Penn St. put on notice regarding accreditation

[jterrell]

They don't have the right to tell them to shut up. They have a right to due process which they were denied. And you say "Shut up"? Unreal.

yes, they do have the right to tell them to shut up.
they had due process in the form of a trial for sandusky and an internal investigation over the matter.

psu keeps picking at their own scabs.

they had a very light penalty.

when u make a mistake you man up accept the penalty and move on.
you dont cry about the punishment which was largely superficial crap.
oh they took away their past championship.. my god what could be worse than that? rofl.

they could lose both accreditation (safety of youth is plenty reason to remove that) and big10 membership. those are real penalties. those things would truly suck for past and present students. so stop crying over the hand slap they received.

 

[jterrell]

What?

That scum is in jail ..... I think he got off WAYYYYY to easy.

He should have been buried in a fire ant bed.

This thread is about them taking away the university's accreditation.

You always complain about people going off topic in a thread ...... check the thread title moderator.

you arent limited to just what it in a thread if you have a brain.

the accreditation challenge is on the table is psu wants to continue dragging this out. it hasnt happened and likely wont if they appear concrite and move on. if they think they are goign to get out of this with LESS penalties than they have already they are sadly mistaken, delusional and completely moronic.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

yes, they do have the right to tell them to shut up.
they had due process in the form of a trial for sandusky and an internal investigation over the matter.

psu keeps picking at their own scabs.

they had a very light penalty.

when u make a mistake you man up accept the penalty and move on.
you dont cry about the punishment which was largely superficial crap.
oh they took away their past championship.. my god what could be worse than that? rofl.

they could lose both accreditation (safety of youth is plenty reason to remove that) and big10 membership. those are real penalties. those things would truly suck for past and present students. so stop crying over the hand slap they received.

The whole damn university didn't make the mistakes. And no, they did not have due process.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Loss of accreditation means that its students would no longer be eligible for federal financial aid and that course credits they earn wouldn’t transfer to other institutions.

Not punished at all

They have NOT loss accreditation.

Repeat they have NOT loss accreditation.

So no, they are not punished at all because the students are still eligible for federal financial aid because....THEY HAVE NOT LOSS ACCREDITATION.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

They have NOT loss accreditation.

Repeat they have NOT loss accreditation.

So no, they are not punished at all because the students are still eligible for federal financial aid because....THEY HAVE NOT LOSS ACCREDITATION.

You obviously don't know what the threat of loss of accreditation means and it's apparent you don't want to either. Keep on with your meme.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

No, it's the reaction when the person you are talking to has no idea what the conversation is about.

But here it is for you in a nut shell since that seems to be the only thing that will get into your head

They are "discussing" the validity or the possibility of losing their accreditation. Most objective viewers would see this as a threat. Their accreditation as a University has NOTHING to do with the scandal as it has NOTHING to do with their ability to teach. THAT is what we are talking about. NOT the football program. NOT the coaches or the President. NOT head of the campus police.

You see, NONE of that has anything to do with the schools ability to convey a top shelf education.

But you don't seem to get any of that. The mere threat of losing this status hurts the students currently enrolled because their degree would now be deemed somewhat suspicious. Also those who have already graduated.

You keep talking about "NOT WHINING ABOUT THE INNOCENT" but who should we stand up for? Or should we do as you say and shut up and just let them get thrown under the bus so people like you can revel in the fact you are bleeding more people over this heinous act by Sandusky?

Truth is, you do not know what you are talking about. But bash away without an understanding. Please. You serve my points well.

I know that they have NOT LOST ACCREDITATION.

Their diplomas are just as good now as they were when Sandusky was molesting students on campus for years.

The diplomas that Penn State students get are still better than a good number of Colleges and Universities out there.

Again they have NOT LOST ACREDITATION and frankly even Bowen said the following....

Bowen said the body doesn't issue a warning unless it believes that an institution can make improvements and remain in compliance, and "this is certainly true for Penn State.

 

[burmafrd]

PSU will not lose accreditation. Very unlikely. EXTREMELY unlikely.

However they should be looked over carefully because if they covered something like this up, what ELSE might have been covered up?

There is a clear record that Paterno prevented a lot of punishment for his players over the years.

Not hard to think that there is a good chance this extended into favorable treatment of players IN the class room.

For THAT yes you SHOULD put their accreditation under REVIEW.

 

[zrinkill]

They have NOT loss accreditation.

Repeat they have NOT loss accreditation.

So no, they are not punished at all because the students are still eligible for federal financial aid because....THEY HAVE NOT LOSS ACCREDITATION.

This thread is about them being threatened with losing their accreditation.

Repeat This thread is about them being threatened with losing their accreditation.

So should we not discuss this because....THEY HAVE NOT LOSS ACCREDITATION.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

PSU will not lose accreditation. Very unlikely. EXTREMELY unlikely.

However they should be looked over carefully because if they covered something like this up, what ELSE might have been covered up?

There is a clear record that Paterno prevented a lot of punishment for his players over the years.

Not hard to think that there is a good chance this extended into favorable treatment of players IN the class room.

For THAT yes you SHOULD put their accreditation under REVIEW.

Absolutely ZERO evidence of that and nothing like that has been insinuated. Further, if you are going to start looking at every player and their treatment in the classroom, there would be no big time colleges left because that happens at all the schools. I will tell you that it is a know fact that Paterno has kicked players off the team for not achieving a minimum C average. So I doubt that there is anything to that statement at all.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

This thread is about them being threatened with losing their accreditation.

Repeat This thread is about them being threatened with losing their accreditation.

So should we not discuss this because....THEY HAVE NOT LOSS ACCREDITATION.

No. We should not. We should shut up. Then when they do because these blood suckers want more blood and they get it by losing the accreditation then we can shut up about that too.

 

[jterrell]

The whole damn university didn't make the mistakes. And no, they did not have due process.

going to try this really slowly for you because i realize some people need slow.

if you are a member of an organization you give that group rights to make decisions for/about you. you can in fact leave the group but you are not allowed to write your own rules when you no longer like the group.

if you have a leadership of any group make decisions representing the group it effects everyone so everyone gets punished in some way.

as of now, psu students have been viciously punished... with losing some transfers on the football team and seeing paterno's statue come down. how will they ever recover??

if i am a coach and make a decision anyone can challenge that decision; but that challenge also means i could make a different more unpleasant decision.

for instance if a player shows up less than 15 minutes before a game i will not start them. if they want to challenge that rule i will hear the argument. but if a player says i couldnt come earlier because my bff spent the night and her mom didnt make it to pick her up in time... i say you know we have a rule about no sleepovers on game nights. now you are guilty of two rules violations and sit an additional few minutes.

same concept with psu. what happened was terrible. penalties are light. accept them and move on. stop dragging it out with appeals and more testimony about how highly paid and hand selected high ranking university representatives condoned though inaction decades of child rape.

the report found emails providing both mindset and resulting criminal actions. court documents showed the ridiculous depths of the abuse.

that is all due process and more than anyone should need to shut up and accept the loss of past football wins... same as usc did for paying players.

 

[jterrell]

Absolutely ZERO evidence of that and nothing like that has been insinuated. Further, if you are going to start looking at every player and their treatment in the classroom, there would be no big time colleges left because that happens at all the schools. I will tell you that it is a know fact that Paterno has kicked players off the team for not achieving a minimum C average. So I doubt that there is anything to that statement at all.

but you would have guessed he covered up child rape?
anyone saying anything about paterno can just stop. he was a ****** bag of epic proportions.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

No jokes about someone rolling over for sandusky and the like. That is not needed. I understand we can get hot tempered over arguments but let's leave that kind of stuff out of it.

Secondly. I say again...if someone has a problem with how this board is ran they can take it up in PMs either with the "moderator" in question or another moderator or admin.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

This thread is about them being threatened with losing their accreditation.

Repeat This thread is about them being threatened with losing their accreditation.

So should we not discuss this because....THEY HAVE NOT LOSS ACCREDITATION.

Bowen said the body doesn't issue a warning unless it believes that an institution can make improvements and remain in compliance, and "this is certainly true for Penn State.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

No. We should not. We should shut up. Then when they do because these blood suckers want more blood and they get it by losing the accreditation then we can shut up about that too.

Bowen said the body doesn't issue a warning unless it believes that an institution can make improvements and remain in compliance, and "this is certainly true for Penn State.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

but you would have guessed he covered up child rape?
anyone saying anything about paterno can just stop. he was a ****** bag of epic proportions.

The Grand Jury found he did nothing that would be considered wrong. The Freeh report didn't either. They had no evidence of anything Paterno did wrong but just made an assumption based on his position. So don't tell me to stop. He should have went to the State police originally and as far as anything else is concerned it is assumptions. Not even anyone else who could be involved said Paterno knew. Just the assumptions from the report.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Suppose an NFL team had a player who did something like this to a minor and then simply traded the player away. Should the team be help accountable? Should their wins be vacated if the coach, owner or GM did nothing about or tried to keep it quiet?

Should those wins be taken away? Or any championships they had won?

 

[jterrell]

The Grand Jury found he did nothing that would be considered wrong. The Freeh report didn't either. They had no evidence of anything Paterno did wrong but just made an assumption based on his position. So don't tell me to stop. He should have went to the State police originally and as far as anything else is concerned it is assumptions. Not even anyone else who could be involved said Paterno knew. Just the assumptions from the report.

that is completely untrue jibberish from paterno defenders. the school fired paterno for cause. he wasnt YET charged with anything because he died. you believe there wouldn't have been dozens of lawsuits targeting and naming him?


http://espn.go.com/new-york/ncf/sto...senior-officials-disregarded-children-welfare

"In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse," the report said.

Paterno "was an integral part of this active decision to conceal," Freeh said at a news conference.

Asked directly if Paterno's firing last fall was justified, Freeh answered, "Yes."

 

[jterrell]

Suppose an NFL team had a player who did something like this to a minor and then simply traded the player away. Should the team be help accountable? Should their wins be vacated if the coach, owner or GM did nothing about or tried to keep it quiet?

Should those wins be taken away? Or any championships they had won?

if an nfl team found a player was molesting children on team facilities, discussed those actions via email with a team president and did not report it that team would very shortly after discovery cease to exist.

the problem with your scenario is sandusky wasnt even traded. he was the de facto head coach. he ran the defense himself and was the main guy as joepa struggled with health. he still ran camps for kids for cripes sake.

psu just ignored it. they ignored his showering and lollygagging with young boys.

i played football through college. never once did a coach shower with us. they would use the showers very seperately and dang sure werent lollygaging when they did.

 

[joseephuss]

You obviously don't know what the threat of loss of accreditation means and it's apparent you don't want to either. Keep on with your meme.

You obviously don't know what it means, either. They want to make sure that the new leadership in place at Penn State can demonstrate they can do their jobs. If they fail as miserably as the previous administration, then the university doesn't deserve to keep their accreditation. In essence it is an empty threat because no one expects the new president and whomever else is running the university to be as completely as incompetent as the previous crew. I have no idea why people are getting bent out of shape over Penn State being told to do a good job.