• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Penn State Cult (Joe Knew)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
409fold said:
Well, I'm not arguing the Freeh Report's conclusions were wrong --- I am arguing PSU wasn't treated fairly by the NCAA. IMO, mutually exclusive arguments.
Click to expand...
If your argument is that the NCAA treated Penn State unfairly, simply because the bluffed Penn State into agreeing to something, that is a fairly weak and unconvincing argument, IMO. I can totally understand why you would be frustrated with your administration, and I could understand if you said the NCAA is a screwed up system as a whole. But as it stands, the NCAA wasn't under any obligation to give Penn State an "out."
 
Upvote 0
Woody1968 said:
If your argument is that the NCAA treated Penn State unfairly, simply because the bluffed Penn State into agreeing to something, that is a fairly weak and unconvincing argument, IMO. I can totally understand why you would be frustrated with your administration, and I could understand if you said the NCAA is a screwed up system as a whole. But as it stands, the NCAA wasn't under any obligation to give Penn State an "out."
Click to expand...

Ah, so July 2012 was a bit of a poker game between the NCAA and Penn State. You know, I don't disagree with that.

Now, the question: should the NCAA have been playing poker?

IMO, the NCAA (Emmert) was more interested in immediacy and expedience vs. any sense of prudence. More interested in being a politician vs. a judge. More interested in turning things into a game of poker vs. following his organization's established processes.

At a core philosophical level, people have different answers to the question "do the ends always justify the means?" My answer to that is "no", the "means" do matter.
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
Ah, so July 2012 was a bit of a poker game between the NCAA and Penn State. You know, I don't disagree with that.

Now, the question: should the NCAA have been playing poker?

IMO, the NCAA (Emmert) was more interested in immediacy and expedience vs. any sense of prudence. More interested in being a politician vs. a judge. More interested in turning things into a game of poker vs. following his organization's established processes.

At a core philosophical level, people have different answers to the question "do the ends always justify the means?" My answer to that is "no", the "means" do matter.
Click to expand...
I agree Emmert was probably under intense pressure to deal with everything ASAP - Pretty much every decent human being who follows college football was rightly disgusted with the way Penn State handled the situation. I can't imagine the NCAA wanted to investigate a matter of this type either. But let's not go with the "end doesn't justify the means" baloney. No one at Penn State lost their life or was forced to undergo some kind of torture as a result of the consent decree -Investigators, detectives, prosecutors, my son's school principal etc., bluff all the time as part of their jobs, and there is no reason to hold the NCAA to some higher standard as to how it conducts its disciplinary proceedings - it is basically the same with any plea bargain, which is more or less what this was.
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
Ah, so July 2012 was a bit of a poker game between the NCAA and Penn State. You know, I don't disagree with that.

Now, the question: should the NCAA have been playing poker?

IMO, the NCAA (Emmert) was more interested in immediacy and expedience vs. any sense of prudence. More interested in being a politician vs. a judge. More interested in turning things into a game of poker vs. following his organization's established processes.

At a core philosophical level, people have different answers to the question "do the ends always justify the means?" My answer to that is "no", the "means" do matter.
Click to expand...
But then we go back to the fact that this case is so beyond what anybody could have thought a football program was capable of, there are no established processes.
 
Upvote 0
Woody1968 said:
I agree Emmert was probably under intense pressure to deal with everything ASAP - Pretty much every decent human being who follows college football was rightly disgusted with the way Penn State handled the situation. I can't imagine the NCAA wanted to investigate a matter of this type either. But let's not go with the "end doesn't justify the means" baloney. No one at Penn State lost their life or was forced to undergo some kind of torture as a result of the consent decree -Investigators, detectives, prosecutors, my son's school principal etc., bluff all the time as part of their jobs, and there is no reason to hold the NCAA to some higher standard as to how it conducts its disciplinary proceedings - it is basically the same with any plea bargain, which is more or less what this was.
Click to expand...

Call it "ends just the means baloney" if you will --- but that's the crux of our disagreement. You think, at least in this case, that the ends justified the means. I think that in anything that is a judicial process, the established means should ALWAYS be followed to get to the ends.

Fair enough. I disagree, but respect you opinion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
But then we go back to the fact that this case is so beyond what anybody could have thought a football program was capable of, there are no established processes.
Click to expand...

You're getting things mixed up. There are 2 separate questions: (1) whether there was a specific NCAA rule that Penn State violated, beyond "Bylaw 10.1"? and (2) whether all NCAA schools got to go through an established process in terms of deciding punishment?

The answer to (1), at least per the consent decree, is no. The answer to (2) was, up until July 2012, "yes."

Let's be blunt here: the NCAA didn't like that the answer to (1) was "no." So they decided to change things up in terms of answering (2), changing the answer to "yes, but in this case ....."

And we're back to the "do the ends justify the means" question.

We can go around-and-around forever, but ultimately this discussion inevitably circles back to (and really ends) at that question. That is the core question.

As I've said, fair enough to those who answer "yes." I disagree, but I respect those who answer "yes."
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
You're getting things mixed up. There are 2 separate questions: (1) whether there was a specific NCAA rule that Penn State violated, beyond "Bylaw 10.1"? and (2) whether all NCAA schools got to go through an established process in terms of deciding punishment?

The answer to (1), at least per the consent decree, is no. The answer to (2) was, up until July 2012, "yes."

Let's be blunt here: the NCAA didn't like that the answer to (1) was "no." So they decided to change things up in terms of answering (2), changing the answer to "yes, but in this case ....."

And we're back to the "do the ends justify the means" question.

We can go around-and-around forever, but ultimately this discussion inevitably circles back to (and really ends) at that question. That is the core question.

As I've said, fair enough to those who answer "yes." I disagree, but I respect your answer to the question.
Click to expand...
That's your core question because that's what you decided it to be with all of your assumptions. It wouldn't have to go to that if the crime wasn't so heinous that it wasn't covered in the rulebook. You seem to think that's an end justifies the means discussion......it's really a Penn State did the worst thing anybody has ever done and they aren't going to get a break because of that fact discussion.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
That's your core question because that's what you decided it to be with all of your assumptions. It wouldn't have to go to that if the crime wasn't so heinous that it wasn't covered in the rulebook. You seem to think that's an end justifies the means discussion......it's really a Penn State did the worst thing anybody has ever done and they aren't going to get a break because of that fact discussion.
Click to expand...

As I said --- respect your opinion but I disagree. I do realize your opinion is the majority one.

Things are running their course here a bit --- so I'm done, enjoy the weekend, good luck in whatever Bowl game the Buckeyes get (Rose or Fiesta or maybe one of the Playoff games).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Delaware Buck said:
The state of Delaware not the town in Ohio. This is a where Louis Freeh also happens to live and work and his kids go to school locally. If you knew half the harassment his family has had to endure from your fans and alumni you'd be embarrassed to be associated with PSU.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that if the coverup of child rape in the football facilities by a member of the extended football family didn't do it then simple harassment isn't even going to register with those sick fucks.
 
Upvote 0
sflbuck said:
Just when I no longer care that PSU did not get the death penalty and I want to move on and just enjoy college football again, some PSU apologist/cultist shows up on a message board and starts conflating/confusing criminal law with administrative sanctions and I find myself wanting someone to disband Penn State again.
Click to expand...
I just appreciate the fact that he can at least have a conversation about it. Try getting to this point with the average PSU fan.
 
Upvote 0
sflbuck said:
Just when I no longer care that PSU did not get the death penalty and I want to move on and just enjoy college football again, some PSU apologist/cultist shows up on a message board and starts conflating/confusing criminal law with administrative sanctions and I find myself wanting someone to disband Penn State again.
Click to expand...

I thought the same at first but he's really not that bad

to @BuckeyeNation27 point, in relative terms to 409 nation he's remarkably well adjusted
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top