• 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
OSUK said:
Don't call me naive. I am probably 1.5-2 times most of you guys' age. I have run a business for 25 years. I have been happily married for 30. I have raised two quality kids to adulthood. I will be a grandfather soon. I have volunteered to help in adult prisons, and I mentor boys through the juvenile court in my county. I have lived and seen a lot of other people live successfully and not. Does that make me infallible? Nope, but it makes the idea that I am naive, well, sophistic.
Click to expand...
Age and life experience has nothing to do with whether or not you are naive about an issue. You wanna play the "age and life experience" game? Fine. I'm 56, spent 26 years in the military and another 12 in military-supporting IT contractor positions. I also have raised two quality kids to adulthood (aged 34 and 30). During this time I've learned there is no perfect way to hand down punishment to a group, organization, or institution...virtually always there will be some "unfair" collateral effects. Tough shit. Back in Okinawa in 1995, three sailors gang-raped a middle school girl. The local area residents were understandably livid. Although no USAF personnel were involved, our base commander instituted a curfew for going off-base for several weeks...the only people who could go off base were those who lived off base and for official duty travel between our base and other facilities on the island. Was it fair to place severe restrictions on an entire base of about 25,000 military, sivilian, and dependent personnel when they had absolutely nothing to do with the crime? probably not. But, guess what? It didn't matter whether it seemed fair or not. Based on the situation, it was infortunately neccessary.

You don't want "innocent" members of an group, organization, or institution punished? Then make sure no one in that group, organization, or institution fucks up to the degree that Ped State did. This ain't a couple players selling/trading their own shit for a few bucks. This was a sustained institutional coverup of numerous heinous acts committed by a high-position member of the school's football coaching staff, which was facilitated by blind desire to protect the continued image of its football program and dictatorial head coach.
 
Upvote 0
OSUK said:
Don't call me naive. I am probably 1.5-2 times most of you guys' age. I have run a business for 25 years. I have been happily married for 30. I have raised two quality kids to adulthood. I will be a grandfather soon. I have volunteered to help in adult prisons, and I mentor boys through the juvenile court in my county. I have lived and seen a lot of other people live successfully and not. Does that make me infallible? Nope, but it makes the idea that I am naive, well, sophistic.

And that is all I have to say on the matter. If any of you guys want to argue with that or you don't understand, I won't be able to help you.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you're naive, you certainly are not well-versed when it comes to forming a logical argument. And despite the fact that you claim to be 1.5-2 times most posters' ages around here, I see that you're still childishly refusing to address the point that is the downfall of your whole "innocent players" argument. If you need a reminder of that point that you refuse to address, and would like to actually face a counterargument like an adult, check out post #10708 in this thread.
 
Upvote 0
Analogies are the playground of sophistry - and the ways that yours doesn't work are too numerous to deal with. But I will offer one that I think comes closer to the Penn State situation. You are a mid or lower level employee in a mid-sized company. There are executives above you that are involved in fraud. You were never aware of the exact nature of what they were doing, but you heard rumors and maybe had some suspicions. You actually participated in executing the fraud unknowinly, and benefitted from it because you made bonuses based on the profits your employer made from the fraud. The fraud gets exposed and the executives are prosecuted - the principal guilty parties are held accountable. In addition, the company gets sued, has to file banruptcy, and folds - you lose your job. That's life. You suffer because of what others have done.

But that's different than what is being advocated here by some. They want the princpals of the crime prosecuted, plus they want the controllng authority to directly sanction you and all of the mid-lower level employees. There was a culture in the company that the fraud occured in, the employees were part of that culture, and worse, they benefited from the crime. So, the court is going to give you and your peers a short jail sentence and you are going to be fined for your association with those who committed the fraud - not as severe of a punishment as the principals, but enough to satisfy the desire to punish the culture.
Click to expand...

I will disagree entirely with this analogy in that you have the roles swapped. The fraud is being perpetrated by the mid-level manager who has the whistle blown on him by a co-worker and the CEO finds out. Maybe CEO-Pa knows how bad the fraud is, maybe he just knows it is something shady - but either way, definitely wrong. His response is not to call the police and fire the employee -- it is to wait a couple days (while more fraud may be committed), then consult with the legal department, President, and VP before determining that he doesn't really care about the fraud being committed as long as it doesn't tarnish the company's reputation. It cannot be permitted for it to be committed in his office building. He has security escort the perpetrator off the premises and tell him he is not welcome back (although the perpetrator continues to stop by on a weekly basis) and gives the whistle-blower a big promotion so that he will keep quiet about the fraud that occurred. For 10 years, the company continues to profit from it's pristine image that would have been greatly tarnished by such a scandal.

When it finally hits the fan, the perpetrator goes to jail and the CEO, President, and VP all lose their jobs. Is that enough punishment? To me, it is NOT enough. The company, including these particular individuals, has benefited immensely from this behavior and the company as whole, should also be punished for profiting from this behavior. Isn't this exactly what we are seeing with Chase and BOA right now? That there has to be a deterrent in place that will effectively discourage people from doing immoral and illegal things for short-term benefit, knowing that the eventual punishment will pale in comparison?

Entities HAVE to be held responsible for the actions of it's employees and members or they will just turn a blind eye to everything in order to maintain plausible deniability.
 
Upvote 0
OSUK said:
Bottom line is that Penn State got hammered: lost their coach, AD, president, etc. 4 year bowl ban, fined $60M and they were made into a FCS team with their scholarship reductions.
Click to expand...

You feel that the sentence was too harsh, and no one is going to convince you otherwise. Many in here feel that the sentence was not harsh enough, and no one is going to convince them otherwise. Unless there are people in this group who were involved in the original sanctions, or in the reduction of them, it really doesn't matter what we think in here. Everyone in here hears and understands what the other is saying. Can't we just leave it at that?
 
Upvote 0
These punishments need to have a deterrent to ensure schools are willing to fully police themselves. If you only punish those actually involved the schools can wipe their hands clean after every transgression. Do you know what that leads to? Big hint, its already happening. Deny Deny Deny, cover up and hide it. and why not? If the "culture" of a university condones amoral behavior then coaches and admin with naturally be molded to fit that mentality. You do not change a culture just by slapping those who are leaving and allowing their roles to be filled by new scum. The students, the alumni, and boosters all NEED to feel the punishment. Hopefully next time they will police themselves to prevent feeling that pain again.
 
Upvote 0
OSUK said:
The guilty have been punished and so have the not guilty - and will continue to be for years into the future.
Click to expand...
Nobody currently playing or coaching for Penn State is being punished, nobody. Every last one of them made the decision to be there fully knowing the ramifications of their choice. They can live with it. So what if their lot in life as a result of that choice isn't as nice as if they chose differently. So what if they can't play in a bowl game or recruit the same level of talent. They knew that when they made the choice. I shed no tears for them.
 
Upvote 0
OSUK said:
This reminds me of bickering married couples I've had the misfortune of listening to - talking past each other, putting words into the other's mouth, distorting and mischaracterizing what is said, making up things to make their point, acting like their incredible bias has no effect on the conclusions they are making, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Bottom line is that Penn State got hammered: lost their coach, AD, president, etc. 4 year bowl ban, fined $60M and they were made into a FCS team with their scholarship reductions. Easing the scholly reductions does not mean they are getting off light - unless your starting point is that you wanted the program destroyed. The guilty have been punished and so have the not guilty - and will continue to be for years into the future.

I think you guys are astronomically ridiculous in the stance you are taking on this. I think you are trading an outcome you wanted in exchange for applying principles being applied PSU that you would hate being applied to yourselves or Ohio State. You think that I... well, I don't know what you think because I have expressed it as well as I can, but I can't get anyone to actually understand or address the substance of the argument. Regardless, it won't change anything to continue it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% about the ridiculous stances on this board. It's ironic that many Buckeye fans are just as block-headed in their desire to see PSU's football program get nuked as some PSU fans are delusional to think that there was no wrongdoing on their side.

It's the same lack of objectivity that we dealt with from opposing fans over Tattoo-gate. You're wasting your time trying to talk to sense to people who have already made up their minds, and no amount of logic is going to make a difference.
 
Upvote 0
There is a reason that Penn State wanted the NCAA use the Freeh report as their only document on what was going on in the football program and not let the NCAA do more digging into how things were truly run. Joe was very far from being on the up and up with the rules. Those of you who can't put 2 and 2 together as to why the LOIC was warranted (big time) have their head in the sand. I know some old farts (i mean OLD farts) who played for PSU way back when Joe was just an assistant, and not one of them really liked the guy. I have heard some stories from them, believe me.

Seriously, if they had nothing to hide and thought the Freeh report was bogus, why mot let the NCAA do their own investigation? There is a reason they said "please use this damning report and don't investigate further." They knew there were more egregious penalties coming if the NCAA had looked fully into how things were run under Dear Leader.

If I am an old time SMU fan, I am fucking pissed that the NCAA is relaxing on Penn State right now.

Edit :Keep in mind that Joe always wanted his own east coast league where he could manipulate the refs (like he did while independent using players fathers at home games) and schedules to benefit him and his so-called Grand Experiment.
 
Upvote 0
And, for what it's worth, I don't care enough about Penn State to hate them. I think their fans are ridiculous, that much has been true for a long time, and has grown worse over the course of the last couple years
Buckeye737 said:
I agree with you 100% about the ridiculous stances on this board. It's ironic that many Buckeye fans are just as block-headed in their desire to see PSU's football program get nuked as some PSU fans are delusional to think that there was no wrongdoing on their side.

It's the same lack of objectivity that we dealt with from opposing fans over Tattoo-gate. You're wasting your time trying to talk to sense to people who have already made up their minds, and no amount of logic is going to make a difference.
Click to expand...
I'd certainly be more willing to entertain the "logic" if he (or you, if you can) can explain this theory of punishing the innocent in light of the fact that A - the innocent were permitted to transfer without penalty and B - those who are new to the program, knew going in that PSU was under sanction.

Til someone can do that, I'm not taking your observations of the "ridiculous stances" as anything more than crap.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top