alexgaddis Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Guys, didn't you see the interview with Sandusky??? He was only horsing around!! He touched their legs in a non-sexual way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 My wife won't even let me horse around with her pooper that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 My wife won't even let me horse around with her pooper that way. Pocs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 My wife won't even let me horse around with her pooper that way. diddle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) As horrible as these crimes are, they have no bearing on the competitive balance of college football. The cover-up may have saved the program but it's not like the crime itself had anything to do with messing with fair play on the field. It's not like they were paying players to come there. They were just protecting one of their own. Really? I disagree. Did any stud recruit pick Penn State over Pitt or West Virginia or Maryland? If it had been labeled "Ped U" back in 1998, would they have had all the recruits they signed back in 1999 onward? i doubt it...so yes, it absolutely affected the competitive balance of college football. You say the "crime itself didn't have anything to do with it"...well, what does a kid getting a suit or car have to do with the competitive balance. The crime itself is almost besides-the-point. Had these crimes come out in 1998 or 2002 as they should have, they would have had the same effect then as they likely will now: a hugh black scar that would likely hinder them from recruiting any of the top players. By covering this heinous crime, they bought themselves an extra 10-13 years of football relevancy, additional network coverage because they continued to be relevant, numerous Bowl invitations because they were relevant, merchandise sales...you name it. They reaped a ton of cash by keeping this under wraps. I doubt "Penn State" sweatshirts will be anywhere near the top-selling items on Christmas lists this year....and for good reason. Edited November 16, 2011 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 was it the one next to the the statue of the little dutch boy? Dude....not cool. Joe didn't rape anybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Dude....not cool. Joe didn't rape anybody. No, it just turns out he was a quiet enabler for nearly a third of his run (based on only what we know at this point) at Penn State. Is that cool? http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video...ate-secrecy.cnn Edited November 16, 2011 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Pocs? links no longer work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_bone65 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Really? I disagree. Did any stud recruit pick Penn State over Pitt or West Virginia or Maryland? If it had been labeled "Ped U" back in 1998, would they have had all the recruits they signed back in 1999 onward? i doubt it...so yes, it absolutely affected the competitive balance of college football. You say the "crime itself didn't have anything to do with it"...well, what does a kid getting a suit or car have to do with the competitive balance. The crime itself is almost besides-the-point. Had these crimes come out in 1998 or 2002 as they should have, they would have had the same effect then as they likely will now: a hugh black scar that would likely hinder them from recruiting any of the top players. By covering this heinous crime, they bought themselves an extra 10-13 years of football relevancy, additional network coverage because they continued to be relevant, numerous Bowl invitations because they were relevant, merchandise sales...you name it. They reaped a ton of cash by keeping this under wraps. I doubt "Penn State" sweatshirts will be anywhere near the top-selling items on Christmas lists this year....and for good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Looks like Sandusky's recent interview is not having its intended outcome: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/n...dusky-case.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 If older woman that like young men are called Cougars, are older men who like young boys called Nittany Lions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 If older woman that like young men are called Cougars, are older men who like young boys called Nittany Lions? that is gonna get a lot of play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 that is gonna get a lot of play Been floating around on facebook for a few days now . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Really? I disagree. Did any stud recruit pick Penn State over Pitt or West Virginia or Maryland? If it had been labeled "Ped U" back in 1998, would they have had all the recruits they signed back in 1999 onward? i doubt it...so yes, it absolutely affected the competitive balance of college football. You say the "crime itself didn't have anything to do with it"...well, what does a kid getting a suit or car have to do with the competitive balance. The crime itself is almost besides-the-point. Had these crimes come out in 1998 or 2002 as they should have, they would have had the same effect then as they likely will now: a hugh black scar that would likely hinder them from recruiting any of the top players. By covering this heinous crime, they bought themselves an extra 10-13 years of football relevancy, additional network coverage because they continued to be relevant, numerous Bowl invitations because they were relevant, merchandise sales...you name it. They reaped a ton of cash by keeping this under wraps. I doubt "Penn State" sweatshirts will be anywhere near the top-selling items on Christmas lists this year....and for good reason. good post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Really? I disagree. Did any stud recruit pick Penn State over Pitt or West Virginia or Maryland? If it had been labeled "Ped U" back in 1998, would they have had all the recruits they signed back in 1999 onward? i doubt it...so yes, it absolutely affected the competitive balance of college football. You say the "crime itself didn't have anything to do with it"...well, what does a kid getting a suit or car have to do with the competitive balance. The crime itself is almost besides-the-point. Had these crimes come out in 1998 or 2002 as they should have, they would have had the same effect then as they likely will now: a hugh black scar that would likely hinder them from recruiting any of the top players. By covering this heinous crime, they bought themselves an extra 10-13 years of football relevancy, additional network coverage because they continued to be relevant, numerous Bowl invitations because they were relevant, merchandise sales...you name it. They reaped a ton of cash by keeping this under wraps. I doubt "Penn State" sweatshirts will be anywhere near the top-selling items on Christmas lists this year....and for good reason. What does paying a kid have to do with competitive balance? Um, everything. That's a way you can lure a top kid to your program. When I said the crime itself had nothing to do with competitive balance, it means that Penn St wasn't having one if it's coaches bang little boys in the locker room in order to lure top recruits. So, that's the difference. After all, the public fallout from the cover-up icould have just as bad an effect on the program as anything the NCAA could do. That's not the case if it gets found out a school is paying it's players, and that's why the NCAA punishes them, because society won't. Hell, if it was found out that kids were getting paid and the NCAA didn't punish them, it would have the exact opposite effect, people would be lining up to go there. And it remains to be seen, had Penn St run this guy out of town right away, how big an effect it would have had on the program. In other words, both the paying of players and the cover up of said payouts are both specifically done with gaining an edge competitively. In the case of Penn St, only the cover-up does. Edited November 16, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) Really? I disagree. Did any stud recruit pick Penn State over Pitt or West Virginia or Maryland? If it had been labeled "Ped U" back in 1998, would they have had all the recruits they signed back in 1999 onward? i doubt it...so yes, it absolutely affected the competitive balance of college football. You say the "crime itself didn't have anything to do with it"...well, what does a kid getting a suit or car have to do with the competitive balance. The crime itself is almost besides-the-point. Had these crimes come out in 1998 or 2002 as they should have, they would have had the same effect then as they likely will now: a hugh black scar that would likely hinder them from recruiting any of the top players. By covering this heinous crime, they bought themselves an extra 10-13 years of football relevancy, additional network coverage because they continued to be relevant, numerous Bowl invitations because they were relevant, merchandise sales...you name it. They reaped a ton of cash by keeping this under wraps. I doubt "Penn State" sweatshirts will be anywhere near the top-selling items on Christmas lists this year....and for good reason. While I agree that they probably overlooked it because of the bad publicity it would bring, I don't think the fallout would be 1/100th of what it stands to be, had Paterno and his colleagues done the right thing in the first place to put a stop to it. Yes, they still would be poked fun at and it might even scare off some recruits with the "Ped State" label, but would Paterno be any less deified there for finding out that there was a pedophile in their midst and nailing him to the wall? I don't think it would have stung nearly as bad or been as long-lasting as this undoubtedly stands to be. It might have even made Joe Pa a hero to potential recruits for putting a stop to heinous crimes. The only thing they had done wrong prior to that was put their trust in the wrong person, something that everyone does at some point in their lives, but when you look the other way and enable a man that you have strong indication is a pedophile continuing to use your facilities and show up with young boys, etc., that's what sickens people just as much as the acts themselves, and falls squarely on the ones in charge (not that there's any debate on that). Had they done the right thing in the first place, then most would forgive and forget that one sick guy infiltrated a proud organization... As it stands, he infiltrated the "right" organization, and there's simply no way to excuse that (not to say you are, but it's clear that these scumbags were able to excuse their own negligent behavior by doing what was "best" for the reputation of the university. It's also clear now that it wasn't. It only compounded the black eye into a bullet wound). Edited November 17, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Had they done the right thing in the first place, then most would forgive and forget that one sick guy infiltrated a proud organization... As it stands, he infiltrated the "right" organization, and there's simply no way to excuse that (not to say you are, but it's clear that these scumbags were able to excuse their own negligent behavior by doing what was "best" for the reputation of the university. It's also clear now that it wasn't. It only compounded the black eye into a bullet wound). I tend to agree with the thrust of your argument but if your reference to the "right" organization means that only Penn State would have covered this up, I think you're wrong. Institutionalization like this can and likely does happen much more widely. Penn State will not have been unique in putting the institution over a major crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) I tend to agree with the thrust of your argument but if your reference to the "right" organization means that only Penn State would have covered this up, I think you're wrong. Institutionalization like this can and likely does happen much more widely. Penn State will not have been unique in putting the institution over a major crime. I'll agree with that, and think that greed and the sake of the "institution" makes a lot of otherwise good people (and of course corporations that call themselves people ) justify some really terrible things... But while I can understand a lot of f'ed up logic that must go through people's minds to perpetrate most acts, we all know the one golden rule: Don't F with kids, or you'll pay dearly. Edited November 17, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 So what time is the cruxifictication? Is it on pay-per-view? The undercard should be Sandusky taking a 250 hp Evinrude in the shorts. Seriously, that POFS, why is there even a trial, I'd like to tie him down to my brush pile out back and ignite that taco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 No, it just turns out he was a quiet enabler for nearly a third of his run (based on only what we know at this point) at Penn State. Is that cool? http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video...ate-secrecy.cnn Unbelievable As bad as we all think this is, it appears to be deeper and worse than anyone can possibly fathom. Sopapilla was going on in State College? that town was completely out of touch and out of control apparently. holy chit, it is going to get interesting when peeps start talking......or subpoenaed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 No, it just turns out he was a quiet enabler for nearly a third of his run (based on only what we know at this point) at Penn State. Is that cool? http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video...ate-secrecy.cnn I think everyone pretty much knew that there were certain people in high positions covering this crap up (which is horrible and would scar PSU for a long time but is most liikely recoverable in the long term), but now seeing in that clip that the campus Police are refusing to cooperate at all with providing any information whatsoever, I now hope that this ends up completely and totally destroying this entire University forever. F them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 No, it just turns out he was a quiet enabler for nearly a third of his run (based on only what we know at this point) at Penn State. Is that cool? http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video...ate-secrecy.cnn Nope..not cool at all. Chit is getting pretty disgusting as this situation transpires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 My guess is that the police reports will eventually come out, but that Penn State is (temporarily) reserving their legal right to not release files until they can figure out what other impacts this might have in other areas. (For example, faculty/students might wonder if their e-mails would be made publically available if the precedent were set to release the files.) -- so the police department's refusal to release the files does not necessarily prove that they are hiding something... although that could easily be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 http://www.tmz.com/2011/11/17/south-park-p...e/#.TsVcLXJmncM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 http://www.tmz.com/2011/11/17/south-park-p...e/#.TsVcLXJmncM One a scale of one to ten how old should you be to stay away from Penn State? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.