severe for child rape is mortifying. No, I am sorry, no amount of trauma would cause a human being to state that. Let alone the fact that said trauma is completely manufactured.

DSGamer wrote:

Yes. Getting rid of the football program, even temporarily, would have the effect of forcing folks at Penn State to find something else to do with their time, for lack of more elegant phrasing. And hopefully this would have the effect of reforming the culture that had so corrupted the mission of the school as to allow this to happen.

This penalty was much worse than a "death penalty". No decent recruit would go to a school that can't compete in bowl games. I wouldn't be surprised if Penn State decided to close the doors on its football program for the time being. I actually wouldn't be surprised if this cripples the whole school for decades. PSU brings in a ton of their operations budget through football, and without that money they are in trouble, especially with the 60 million dollar penalty.

On a separate note, is this penalty really ultimately going to have to be paid by the taxpayers of PA?

CheezePavilion wrote:

I'll agree it became more important, but the primary mission was never corrupted--they never failed in that mission of higher education because of football.

We've yet to see the final damage the civil lawsuits will do to the university, so never say never...

Either way, the football scandal most definitely endangered Penn State's primary reason for existence. Additionally, there's no way to determine how many professors, students, alumni, etc. were turned off by--or will be turned off by--this entire travesty.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Yeah, but that doesn't change the equation--if you need to change the fans, you need to change the fans. That said, I understand that maybe every little bit helps, but at least now there's a context for talking about punishing Penn State beyond deterrence and beyond institutional reform to the point of changing the fan culture.

Short of shutting the program down so the fans have nothing to be fans of there isn't much that can be done. The NCAA can't punish them individually and the new Penn State management policies and procedures don't apply to them since they (mostly) aren't employees.

CheezePavilion wrote:

And the issue here is Penn State's rabid fans don't care about winning. Penn State football SUCKED at the time of the events, and everyone blamed Paterno for not being able to adjust with the times. It's not an obsession with winning that did this. It was an obsession with Penn State football. Those alumni didn't wave those donations around with the caveat that anything and everything must be done to get a winning football team, and that's the sad irony of this: if they were those kind of alumni, the administration would have been more likely to have gotten rid of Paterno when all this was happening, and bring in a new coach. Without Paterno to protect Sandusky, and without alumni checks to protect Paterno, maybe the Penn State administration would have done the right thing.

It was an obsession with the football team and whatever twisted thing it represented in the minds of the fans--youth, the good ole days, an excuse to get drunk on a Saturday morning, the excuse to throw a party or tailgate, etc. It doesn't have to be about winning.

Hell, I'm still a fan of the Cubbies not because they're good, but because I had such a great time living in Wrigleyville right after college and spending summer afternoons and evenings getting hammered in the bleacher section with my friends.

For the record, it's $73 million now, as the Big 10 has fined PSU another $13 million dollars. I still think they should have kicked them out of the Big 10.

Nomad wrote:

On a separate note, is this penalty really ultimately going to have to be paid by the taxpayers of PA?

The Penn State lawyers should be going after the estate of Paterno, especially considering the golden parachute he got right before all this broke.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

On a separate note, is this penalty really ultimately going to have to be paid by the taxpayers of PA?

The Penn State lawyers should be going after the estate of Paterno, especially considering the golden parachute he got right before all this broke.

He's not wrong, though. I thought of that this morning. Everyone wants to protect the people who work at the stadium, etc. but the reality is that this is going to draw funds away from the school and probably raise tuition rates.