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

Nevin73 wrote:

Then, in 2002, when told by a witness that he saw Sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy "touching and fondling", Paterno labels that "horseplay".

His point was that Paterno, at least, knew about the abuse and did nothing. If Paterno did know in 1999, then I would have to assume that he is guilty of legal infractions for not reporting it and that the only reason it was reported in 2002 was that the cat was about to get out of the bag with the eyewitness.

If that's true, Paterno should go to jail. Complete aside, I have not heard Paterno use the term, "horseplay." That term was unique to Sandusky. In the Grand Jury report, Paterno called the behavior, "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

If your friend has a source for that horseplay quote, I'd like to see it so I can further my impression of what happened.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I think the question begs to be asked: if the senior staff engaging in a criminal conspiracy to preserve the programs rep, or whatever they thought they were doing isn't sufficient cause to shut it down until major changes can be made, what is?

Um... they should be locked up?

That is totally and completely not an answer to my question.

In my opinion, when the program itself becomes more of a liability than an asset, then it should be shut down and reformed. Incidents similar to these could have occurred in any department, and should result in job terminations as well as general policy and oversight reform. The portion of the football program which should be shut down is the one which brought the kids to the school in the first place. Otherwise I think they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Jolly Bill wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
The portion of the football program which should be shut down is the one which brought the kids to the school in the first place. Otherwise I think they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No school program brought them to PSU. It was Sandusky himself, through his status as professor emeritus and through the Second Mile charity that brought any of the students on campus. Most of the events described in the Grand Jury report took place off campus.

Understood. Then the incidents have nothing to do with the football program itself, and more to do with general policies and oversight at the school.

So... ....Penn State ought to be shut down? For justice?

LouZiffer wrote:
The portion of the football program which should be shut down is the one which brought the kids to the school in the first place. Otherwise I think they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No school program brought them to PSU. It was Sandusky himself, through his status as professor emeritus and through the Second Mile charity and role as a high school football coach that brought any of the children on campus. Most of the events described in the Grand Jury report took place off campus.

LouZiffer wrote:

Is the program endangering the integrity of the college or impacting academics to a great degree? Don't get me wrong, I don't care what Penn State does with its football program. However, there appears to be a link between the few people who were covering up crimes and the entire program which I don't think has been established. If it were my call I'd fire and prosecute the people, and reform the program where necessary (though I still don't see what these incidents have to do with the football program itself).

Well, Penn St. is a joke right now. A bad tasteless joke, but still a joke. I'm not sure if this helps or hurts grads for starters. It has to be a distraction to students and faculty. And, once again, it's just football. Penn State can still educate people without football. And right now they might be better able to without football being in the mix. As incredulous as you are about why they're tied together I'm incredulous as to why football is a fundamental component of the college experience. Many schools don't have football or other sports. Many compete at lower levels where student athletes are truly students first.

When I played D3 football we had kids on the team who would skip a practice on random days every week because it conflicted with a lab or a class. It's just football, once again.

LouZiffer wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
The portion of the football program which should be shut down is the one which brought the kids to the school in the first place. Otherwise I think they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No school program brought them to PSU. It was Sandusky himself, through his status as professor emeritus and through the Second Mile charity that brought any of the students on campus. Most of the events described in the Grand Jury report took place off campus.

Understood. Then the incidents have nothing to do with the football program itself, and more to do with general policies and oversight at the school.

Right. It was those in charge of the athletics (football) program who failed to report it to police.

Here is the full Costas interview (as opposed to just the short clip posted earlier).

I personally found the interview stunning. IMO, Sandusky half-heartedly denies the claims, but listening to what he actually says, and his tone - it just seems like he's almost begging to be caught and for it to end. He sounds really tired and worn down (in the grand jury report, to one victim's mother he used the phrase "I wish I were dead".

Here is the transcript of the interview, at which Sandusky's attorney was present:

Below is the transcript from Bob Costas' interview with Jerry Sandusky on NBC's "Rock Center."

BOB COSTAS: Mr. Sandusky, there's a 40-count indictment. The grand jury report contains specific detail. There are multiple accusers, multiple eyewitnesses to various aspects of the abuse. A reasonable person says where there's this much smoke, there must be plenty of fire. What do you say?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I say that I am innocent of those charges.

COSTAS: Innocent? Completely innocent and falsely accused in every aspect?

SANDUSKY: Well I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their leg. Without intent of sexual contact. But - so if you look at it that way - there are things that wouldn't - you know, would be accurate.

COSTAS: Are you denying that you had any inappropriate sexual contact with any of these underage boys?

SANDUSKY: Yes, I-- yes I am.

COSTAS: Never touched their genitals? Never engaged in oral sex?

SANDUSKY: Right.

COSTAS: What about Mike McQueary, the grad assistant who in 2002 walked into the shower where he says in specific detail that you were forcibly raping a boy who appeared to be ten or 11 years old? That his hands were up against the shower wall and he heard rhythmic slap, slap, slapping sounds and he described that as a rape?

SANDUSKY: I would say that that's false.

COSTAS: What would be his motive to lie?

SANDUSKY: You'd have to ask him that.

COSTAS: What did happen in the shower the night that Mike McQueary happened upon you and the young boy?

SANDUSKY: Okay, we-- we were showering and-- and horsing around. And he actually turned all the showers on and was-- actually sliding-- across the-- the floor. And we were-- as I recall possibly like snapping a towel, horseplay.

COSTAS: In 1998, a mother confronts you about taking a shower with her son and inappropriately touching him. Two detectives eavesdrop on a conversation with you, and you admit that maybe your private parts touched her son. What happened there?

SANDUSKY: I can't exactly recall what was said there. In terms of-- what I did say was that if he felt that way, then I was wrong,

COSTAS: During one of those conversations, you said, "I understand, I was wrong, I wish I could get forgiveness," speaking now with the mother. "I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead." A guy falsely accused or a guy whose actions have been misinterpreted doesn't respond that way, does he?

SANDUSKY: I don't know. I didn't say, to my recollection that I wish I were dead. I was hopeful that we could reconcile things.

COSTAS: Shortly after that in 2000, a janitor said that he saw you performing oral sex on a young boy in the showers-- in the Penn State locker facility. Did that happen?

SANDUSKY: No.

COSTAS: How could somebody think they saw something as extreme and shocking as that when it hadn't occurred, and what would possibly be their motivation to fabricate it?

SANDUSKY: You'd have to ask them.

COSTAS: It seems that if all of these accusations are false, you are the unluckiest and most persecuted man that any of us has ever heard about.

SANDUSKY: (LAUGHS) I don't know what you want me to say. I don't think that these have been the best days of my life.

Jeff-66 wrote:
If I'm missing someone, please let me know, but how do the actions of these men, warrant the shutdown of the entire football program? Do you know how many people are involved in the PSU football program? asst coaches, 100+ players, trainers, medical personnel, cheerleaders, and likely hundreds more. I count 3 men who were directly part of the football program, if we're to include Curley the A/D. Anything else, AFAIK, is merely assumption.

Because those men *were* the football program? Seriously, there weren't a bunch of low level folks involved. It was the athletic director, the head coach, the assistant coach, and several members of the university administration. Their exceptionally poor judgement in hiding a child molester makes every decision they made--and every person they hired--suspect. That's why you shut the program down.

And why does it matter how many people are involved in the PSU football program? Again, is there some magic ratio of how many people benefit from the program to how many boys get molested that somehow justifies keeping the program going?

Jeff-66 wrote:
Ihutting down the football program strikes me as an act of vengeance for reprehensible crimes that took place. Justice can be 100% served in this case without shutting down the football program. The university board has already taken swift & severe action going so far as to fire the university president and a living legend. The people involved are being dealt with by the school, and if found to have broken the law, I'm sure will be dealt with by the DA. I see no need to punish hundreds or thousands of innocents in the football program, not to mention millions of fans.

Shutting the program down is a form of crisis management for the university. PSU's reputation just took a giant hit, something that firing a handful of people isn't going to fix. They're facing a veritable mountain of litigation by Sandusky's victims and it will be very hard for the university to say they had nothing to do with what went on, especially when they gave him the key to the shower room *after* Sandusky admitted to taking showers with little boys.

They need to kill the football program to gain distance from all the guilty parties. They need to kill the football program so they can start fresh with all new staff (and make sure they've all been properly vetted). They need to kill the program so it's not seen as Team Child Molester for years and years. They need to kill the program so it doesn't affect them recruiting student, getting donations from alumni, or otherwise bleed into everything the university does.

This scandal is so horrible for the university that Penn State researchers could find the cure for cancer and the lead for the article would still be about Sandusky molesting kids.

I think there's a difference between this:

OG_slinger wrote:
Because those men *were* the football program? Seriously, there weren't a bunch of low level folks involved. It was the athletic director, the head coach, the assistant coach, and several members of the university administration. Their exceptionally poor judgement in hiding a child molester makes every decision they made--and every person they hired--suspect. That's why you shut the program down.

and this:

Shutting the program down is a form of crisis management for the university. PSU's reputation just took a giant hit, something that firing a handful of people isn't going to fix. They're facing a veritable mountain of litigation by Sandusky's victims and it will be very hard for the university to say they had nothing to do with what went on, especially when they gave him the key to the shower room *after* Sandusky admitted to taking showers with little boys.

They need to kill the football program to gain distance from all the guilty parties. They need to kill the football program so they can start fresh with all new staff (and make sure they've all been properly vetted). They need to kill the program so it's not seen as Team Child Molester for years and years. They need to kill the program so it doesn't affect them recruiting student, getting donations from alumni, or otherwise bleed into everything the university does.

This scandal is so horrible for the university that Penn State researchers could find the cure for cancer and the lead for the article would still be about Sandusky molesting kids.

The first is moral; the second is pragmatic. I would agree with the moral part to the extent that yeah: you just purge the whole thing and start over. It's the only responsible thing to do.

And I agree with you about the pragmatic part: this is going to be like Kent State--no matter what, the first thing everyone thinks about are the shootings. I don't think anyone is every going to hear "Penn State" and not think about this.

DSGamer wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Is the program endangering the integrity of the college or impacting academics to a great degree? Don't get me wrong, I don't care what Penn State does with its football program. However, there appears to be a link between the few people who were covering up crimes and the entire program which I don't think has been established. If it were my call I'd fire and prosecute the people, and reform the program where necessary (though I still don't see what these incidents have to do with the football program itself).

Well, Penn St. is a joke right now. A bad tasteless joke, but still a joke. I'm not sure if this helps or hurts grads for starters. It has to be a distraction to students and faculty. And, once again, it's just football. Penn State can still educate people without football. And right now they might be better able to without football being in the mix. As incredulous as you are about why they're tied together I'm incredulous as to why football is a fundamental component of the college experience. Many schools don't have football or other sports. Many compete at lower levels where student athletes are truly students first.

When I played D3 football we had kids on the team who would skip a practice on random days every week because it conflicted with a lab or a class. It's just football, once again.

That's what I'm getting at, too. It's just football. If they want a cosmetic fix which accomplishes nothing other than a symbolic self-punishment then sure, they can shut it down for a bit and bring it back. The kind of changes which would actually help to prevent this from occurring again need to be implemented throughout the school.

LouZiffer wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Is the program endangering the integrity of the college or impacting academics to a great degree? Don't get me wrong, I don't care what Penn State does with its football program. However, there appears to be a link between the few people who were covering up crimes and the entire program which I don't think has been established. If it were my call I'd fire and prosecute the people, and reform the program where necessary (though I still don't see what these incidents have to do with the football program itself).

Well, Penn St. is a joke right now. A bad tasteless joke, but still a joke. I'm not sure if this helps or hurts grads for starters. It has to be a distraction to students and faculty. And, once again, it's just football. Penn State can still educate people without football. And right now they might be better able to without football being in the mix. As incredulous as you are about why they're tied together I'm incredulous as to why football is a fundamental component of the college experience. Many schools don't have football or other sports. Many compete at lower levels where student athletes are truly students first.

When I played D3 football we had kids on the team who would skip a practice on random days every week because it conflicted with a lab or a class. It's just football, once again.

That's what I'm getting at, too. It's just football. If they want a cosmetic fix which accomplishes nothing other than a symbolic self-punishment then sure, they can shut it down for a bit and bring it back. The kind of changes which would actually help to prevent this from occurring again need to be implemented throughout the school.

I disagree. For starters it allows the school to focus on education. Football programs do expend resources and mindshare. It wouldn't be the end of the world if the school took a break and focused on building an amazing reputation as a school. That that it doesn't already have a good reputation. I honestly don't know if it does or not. Here's why. If you do a word association game with me prior to this situation the first thing I think about when you say Penn St. is Joe Paterno, LaVar Arrington, Kerry Collins. When you say Harvard and Yale I think of the school proper. Then I think of geniuses that dropped out to form amazing companies. Penn State focusing on raising its profile in education would do nothing but help it.

Secondly, while you may call it a cosmetic change, it would be a big deal for a D1 school to make a statement that football isn't as important as the integrity of the school and what they stand for. Those things matter.

DSGamer wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Is the program endangering the integrity of the college or impacting academics to a great degree? Don't get me wrong, I don't care what Penn State does with its football program. However, there appears to be a link between the few people who were covering up crimes and the entire program which I don't think has been established. If it were my call I'd fire and prosecute the people, and reform the program where necessary (though I still don't see what these incidents have to do with the football program itself).

Well, Penn St. is a joke right now. A bad tasteless joke, but still a joke. I'm not sure if this helps or hurts grads for starters. It has to be a distraction to students and faculty. And, once again, it's just football. Penn State can still educate people without football. And right now they might be better able to without football being in the mix. As incredulous as you are about why they're tied together I'm incredulous as to why football is a fundamental component of the college experience. Many schools don't have football or other sports. Many compete at lower levels where student athletes are truly students first.

When I played D3 football we had kids on the team who would skip a practice on random days every week because it conflicted with a lab or a class. It's just football, once again.

That's what I'm getting at, too. It's just football. If they want a cosmetic fix which accomplishes nothing other than a symbolic self-punishment then sure, they can shut it down for a bit and bring it back. The kind of changes which would actually help to prevent this from occurring again need to be implemented throughout the school.

I disagree. For starters it allows the school to focus on education. Football programs do expend resources and mindshare. It wouldn't be the end of the world if the school took a break and focused on building an amazing reputation as a school. That that it doesn't already have a good reputation. I honestly don't know if it does or not. Here's why. If you do a word association game with me prior to this situation the first thing I think about when you say Penn St. is Joe Paterno, LaVar Arrington, Kerry Collins. When you say Harvard and Yale I think of the school proper. Then I think of geniuses that dropped out to form amazing companies. Penn State focusing on raising its profile in education would do nothing but help it.

Secondly, while you may call it a cosmetic change, it would be a big deal for a D1 school to make a statement that football isn't as important as the integrity of the school and what they stand for. Those things matter.

You appear to be saying that it'd make a good statement and would be good common sense for a school to do these things regardless of the reason. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that, if Penn State intends to actually do something meaningful to remedy the lack of oversight and disregard of policy which allowed these incidents to continue occurring over years, shutting the football program down will not accomplish that.

SallyNasty wrote:
How will it affect anyone if a football program gets shut down? Is football a human right?

I just find this impulse to "protect" the football program distasteful when the people in charge of it, either through omission or direct action, protected child rapists.

That is pretty f*cked up.

The football program funds all of the athletic programs at Penn State. Taxpayer or tuition money do not pay for the over 30 varsity sports.

Second, because the President was fired, would suggest shutting down the whole university?

DSGamer wrote:
I disagree. For starters it allows the school to focus on education. Football programs do expend resources and mindshare. It wouldn't be the end of the world if the school took a break and focused on building an amazing reputation as a school. That that it doesn't already have a good reputation. I honestly don't know if it does or not. Here's why. If you do a word association game with me prior to this situation the first thing I think about when you say Penn St. is Joe Paterno, LaVar Arrington, Kerry Collins. When you say Harvard and Yale I think of the school proper. Then I think of geniuses that dropped out to form amazing companies. Penn State focusing on raising its profile in education would do nothing but help it.

Secondly, while you may call it a cosmetic change, it would be a big deal for a D1 school to make a statement that football isn't as important as the integrity of the school and what they stand for. Those things matter.

PSU's football program brings in tens of millions of dollars for the University. That money funds not only the football program but a whole bunch of other athletic and academic program.

Shutting down the football program punishes a whole lot of people who had nothing to do with this disaster. When a group of individuals in a corporation commits crimes you don't shut down the corporation. You fire and prosecute the offenders.

What the football and athletic department needs is a full cleansing out of anyone involved followed by some serious training and reform.

Greg wrote:
The football program funds all of the athletic programs at Penn State. Taxpayer or tuition money do not pay for the over 30 varsity sports.

Second, because the President was fired, would suggest shutting down the whole university?

You really don't want to start bringing money into the picture. The university had 75 million reasons to cover up this incident if they were interested in protecting their revenue from football. People do a lot more for a lot less.

And, no, I wouldn't suggest shutting down the entire university because the President was fired. Outside of the President and the VP in charge of campus police the cover-up was entirely concentrated in one department: the football program. And that program is entirely optional when it comes to the core purpose of the university.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, but I'd be very interested to see a complete breakdown of the immediate economic value (not talking advertising or raising the profile of the school) of a D1 Football team. My understanding was that they generally broke even or lost money. Nevermind that much of how they're bankrolled is by alumni who could be donating to academic programs instead. Once again, not saying I know, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

OG_slinger wrote:
Greg wrote:
The football program funds all of the athletic programs at Penn State. Taxpayer or tuition money do not pay for the over 30 varsity sports.

Second, because the President was fired, would suggest shutting down the whole university?

You really don't want to start bringing money into the picture. The university had 75 million reasons to cover up this incident if they were interested in protecting their revenue from football. People do a lot more for a lot less.

And, no, I wouldn't suggest shutting down the entire university because the President was fired. Outside of the President and the VP in charge of campus police the cover-up was entirely concentrated in one department: the football program. And that program is entirely optional when it comes to the core purpose of the university.

Outside of the President and the VP in charge of campus police, the cover-up was entirely concentrated in ONE PERSON.

I think you need to review what a cover-up actually means. Blame the head coach and grad assistant all you like for moral failings in not following up after reporting the crime, they did exactly NOTHING to conceal or cover up this crime (based on current evidence).

Edit: ok, I can understand including paterno and mcqueary in the coverup if being lied to and not following up counts. Still a grand total of 3 people in the football program. You paint with a very broad brush, sir.

OG_slinger wrote:
And, no, I wouldn't suggest shutting down the entire university because the President was fired. Outside of the President and the VP in charge of campus police the cover-up was entirely concentrated in one department: the football program. And that program is entirely optional when it comes to the core purpose of the university.

To be clear, it is OK to shut down athletics because you feel it to be optional? I don't understand how defunding the sports programs serves justice.

Plus, I would like for you to share your evidence that the cover up was concentrated in the football program. I think you are making a lot of assumptions in the face of very little actual evidence.

Person A: I have a great idea to make sure that nobody ever covers up child molestation again!
Person B: Cool, what is it!
Person A: We will shut down any institution that is ever connected with child molestation, that will show them!
Person B: So anyone that suspects child abuse will have to choose between any children involved and the financial livelihood of thousands of innocent people--including themselves?
Person A: That sounds like the logical connection a child molester would make.

DSGamer wrote:
I'm not saying you guys are wrong, but I'd be very interested to see a complete breakdown of the immediate economic value (not talking advertising or raising the profile of the school) of a D1 Football team. My understanding was that they generally broke even or lost money. Nevermind that much of how they're bankrolled is by alumni who could be donating to academic programs instead. Once again, not saying I know, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Correct above - they actually just about break even, and in fact take away money from academics.

Yonder wrote:
Person A: I have a great idea to make sure that nobody ever covers up child molestation again!
Person B: Cool, what is it!
Person A: We will shut down any institution that is ever connected with child molestation, that will show them!
Person B: So anyone that suspects child abuse will have to choose between any children involved and the financial livelihood of thousands of innocent people--including themselves?
Person A: That sounds like the logical connection a child molester would make.

Right, because people are calling for shutting down the entire school and not the football team, from which this coach came, whose facilities he used and whose staff covered up the child rape. Seriously?

Your strawman is weak. The argument isn't for shutting down Penn State. The argument is for Penn State focusing on education and righting the ship. Unless the football program has absolutely nothing to do with the college, in which case all D1 schools should just spin their football programs off as semi-pro football teams.

DSGamer wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Person A: I have a great idea to make sure that nobody ever covers up child molestation again!
Person B: Cool, what is it!
Person A: We will shut down any institution that is ever connected with child molestation, that will show them!
Person B: So anyone that suspects child abuse will have to choose between any children involved and the financial livelihood of thousands of innocent people--including themselves?
Person A: That sounds like the logical connection a child molester would make.

Right, because people are calling for shutting down the entire school and not the football team, from which this coach came, whose facilities he used and whose staff covered up the child rape. Seriously?

Your strawman is weak. The argument isn't for shutting down Penn State. The argument is for Penn State focusing on education and righting the ship. Unless the football program has absolutely nothing to do with the college, in which case all D1 schools should just spin their football programs off as semi-pro football teams.

I left the term institution deliberately vague. In this case it refers to the football program, because no one has (seriously) suggested shutting down the school.

It is hard to find the source, but I recall reading a couple of days ago that some interns/co-op students (not sure the exact term) from Penn State who have had their internships/postings cancelled due to the optics of them being from Penn State. As for people who have graduated, you can bet your bottom dollar that as a result of them having a degree from Penn State, they will find it more difficult to find a job.

For example:

"Do you really want to vote for Candidate A? When he has as his advisor someone who attended Penn State University at the same time as sex offender XXXX??"

Yonder wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Person A: I have a great idea to make sure that nobody ever covers up child molestation again!
Person B: Cool, what is it!
Person A: We will shut down any institution that is ever connected with child molestation, that will show them!
Person B: So anyone that suspects child abuse will have to choose between any children involved and the financial livelihood of thousands of innocent people--including themselves?
Person A: That sounds like the logical connection a child molester would make.

Right, because people are calling for shutting down the entire school and not the football team, from which this coach came, whose facilities he used and whose staff covered up the child rape. Seriously?

Your strawman is weak. The argument isn't for shutting down Penn State. The argument is for Penn State focusing on education and righting the ship. Unless the football program has absolutely nothing to do with the college, in which case all D1 schools should just spin their football programs off as semi-pro football teams.

I left the term institution deliberately vague. In this case it refers to the football program, because no one has (seriously) suggested shutting down the school.

Right. Which is why I didn't understand your example.

Jolly Bill wrote:
Still a grand total of 3 people in the football program. You paint with a very broad brush, sir.

Three people: the athletic director of the entire university, the head coach of the football program, and an assistant coach. We're not talking about the waterboy here. We're talking about the people that built and ran the football program. Like I said, they *were* the football program.

Greg wrote:
To be clear, it is OK to shut down athletics because you feel it to be optional? I don't understand how defunding the sports programs serves justice.

Plus, I would like for you to share your evidence that the cover up was concentrated in the football program. I think you are making a lot of assumptions in the face of very little actual evidence.

It *is* optional. PSU wasn't founded to have the most kick ass football team around. It was founded to educate people. This is the special treatment of football the OP was alluding to.

And I never said that shutting down the football program serves justice. Shutting down the football program is simply the only way to remove the taint of this scandal from the university. It's just the right thing to do on so many levels--both the ethical and the practical.

No one on the outside will really trust anyone in the football program since they were hired and managed by people who covered for a pedophile. You can bet that every member of that organization is being grilled--and investigated--by the university's lawyers right now because the university wants to limit its liability and make sure no one else knew about the molestation. If I was in the administration everyone in the football program would be canned because I simply wouldn't to take the risk of another scandal popping up in a few months. All it would take is someone on the football program staff taking the stand and saying that they saw something or overheard something and the media feeding frenzy would happen all over again. The only difference is that it would send the message that this scandal went much deeper and the university was much more involved.

And for practical purposes PSU's football program is dead. Few people will want to join a team that has to labor under that cloud and that will take years to overcome. Again, the best option is to kill the program, staff it with entirely new people (ones that have been vetted with a fine-toothed comb), and relaunch the team with much fanfare and hoopla once Sandusky and the others are rotting in jail.

I imagine a whole lot of people work for the football team. Players, coaches, management, finance people, maintenance staff, people who host and broadcast the football games, maybe even some cheerleaders and alumni volunteers. As I argued earlier, one of the only things shutting down the team and firing everyone will accomplish is causing people to work even harder to cover up child rape.

DSGamer wrote:
I'm not saying you guys are wrong, but I'd be very interested to see a complete breakdown of the immediate economic value (not talking advertising or raising the profile of the school) of a D1 Football team. My understanding was that they generally broke even or lost money. Nevermind that much of how they're bankrolled is by alumni who could be donating to academic programs instead. Once again, not saying I know, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

They bring in buckets of tv revenue that finances most ,if not all, of the rest of the athletic department. PSU has a large number of other teams that will be cut or drastically scaled back if football goes away.

And psu's program was much, much valuable than normal with paterno in place.

Yonder wrote:

I left the term institution deliberately vague. In this case it refers to the football program, because no one has (seriously) suggested shutting down the school.

Outside of this forum, I've not seen anyone suggest shutting down the football team. I'm sure others are in places, but I've yet to see anyone in the media, including some very pissed off commentators and editorialists, even bring it up.

Funkenpants wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
I'm not saying you guys are wrong, but I'd be very interested to see a complete breakdown of the immediate economic value (not talking advertising or raising the profile of the school) of a D1 Football team. My understanding was that they generally broke even or lost money. Nevermind that much of how they're bankrolled is by alumni who could be donating to academic programs instead. Once again, not saying I know, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

They bring in buckets of tv revenue that finances most ,if not all, of the rest of the athletic department. PSU has a large number of other teams that will be cut or drastically scaled back if football goes away.

And psu's program was much, much valuable than normal with paterno in place.

I know it makes buckets of money. What I'm not sure about is if between the cost of stadiums, gear, the money that goes into advertising, etc. if the colleges themselves actually made a profit.