• 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
http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/03/fan_line_10.html

From Pennlive.com:

IT SEEMS LIKE James Franklin at Penn State, with his handling of everything internally, sounds more like Paterno, Curley and Spanier all over again. The sanctions on Penn State were warranted.

I DOUBT THAT it would help much, but would someone please explain to the Penn State crowd that the sun does not rise and set in State College.
Click to expand...

No wonder the author is anonymous.
 
Upvote 0
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/03/19/4092307/penn-state-trustee-jesse-arnelle.html

And great to see that the alums are cleaning house and setting things straight:

Penn State trustee Jesse Arnelle quits bid for re-election

It’s not immediately known why Arnelle pulled out of the race, although the former All-American Nittany Lion basketball player faced a formidable challenge in his bid for re-election. None of the incumbents have been re-elected since the Jerry Sandusky scandal erupted and the board, including Arnelle, voted to fire coach Joe Paterno.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
http://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=171907688&mid=171907688&sid=890&style=2

Gerry DiNardo on campus: "I believe the NCAA will allow PSU to go bowling" Reply
RT @GerryDiNardo: BTN Spring Practice Tour #PennState I believe the NCAA will allow PSU to go bowling this year. We'll know in August.
Click to expand...

The seniors on this team deserve that opportunity
Click to expand...

Personally, I think not going to a bowl this year will emphasize how unfair and extreme the sanctions were. Even with going to a bowl game this next year, the sanctions had well beyond 3 years of impact.
Click to expand...

Wow, how gracious of the frauds to "allow" us to go bowling...... Somebody should take a small nuclear weapon and send the NCAA to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Click to expand...

I love this belief that their players are the victims. They didn't do anything wrong; why are they being punished? The problem with that thought process is that they really AREN'T being punished. They had the chance to jump ship a couple of years ago, and chose not to. This is no different from Johnny Five-Star choosing to not play football in college, but instead pursue his degree in egging the neighbor's house. Does HE deserve a bowl game? He chose to not play football, just like the Penn State players chose to not play football for a bowl-elligible team.

I'm not going to argue for or against the NCAA letting Penn State play in a bowl game this year. But for the sake of their fans, I hope they don't play in a bowl game. Or.. HA! I hope they're allowed by the NCAA, but they don't win enough games to be elligible.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
http://bwi.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=36&tid=171907688&mid=171907688&sid=890&style=2

I love this belief that their players are the victims. They didn't do anything wrong; why are they being punished? The problem with that thought process is that they really AREN'T being punished. They had the chance to jump ship a couple of years ago, and chose not to.
Click to expand...
The bigger problem with that thought process is that it is implicitly based on the idea that organizational punishment is inherently wrong. When leaders of an organization commit crimes in furtherance of the organization, it is routine and proper to punish the organization, not just the individuals involved. While I agreed with giving PSU players the option to transfer without surrendering eligibility, punishing PSU and their football program was the right thing to do regardless of that option.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger said:
The bigger problem with that thought process is that it is implicitly based on the idea that organizational punishment is inherently wrong. When leaders of an organization commit crimes in furtherance of the organization, it is routine and proper to punish the organization, not just the individuals involved. While I agreed with giving PSU players the option to transfer without surrendering eligibility, punishing PSU and their football program was the right thing to do regardless of that option.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. You need to punish the football program. You can't just punish the head coach (to put this into a general context, instead of this specific case). The school can fire him easily and tell the next guy that he needs to hide his crap better. And, in the case where the president also is involved (like the Penn State one), you need to punish the university. In this case, they fined the school something like $50 million and banned them from postseason play. But I think they shouldn't punish the players. They came into the system not knowing there was anything going on. A free transfer was the way to avoid penalizing the players. I was actually in favor of allowing the teams that accept Penn State transfers to increase their maximum number of scholarships, with a maximum of 2 or 3. That way, if a player's Plan B was to go to Institute for Nerdflingers University, INU wouldn't reject him on the grounds that they already have 85 scholarship players.

Also, I used to hear that the scholarship reductions at Penn State would mean that 10 players every year, who would have gotten a college education, were going to be turned away. Ha. If the school were really interested in educating these kids, they'd give out 10 more academic scholarships each year.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
Absolutely. You need to punish the football program...But I think they shouldn't punish the players.
Click to expand...
Why not? What makes the players any different from the tens of thousands of other people who had no knowledge of the crimes committed, but benefited from the organizational success (such as it was) that the crimes were intended to further? What makes the players any different from, say, investors in Enron who lost a considerable amount of money because corporate executives submitted fraudulent financial reports to the SEC? In every case of organizational punishment, people with no involvement in the crime suffer some of the consequences of the crime that was committed, in part, to advance their interests. If you don't accept that outcome, it seems to me you don't accept organizational punishment.

And just to be clear, the players were not directly punished. Instead they suffered some negative consequences from the punishment that was directed to the organization to which they belonged. As is always the case in organizational punishment, and would have been the case if they hadn't been offered the penalty-free transfer option. That they were offered that option was an act of mercy, but not an essential one to the basic principle.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top