Palmetto Proving Grounds

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

SCFlabbergaster said...

I just finished watching the 30 for 30 Pony Excess episode and it really got me to rehash some of my thoughts about Penn State. Many may disagree with my perspective, but I feel the need to state my case. Here goes...

PSU has gained a competitive advantage by deliberately covering up their (no need for adjective here) behavior. I say that to support my case for ultimate penalty. Does anyone think that the public perception of your university as Pedophile/Sodomy University would not have a negative impact on your recruiting? I can't see the argument that it would do anything other than at least cause hesitancy in your annual crop of blue-chippers in deciding to attend your university. And in my mind, I can't see how it wouldn't remove you from consideration from a large percentage of these guys. Who wants to be affiliated with that? Even the kids that are there for nothing more than the lure of a future in the NFL and have no inclination to take academics into the picture (which many PSU recruits do, IMO), it would be nearly impossible to be ignorant of the understanding of what the affiliation with such reprehensible behavior would do for one's future. And to make it worst, Penn State institutionalized said behavior. I would bold "institutionalized" if I could figure out how to make bold font work.

In such a widespread effort to bow to the wishes of their over-tenured head coach and take aggressive actions to conceal the truth, they were acting to protect their reputation. This is the same reputation that allowed their head coach to stay off the road for at least the last 5 years of his coaching tenure and still pull in top classes. Is this not the definition of institutional control? In 1985, the express reason that the "repeat violators" clause was enacted was to punish those programs that spat in the face of NCAA control by defining those institutions by repeated violations of the rules of amateurism. However, the actions of this program to subvert the rule of law and knowingly harm innocent children is so much worse by comparison to what SMU did that it is not even in the same zip code, much less ball park. Do you really have to warn a program to stop sodomizing 10 year old boys? Shouldn't that be a given?

Many have and will continue to present the argument that you're punishing those not responsible by doling out the death penalty. You're punishing the current players, the fans, the current coaching staff. To that I have to call hogwash. What you're punishing is the program. If they're part of the program, the way to alleviate that punishment is to distance themselves from said program. Craig Fitzgerald can get a new job. Silas Redd can earn a scholarship immediately at any number of schools. Even those who aren't on the depth chart will be allowed to earn their degrees if they cannot find a home on another team. But what cannot happen is these multiple boys/young men (or nearly middle-aged men in some cases) cannot have their memories wiped. They cannot regain the innocence of youth. They cannot fix themselves. Even after years and years of therapy, this preventable, institutionally-enabled perversion will haunt their dreams and negatively impact their relationships with all kinds of people. For these innocent victims, this program deserves to die. The program should be held responsible for the actions which it enabled, and in a very real way, caused. PSU deserves the death penalty.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that is the way I feel. I understand if you disagree or for the lawyers in the crowd that will point out that the death penalty has certain very prescribed infractions that have to occur to trigger that. However, I see this as an unforeseen event that has to be taken care of to ensure it never happens again by imposing the harshest penalties ever handed down by the governing body.

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down