Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Should Penn State Get The Death Penalty?

67 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Tensor' timestamp='1343061101' post='1833435']
Then take all penalties out of college athletics.

Fans at Miami are suffering/going to suffer from the actions of a few players.

USC fans have had to deal with sanctions against their teams.

OSU fans are dealing with that now as well.

SMU fans had to endure a death penalty.

Sucks for the fans, but if you don't punish this, you can't punish anything ever again.
[/quote]

I disagree. Fans, though they pay money, are nothing but spectators. If they don't like what they see, they don't have to watch. Infractions should always be peanalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Were any of those wins in the national title game? When was PSU's last title?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Brooklyn Bully' timestamp='1343062856' post='1833448']
I disagree. Fans, though they pay money, are nothing but spectators. If they don't like what they see, they don't have to watch. Infractions should always be peanalized.
[/quote]Yeah...that was my point.

I was disagreeing with the argument that its not fair to fans/other players/etc because if you use that argument, then you should never levy penalties against anyone, yet I never see anyone disagreeing with the sanctions against USC, OSU, Miami, or UNC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Let's keep the apples with the apples and the oranges with the oranges. The sanctions against UNC, OSU, USC and Miami were directly related to players and their actions, either on or off the field. Granted, in nearly every one of these specific situations, players who weren't even part of the team are being unduly punished.

The Penn State situation had nothing to do with any of the players and, in that context, the NCAA should have made sure that the punishment and sanctions fall directly upon the school and not the program.

Fines? Okay, that may be the stiffest penalty of all. No bowl games? Sure, although they probably weren't going to be invited to one regardless.

Vacating wins? Tell me who that effects [i]besides[/i] the players who won those games? Nobody. And nobody will care because every one of the players on those teams will know, as did their opponents, what the final score read on the scoreboard when the game ended. Really? Taking away wins? What for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The forfeits were to strike Paternos name from the record book
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Panthro' timestamp='1343081251' post='1834147']
The forfeits were to strike Paternos name from the record book
[/quote]

Exactly. The purpose of vacating the wins was to strike his legacy.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Still think they should take the year off then come back

I was reading/listening somewhere that this was how the NCAA would take the power back. A show of strength

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Panthro' timestamp='1343081251' post='1834147']
The forfeits were to strike Paternos name from the record book
[/quote]

This.

Paterno was overly concerned about his legacy, so they destroyed it. Other than the money that will be use to set up a fund for sexually abused kids, this might be the best move of all.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[b]"The forfeits were to strike Paternos name from the record book."[/b]
[b]"Exactly. The purpose of vacating the wins was to strike his legacy."[/b]
[b]"Paterno was overly concerned about his legacy, so they destroyed it"[/b]

Not buying it. If this was the case, then why not strike his entire legacy and forfeit every win since 1966? Or, if the earliest reports of abuse are now going back to the 70's, why not strike every win from that point?

If you're going to "destroy someone's legacy," destroy it, don't half-ass it by taking away wins for 14 years of a 46-year career. Child, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Anybodyhome' timestamp='1343085138' post='1834263']
[b]"The forfeits were to strike Paternos name from the record book."[/b]
[b]"Exactly. The purpose of vacating the wins was to strike his legacy."[/b]
[b]"Paterno was overly concerned about his legacy, so they destroyed it"[/b]

Not buying it. If this was the case, then why not strike his entire legacy and forfeit every win since 1966? Or, if the earliest reports of abuse are now going back to the 70's, why not strike every win from that point?

If you're going to "destroy someone's legacy," destroy it, don't half-ass it by taking away wins for 14 years of a 46-year career. Child, please.
[/quote]

Because that's when the cover up started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So, what about the period between 1974 and 1998? Now there are more victims going back to 1974...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Definately agree with taking away the wins. Always thought it was stupid to punish current players and coaches for something someone else did on the team that is no longer there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites