Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal (Indictment Post #144, "Pimping" Allegations Post #442)

[JBond]

The current players didn't know.

Which is why they should be allowed to transfer immediately. The kids did not know their role models and school officials were part of a pedophile club.

Does anyone know how much "The Program" earns for Penn State each year?

 

[joseephuss]

Connected to Sandusky, and incapable of communicating, at this time:

DA Ray Gricar, missing and declared dead in July 2011
DA's brother Roy Gricar, found floating in a river in 1996
Jim Calhoun - suffering from dementia and living in a nursing home, incompetent to testify

Sheer speculation on my part - Gricar was involved in the same types of activities that Sandusky is alleged to have done. His brother found out and was killed. Once it became clear in Gricar's mind that this was going to blow up, he killed himself as well.

Cajun can't be referring to any of those 3 guys. Cajun's opinion on the matter was modified recently, so unless DA Ray Gricar has changed his identity and now knows Cajun none of those guys could be sharing information.

Also, remember that Paterno had said he wished he had done more. He didn't say he wished he would have called the police.

This tells me Paterno did tell the police, but that wasn't enough. My feeble dot connecting skills tells me that the possible source for Cajun is a member or former member of the police. To me this would imply that the police are part of the cover up and this issue gets even bigger and worse.

 

[Stautner]

Sometimes in football practice someone on the team screws up, .. but the whole team has to run extra laps.

Sometimes in a game the LG jumps, but everyone get penalized.

The RT holds, everybody moves back 10 yards.

That is part of being on a team.

One person's mistakes can impact the entire team.

If they penalize the entire PSU "Football Program", and some of these players get screwed, .. that is part of the deal.

"The Program" is why this was not dealt with initially, ... and "The Program" is why the whole thing was covered up for so long.

If "The Program" gets penalized and impacts players that didn't do anything wrong, they will have to live with that, ... fair or not.

Like someone else said, pick your leaders wisely.

I disagree.

Schools revoke scholarships from players for poor play *only* all of the time. I played on a golf scholarship and this happens all of the time. In fact, many coaches...like the one I had...would hang that threat over your head.

That's why they are trying to institute a new rule where a coach can more or less guarantee a scholarship to a player for 4 years (unless they break rules or get in trouble with the law).

Football and basketball programs don't do this as much as other sports because it hurts recruiting too much. But, they CAN do it. For instance, that's what the downfall of Bobby Knight was with Neil Reed back in 1997. Knight threatned Reed and Reed eventually went to the media *in* 1997 about the abuse he suffered under Knight and eventually it was uncovered again by Sports Illustrated in 2000.

Anyway, you're painting a rosy picture of how college sports works...but it doesn't work that way. It's not to say that I think college sports are horrible. Quite the contrary. But, playing sports is still a privilige, not a right in college.

Always has been, and likely....always will be.


YR

Both of these opinions are rooted in the idea that if the player or players fail to live up to what is expected of them then its okay if they lose their right to play, which is a ridiculous analogy in this context because as for as we know NONE of the players failed in any way.

As for a player losing his scholorship based on poor performance, I fail to see how that is analogous in the least. In that case the individual underacheiver loses his opportunity to play, not the entire team, and even aside from that, again, the Sandusky incident has nothing to do with any failure on the part of any player, so using analogies showing how players can lose their right to play based on player failures is not relevent.

Yazuka, here's something I don't understand. You take a callous attitude toward the innocent players saying it doesn't matter that they didn't fail in any way to live up to what was required of them, but because it is a priviledge and not a right to play football at Penn State the school has no obligation to them. Sorry, but that's pure hogwash.
A coach comes to my house to talk to me and my kid, and promises my kid that if he comes to my university to help my team win games, and if he does everything required of him he will get a chance to play a sport and get an education, then that coach and that school are making a commitment to my kid. If you don't think a school should have any responsibility toward that kid to honor what it promises when it recruits that kid, you don't have the high standards for college athletic programs you seem to be espousing.

The reality is you don't recruit a kid saying I may or may not give you a chance, or the school may or may not make a sport available to you, or I may or may not have scholorship money for you - do you really think that would work?

 

[03EBZ06]

Yes, but actually they said there isn't a record of it. So he could have told someone with the cops but nobody did anything about it.

The Grand Jury Report stated McQueary witnessed the rape, left the locker room immediately, and then proceeded to tell his father and head coach Joe Paterno about what he saw.

But now he is stating that he stopped the assault (not physically), then contacted both local police and campus police, very contradictory with Grand Jury presentment.

 

[TheDude]

Absolutely well-said. 100%.

While I dont have feelings strong on either side, if you are going to take scholarships and bowl games away from programs because of tatoos, booster gifts, etc, you are punishing some kids who were completely innocent (somtimes all if the coach who violated moved on -Pete Carrol).

If the NCAA is going to go to those extremes on "systemic failure in programs", you can;t successfully pose much of an argument that this should be is less punitive.

The only kids who it would impact are the select few who may have a chance at a pro football carreer. As for the others, you are getting a free education to play a game. Take the game away, and the students are still getting a very, VERY tangible benfit.

 

[TheDude]

Cajun can't be referring to any of those 3 guys. Cajun's opinion on the matter was modified recently, so unless DA Ray Gricar has changed his identity and now knows Cajun none of those guys could be sharing information.



This tells me Paterno did tell the police, but that wasn't enough. My feeble dot connecting skills tells me that the possible source for Cajun is a member or former member of the police. To me this would imply that the police are part of the cover up and this issue gets even bigger and worse.

If that is the case and some informant was a former cop with inside info or first hand knowledgeis and is credible to this CZ member, there is almost a duty for the infomation to come out. If nothing else comes out i hope this member divulges the info to the proper channels if it is germane to the case.

I don't think you hold a verifably true fact and protect a secret in a case of this magnitude unless it is going to come out. If it is just rumor, then it is just rumor. if not, this person is hopefully communicating with authorities as much as he is friends

 

[Stautner]

While I dont have feelings strong on either side, if you are going to take scholarships and bowl games away from programs because of tatoos, booster gifts, etc, you are punishing some kids who were completely innocent (somtimes all if the coach who violated moved on -Pete Carrol).

If the NCAA is going to go to those extremes on "systemic failure in programs", you can;t successfully pose much of an argument that this should be is less punitive.

The only kids who it would impact are the select few who may have a chance at a pro football carreer. As for the others, you are getting a free education to play a game. Take the game away, and the students are still getting a very, VERY tangible benfit.

Do you really not see a difference in NCAA violations that are the result of an ongoing culture that permeates throughout the football program, and a coach who had an individual failure in reporting an individual incident that had nothing to do with how the football program itself was run?

Do you really not see a difference between players knowingly receiving gifts from boosters in violation of NCAA rules, and players who have never violated any NCAA rule?

This incident involves the failings of a few individuals in a criminal matter, not the failings of a program in football matters. As such, the individuals that failed should be punished, not the football program that was not involved.

As for the tangible benefit to the players, of course the education is a beneift, but it is not the only benefit which the school promised in order to entice them to come to their school. Most players didn't go to Penn State and ask for a scholorship, Penn State recruited them, and sold them on the idea of foresaking other opportunities in large part because of the attractiveness of playing football at Penn State. To suggest these players shouldn't expect Penn State to follow through on their recruitment promises is ludicrous.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Yazuka, here's something I don't understand. You take a callous attitude toward the innocent players saying it doesn't matter that they didn't fail in any way to live up to what was required of them, but because it is a priviledge and not a right to play football at Penn State the school has no obligation to them. Sorry, but that's pure hogwash.

I don't think I'm being callous. Callous would mean that I don't understand how it affects the players.

I do understand how it affects the players. However, I understand more how it affects the victims and the victims come first before the school. And like I said:

1) We don't know if the 'child pimping' scandal exists or not. If it does, that means that there are potential child molestors out there and we need the people in the program to cooperate with us.

2) We don't know how many coaches knew about Sandusky. It could be that none of them knew...or it could be that they all knew. Who is going to coach the team?

A coach comes to my house to talk to me and my kid, and promises my kid that if he comes to my university to help my team win games, and if he does everything required of him he will get a chance to play a sport and get an education, then that coach and that school are making a commitment to my kid. If you don't think a school should have any responsibility toward that kid to honor what it promises when it recruits that kid, you don't have the high standards for college athletic programs you seem to be espousing.

That's nice and all, but that's not what you said.

Here's what you said...

When a university recruits a player, they are not only asking the player to commit to the university, they are also making a commitment to the player. They are asking the player to attend their school based on the promise that as long as they don't violate NCAA or team rules, and as long as they maintain their GPA and work hard on the field they will be able to participate and compete as a member of the football team. These kids have fulfilled their end of the bargain, and the school should fulfill theirs

So if there's hogwash, it's on your part.

You may think the coach is making a commitment to your kid, but he's really under no legal obligation.

I'll give a good example. A friend of mine, years ago, was a top junior golfer and highly recruited out of high school.

The way golf the men golf teams works is that they have 10 players on a team with 5 full scholarships. They give each a 1/2 scholarship plus some free financial aid. When I was at school, it paid for about 70% total.

Golf teams will only start 5 players.

My buddy played at ECU and in his freshman year had fine grades, 'practiced hard' and didn't break any rules or laws. But, he finished no better than 6th in tryouts and couldn't start his freshman year. His coach told him that there was no reason to come back to school the next year because he would not have his scholarship anymore.

This stuff happens a lot in the other collegiate sports and does happen in basketball and football from time to time.

So, you might see it as a commitment, but the reality is it's not a committment and you have almost zero legal recourse in the matter.

I'm not saying the PSU players should lose their scholarships. I'm saying they should cancel the rest of the season given the circumstances because sports in school are a privilege, not a right. Just because you *think* you have a committment (and I can understand your logic because if I was a coach, I would never pull this on players), doesn't mean you legally have one and many coaches are perfectly fine with that.











YR

 

[joseephuss]

Do you really not see a difference between players knowingly receiving gifts from boosters in violation of NCAA rules, and players who have never violated any NCAA rule?

This incident involves the failings of a few individuals in a criminal matter, not the failings of a program in football matters. As such, the individuals that failed should be punished, not the football program that was not involved.
.

I think it is a little early to jump to that conclusion. This can be viewed as the culture of protecting the football program contributing to these incidents happening. That is a failing in football matters.

People get laid off all the time when companies go under. They may work hard and do all the right things, but the company itself has problems and the worker suffers. This could be similar to the current players or recruits at Penn St. Sure they didn't cause any of this, but they could possibly suffer repercussions of the football program or schools actions. Sucks, but it happens.

 

[JBond]

Do you really not see a difference in NCAA violations that are the result of an ongoing culture that permeates throughout the football program, and a coach who had an individual failure in reporting an individual incident that had nothing to do with how the football program itself was run?

Do you really not see a difference between players knowingly receiving gifts from boosters in violation of NCAA rules, and players who have never violated any NCAA rule?

This incident involves the failings of a few individuals in a criminal matter, not the failings of a program in football matters. As such, the individuals that failed should be punished, not the football program that was not involved.

As for the tangible benefit to the players, of course the education is a beneift, but it is not the only benefit which the school promised in order to entice them to come to their school. Most players didn't go to Penn State and ask for a scholorship, Penn State recruited them, and sold them on the idea of foresaking other opportunities in large part because of the attractiveness of playing football at Penn State. To suggest these players shouldn't expect Penn State to follow through on their recruitment promises is ludicrous.

It probably did not occur to the NCAA to have to have a rule against protecting child molesters. Maybe they should add something simple like: schools will not allow child molesters free reign and lie about it for decades on NCAA member campuses.

 

[03EBZ06]

The chief administrative officer of the Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio says if Penn State wins the Big Ten title, the Nittany Lions will be free to play in the top-tier postseason game as far as he's concerned.
Kevin Ash said Thursday that the Rose Bowl would let the Big Ten decide if there is a reason its champion shouldn't play the Pac-12 winner in Pasadena, Calif., on Jan. 2.

"Whoever the champions are," Ash said, "we'll welcome with open arms."

There have been calls for Penn State to decline a bowl bid in the aftermath of the child sex-abuse scandal involving former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. The scandal led to the firings of coach Joe Paterno and the school president.

New Penn State president Rod Erickson didn't give a definitive answer last week when asked about a prospective bowl bid.

"We'll wait and see at the appropriate time what decision is made," Erickson said. "At this point, the expectation would be where they deserve to play, they will play."


http://espn.go.com/college-football...wl-welcome-penn-state-nittany-lions-earns-bid

 

[Stautner]

It probably did not occur to the NCAA to have to have a rule against protecting child molesters. Maybe they should add something simple like: schools will not allow child molesters free reign and lie about it for decades on NCAA member campuses.

No, I'm sure it didn't because being a criminal law enforcement agency was never their charge, and there were already bodies of authority in place to deal with child molesters.

I have no problem with the NCAA having a moral code of conduct for individuals to abide by, as long as if an individual fails to abide by it the individual is the one who pays for it.

Again, this was a matter of individual failings that had nothing to do with how the football program was run. It happened that the incident occurred in football facilities, which are also athletic department facilities, which are also Penn State university facilities, which are also State of Pennsylvania facilites. Should the football program, the athletic department, the University and the entire state of Pennsylvania be punished because the incident that was covered up happened in a facility under their jurisdiction?

 

[TheDude]

Do you really not see a difference in NCAA violations that are the result of an ongoing culture that permeates throughout the football program, and a coach who had an individual failure in reporting an individual incident that had nothing to do with how the football program itself was run?

Do you really not see a difference between players knowingly receiving gifts from boosters in violation of NCAA rules, and players who have never violated any NCAA rule?

This incident involves the failings of a few individuals in a criminal matter, not the failings of a program in football matters. As such, the individuals that failed should be punished, not the football program that was not involved.

As for the tangible benefit to the players, of course the education is a beneift, but it is not the only benefit which the school promised in order to entice them to come to their school. Most players didn't go to Penn State and ask for a scholorship, Penn State recruited them, and sold them on the idea of foresaking other opportunities in large part because of the attractiveness of playing football at Penn State. To suggest these players shouldn't expect Penn State to follow through on their recruitment promises is ludicrous.

I see a difference between "gifts" to recruit a blue chip athelete and a program that knew about child abuse on premises since 1998 and did .....

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Players are recruited by coaches all the time (John Calliperi) who get programs in trouble, leave, and successors and players have to deal with. Innocent players get punished all the time - to state otherwise is ludicrous. if you want to figure out a "fairer" way in those situations, fine. but we are where we are

I'll say this, if I had to read about Penn St getting 10 scholarships reduced because of "players selling memorabilia" or a institutional knowledge of keeping a pedaphile on campus for 9-12 years (at least) - I don;t hesitate to say which i would rather read about.

But the opposite happened and to for the NCAA to say "you got this, right" is a little hard to swallow.

Innocent people have to pay for the sins of others everyday - business, finance, family, school, etc.

Cancelling games hits Penn State a helluva lot harder than the "kids" who got a free education. The ONLY kids who really get hurt are 1-2 NFL prospects.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Both of these opinions are rooted in the idea that if the player or players fail to live up to what is expected of them then its okay if they lose their right to play, which is a ridiculous analogy in this context because as for as we know NONE of the players failed in any way.

No, my opinion, or example in this case, was that sometimes on teams all suffer even though only one made the mistake.

I am betting that every coach knew something was up with Sandusky, .. and maybe even some fifth year seniors.

Whisper whisper, .. can you keep a secret, .. don't tell anyone, .. you didn't hear this from me, .. you'll never guess what I heard about Sandusky, on and on.

People knew.

They need a new coach as soon as possible, and let him bring in his own staff.

Every existing coach has to go.

If even one victim sees even one coach still there that he saw while he was with Sandusky he will know.

 

[TheDude]

No, I'm sure it didn't because being a criminal law enforcement agency was never their charge, and there were already bodies of authority in place to deal with child molesters.

I have no problem with the NCAA having a moral code of conduct for individuals to abide by, as long as if an individual fails to abide by it the individual is the one who pays for it.

Again, this was a matter of individual failings that had nothing to do with how the football program was run. It happened that the incident occurred in football facilities, which are also athletic department facilities, which are also Penn State university facilities, which are also State of Pennsylvania facilites. Should the football program, the athletic department, the University and the entire state of Pennsylvania be punished because the incident that was covered up happened in a facility under their jurisdiction?

That's cute and all, but the "football institution" similar to the protection in the Catholic church is fundamentally why and how this was covered up/secret for so long.

The sheer numbers of people witnessed "something" and the duration of it makes it land primarily on the football program. Football coaches blew it off and that could only occured in an environment where the instution was bigger than an indvidual.

Head coaches (much less Paterno) are never fired in the middle of the season
based on "booster gift" charges. The fact this was done in a day or so says something about the program.

If the university president alone, with no football connection, was the suspect, then the foorball program is completely absolved. The football program touted would be the cornerstone of "all that is right" with the university. Again this happened WITHIN FOOTBALL PROGRAM - Not the Liberal arts department. Just because you like to watch the team is really as far removed from concern as it gets


The FOOTBALL PROGRAM FAILED the (8-200?) victims. failing the "recruits" on a game or two, is of little concern to me. Especially, when recruits are "failed" all the time when coaches leave yr1, get sanctions, choose another player, etc.

To equate the 2, or in this case punish this case less than selling football jersey, is just about as immoral as it gets - from the NCAA perspective.

 

[Stautner]

I see a difference between "gifts" to recruit a blue chip athelete and a program that knew about child abuse on premises since 1998 and did .....

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Players are recruited by coaches all the time (John Calliperi) who get programs in trouble, leave, and successors and players have to deal with. Innocent players get punished all the time - to state otherwise is ludicrous. if you want to figure out a "fairer" way in those situations, fine. but we are where we are

I'll say this, if I had to read about Penn St getting 10 scholarships reduced because of "players selling memorabilia" or a institutional knowledge of keeping a pedaphile on campus for 9-12 years (at least) - I don;t hesitate to say which i would rather read about.

But the opposite happened and to for the NCAA to say "you got this, right" is a little hard to swallow.

Innocent people have to pay for the sins of others everyday - business, finance, family, school, etc.

Cancelling games hits Penn State a helluva lot harder than the "kids" who got a free education. The ONLY kids who really get hurt are 1-2 NFL prospects.

Yes, coaches get into trouble and leave, and none of the remaining players lose their ability to play football, so I have no idea how you think this is analogous. An athlete who plays on a lesser team because there are fewer scholorships to hand out is still playing on the team, and every one of the scholorship athletes is still allowed to play football just as the school promised when they recruited them.

If you are worried about Penn State getting beneift from the football program, then have the profits diverted to child abuse prevention charities for several years, but cancelling the football program when the football program has done nothing wrong makes no sense.

I think you are speaking out of anger and just wanting to punish everyone regardless of how periferal they were to what happened - as long as there is some vague connection to Sandusky they all should be fried. It's a vindictive, rather than logical reaction.

No, my opinion, or example in this case, was that sometimes on teams all suffer even though only one made the mistake.

I am betting that every coach knew something was up with Sandusky, .. and maybe even some fifth year seniors.

Whisper whisper, .. can you keep a secret, .. don't tell anyone, .. you didn't hear this from me, .. you'll never guess what I heard about Sandusky, on and on.

People knew.

They need a new coach as soon as possible, and let him bring in his own staff.

Every existing coach has to go.

If even one victim sees even one coach still there that he saw while he was with Sandusky he will know.

Answer these questions:

1. How many schools have received the death penalty based on one mistake?

2. How many schools have received the death penalty based on a mistake that didn't involve the running of the football program?

3. How many scholorship athletes have lost their ability to play football at the school that recruited them promised based on one mistake by a coach that had nothing to do with them?

4. How does not having a scholorship to give to a future athlete cause a current athlete to suffer other than possibly having a somewhat lesser quality team to play on?

5. When a coach commits a violation and leaves, the remaining players still have their scholorships and a team to play on, which is what the school promised when recruiting them, so how is that situation analogous with taking football away from an athlete that was recruited by the school with the promise of having a team to play on?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

That's cute and all, but the "football institution" similar to the protection in the Catholic church is fundamentally why and how this was covered up/secret for so long.

The sheer numbers of people witnessed "something" and the duration of it makes it land primarily on the football program. Football coaches blew it off and that could only occured in an environment where the instution was bigger than an indvidual.

Head coaches (much less Paterno) are never fired in the middle of the season
based on "booster gift" charges. The fact this was done in a day or so says something about the program.

If the university president alone, with no football connection, was the suspect, then the foorball program is completely absolved. The football program touted would be the cornerstone of "all that is right" with the university. Again this happened WITHIN FOOTBALL PROGRAM - Not the Liberal arts department. Just because you like to watch the team is really as far removed from concern as it gets

Frankly, this didn't happen "within" the football program. The 2002 incident happened after Sadusky was retired. At this point there are only three names that have been in anyway implicated from the program. Paterno, McQueary and the AD. I hardly think any of the other assistants, hundreds/thousands of players at that time or since had anything to do with the incident or perceived coverup. It is hardly the "Program".

It's hardly the entire program.

 

[Stautner]

That's cute and all, but the "football institution" similar to the protection in the Catholic church is fundamentally why and how this was covered up/secret for so long.

The sheer numbers of people witnessed "something" and the duration of it makes it land primarily on the football program. Football coaches blew it off and that could only occured in an environment where the instution was bigger than an indvidual.

Head coaches (much less Paterno) are never fired in the middle of the season
based on "booster gift" charges. The fact this was done in a day or so says something about the program.

If the university president alone, with no football connection, was the suspect, then the foorball program is completely absolved. The football program touted would be the cornerstone of "all that is right" with the university. Again this happened WITHIN FOOTBALL PROGRAM - Not the Liberal arts department. Just because you like to watch the team is really as far removed from concern as it gets


The FOOTBALL PROGRAM FAILED the (8-200?) victims. failing the "recruits" on a game or two, is of little concern to me. Especially, when recruits are "failed" all the time when coaches leave yr1, get sanctions, choose another player, etc.

To equate the 2, or in this case punish this case less than selling football jersey, is just about as immoral as it gets.

Wow, what a ridiculous analogy.

First of all, with the Catholic Church those that committed the crime and perpetuated the cover up are punished - you don't take the church away from the parishoners and the priests who had nothing to do with any of it.

Second, what happened with the Catholic Church was not a specific incident, it was an ongoing problem that permeated throughout the Church years and years - it was a culture that was overlooked in the church. Had it been one priest at one Church it would have been horrendous, but it wouldn't have been a stigma on the entirety of the Catholic Church.

You analogies get more laughable every time.


As for failing the recruits, see my questioins in my previous post.

Another thing I have to say about that is that its ridiculous to say that because a school sometimes falls short in their treatment of recruits that makes it okay for them to fail the recruts completely. That's like saying that because an boss sometimes is a little too hard on an employee that makes it okay for the boss to fire all employees even if they did everything they were asked to do.

 

[bbgun]

Frankly, this didn't happen "within" the football program. The 2002 incident happened after Sadusky was retired. At this point there are only three names that have been in anyway implicated from the program. Paterno, McQueary and the AD. I hardly think any of the other assistants, hundreds/thousands of players at that time or since had anything to do with the incident or perceived coverup. It is hardly the "Program".

It's hardly the entire program.

Didn't it happen on the PS campus? Otherwise, how did McQueary see them? If Sandusky still had access to the facilities with Paterno's blessings, then the "program" is culpable.

 

[Stautner]

Didn't it happen on the PS campus? Otherwise, how did McQueary see them? If Sandusky still had access to the facilities with Paterno's blessings, then the "program" is culpable.

Okay, it happened on the Penn State campus, so lets eliminate all Penn State classes.

It happened in State of Pennsylvania facilities, so lets fire all State of Pennsylvania goverment employees.

After all, if being associated with the facility this occurred at is the standard by which everyone is judged in this matter, a lot of heads should roll.