Thoughts on Penn St. Football Program

[mykeuva]

Yes. The NCAA also overstepped their boundaries here. What is the mandate of the NCAA? It is NOT to punish programs where federal or moral laws were destroyed.

Of course Penn deserved WAY more than what it got. I'm just saying that it was beyond the NCAAs mandate to be the ones who forced this on them.

Disagree. Penn State is a voluntary member of the NCAA, and agrees to abide by its judgments. Don't forget, this was a consent decree, signed by Penn State. This entire episode was the very definition of a lack of institutional control, where the football program was elevated above all else, including protecting children from a rapist.

Well time for me to take the other side of the issue here. I think the penalty was an overreaction. I'm in no way condoning what happened and have quibbles with the fine or tearing down the statue. What I think is wrong is the four year suspension from bowl games and losses of scholarships for students. What exactly did the students do? A four year suspension means that players will never have the chance to compete in a bowl game during their college career. Furthermore, I think it is goin to be really hard for a junior or senior to transfer out of penn state and walk onto another d1 football team. Their careers have been seriously jeopardized. (I understand the nfl is a slim to nil chance, but this effectively made it a nil chance). There are also 10 kids who can't receive football scholarships from penn state. That's ten kids who may not be able to go to school now because of the NCAA's decision.

That's just my opinion. The NCAA has punished the students for something paterno and the school did.

The problem with the argument of "what did the students do" or "everyone who did these acts is gone" is basically that argument can be used a lot of the time in regards to NCAA violations. A lot of times, we only find out after players leave school that they were given money by coaches no longer at the school. The point of these punishments is to try to ensure that administrations exercise control over their programs, and to keep a watchful eye over what is going on.

Also, I wouldn't worry too much about Penn State players, current ones or future ones. The current ones will be able to transfer without penalty, meaning no wasting a year of eligibility. And any future recruits that would have been good enough to gain a scholarship offer to play football for Penn State is certainly going to have offers from other colleges.

[mk05]

Is this qualification constructive? Does it promote a positive discussion? Is it any different from an "IBTL" post? Does this accomplish any more than to ?

If, as you reconsider your post, you answer "no" to any of these questions, I would suggest you edit your post.

May I recommend something of the following nature:

"Folks, I'd like to go out on a limb and open a discussion to share thoughts on the sanctions recently levied against the Penn State football program. It is my hope that we will try our darnedest to manage ourselves in this thread because of the anger and passion this subject brings about.

Wilkey

PS, I know what I wrote probably fits better for an opening post, but you get my point.

You don't like my opening post?

[Ginseng]

You don't like my opening post?

Heh,

Your post was perfectly fine.

What I meant was that it was more appropriately phrased to address an opening post but of the nature that KB24 made. Clear? Perfect example of just how hard it is for compact online communications to be completely unequivocal in interpretation.

And by the way, if I had something to say to you, I would certainly try my best to address you directly. It would be the polite thing to do and every member deserves this.

Wilkey

[smll2]

Think about this a different way. Students have benefited from the Penn state prowess for the last ten years or more. They did so unknowingly but they still did; money made by the football system etc. Now that theses devilish acts have been brought into the light they have also been tarnished. Every graduate or student of Penn state is now connected to these disgusting acts.

"Oh, you played college baseball. Where?"

"Penn State."

"Oh.... (insert reference to the scandal)"

This penalty is the only way for them to escape from that stigma to some degree. They can feel like the school payed its dues and they can move on. We can argue over the severity but a penalty is necessary.

Respectfully I disagree with you. My wonderful daughter that graduated with a degree in human development and who is just starting grad school is not impacted by the stigma created by the football program/administration shortfalls. This is an administration(as it relates to football)/football program issue..PERIOD.

This is not an indictment on the entire university or other departments.

My daughter just graduated from UCSD in June. If the same happened there the agrument is the same. Penn State students/graduates will be seen as individuals and no stigma attached.

[sblevit]

Just curious. . . out of all of the people who are bashing Paterno in this thread, how many of you have actually read the Grand Jury testimony in the Sandusky matter so that they know the actual facts of what happened?

[Pilsner14]

PSU grad here '02. Tough pill to swallow. NCAA has the right to step in......but to what degree? The program is dead now for the next 10-20 years. Joepa made a terrible mistake. One that could have been resolved early in its evolution. A legacy killer that karma has a way of getting to. It's just sad and too bad on so many levels.

We move forward.

Proud and always proud PSU alum " GO STATE"

JD

[ThatAlfonso]

The $60MM is going to the NCAA, split into 5 annual payments of $12MM each - supposedly to "go toward outside programs devoted to preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims."

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/penn-state-punishment-jerry-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal-072312?GT1=39002

The NCAA won't give any of the money to the victims. But I think you're correct about the civil suits that will almost certainly follow. The school will lose a lot more than $60MM I bet. That would only be $6MM per victim - you can get more than that for burning your tongue on a cup of hot coffee from McDonald's. Penn State isn't done writing checks by a long shot.

~ Greg ~

Just curious. . . out of all of the people who are bashing Paterno in this thread, how many of you have actually read the Grand Jury testimony in the Sandusky matter so that they know the actual facts of what happened?

Probably the same amount that read the facts of the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit...

[perfectform]

Just curious. . . out of all of the people who are bashing Paterno in this thread, how many of you have actually read the Grand Jury testimony in the Sandusky matter so that they know the actual facts of what happened?

I have, but that is only partially relevant. The subsequent independent investigation paints Joe in a far far worse light. It's no wonder he croaked once all the facts came out. He couldn't live with himself and what he'd done.

[joeypots]

It always frosts me when people disparage the McDonalds lawsuit.

This is in depth:

http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf

This is a brief summary:

Sorry for the thread jack

What Really Happened?

Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages — reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault — and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald’s revenue from coffee sales alone was in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, but did state that McDonald’s had engaged in “willful, wanton, and reckless” behavior. Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s eventually settled for a confidential amount. The jury heard the following evidence in the case:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then required temperature;

McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.

Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.”

Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. From www.hottcoffeethemovie.com.

[ptrthgr8]

It always frosts me when people disparage the McDonalds lawsuit.

Relax, man. It was nothing - just a commentary related to the overly litigious society we live in today where people take no responsibility for their own actions. I was only saying that if people can get lots of dough from something that directly resulted from their own voluntary activity or action (i.e. drinking a hot cup of coffee or putting a hot cup of coffee between their legs and not in cup holder) then something of such terrible and heinous nature as this sex abuse scandal should easily result of far great damages being awarded to the victims. Burning yourself on hot coffee != getting molested by a coach.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[joeypots]

Relax, man. It was nothing - just a commentary related to the overly litigious society we live in today where people take no responsibility for their own actions. I was only saying that if people can get lots of dough from something that directly resulted from their own voluntary activity or action (i.e. drinking a hot cup of coffee or putting a hot cup of coffee between their legs and not in cup holder) then something of such terrible and heinous nature as this sex abuse scandal should easily result of far great damages being awarded to the victims. Burning yourself on hot coffee != getting molested by a coach.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

I'm relaxed.

The spilled coffee incident is simply a bad example of a frivolous law suit. Read the link.

[ptrthgr8]

I'm relaxed.

The spilled coffee incident is simply a bad example of a frivolous law suit. Read the link.

I did read the link. An old lady wanted hot coffee. So she bought hot coffee. She then failed to exercise good judgment regarding the handling of the hot coffee and got burned rather badly. The cup did not disintegrate, nor did the coffee itself spontaneously combust; the coffee in question was functioning exactly as intended and was not defective. The old lady then wanted to hold McD's liable for her lack of sound judgment. Seems frivolous to me. Which isn't to say that I'm glad she got burned like that or that I think she got what she deserved, but if she had simply exercised better judgment when handling the hot coffee that she knowingly ordered, she could have avoided the entire mess in the first place.

Personal accountability.

~ Greg ~

[khomeinist]

No. Actually the coffee was too hot and the lawsuit was justified.

Corporate accountability

[geneticdrifter]

No. Actually the coffee was too hot and the lawsuit was justified.

Corporate accountability

X2

and for some nice visual's. She was 79...

"The coffee was estimated to be

somewhere between 180 to 190 degrees.14 Ms. Liebeck was

wearing sweatpants that day, which absorbed the scorching

coffee, holding it next to her skin.15 A vascular surgeon

diagnosed Liebeck as having suffered full thickness burns

(or third-degree burns)16 over her inner thighs, perineum,

buttocks, and genital and groin areas.17 These third degree

burns extended through to Liebeck’s subcutaneous fat, muscle,

or bone.18 While she was hospitalized for eight days, Liebeck

underwent skin grafting, and later underwent debridement19

treatments.20 Liebeck was permanently disfigured and

disabled for two years as a result of this incident.21"

[ptrthgr8]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that part, I suppose. I wouldn't blame a car manufacturer for making a car that was too fast because someone wrapped it around a telephone pole. I wouldn't blame a skate company for making skates that weren't stable enough because someone fell on the ice and hurt themselves. 180-190 degree (F) isn't boiling hot (boiling point of water is 212 degree F). Ostensibly McD's had been serving coffee that hot for years; they apparently weren't getting many (any?) complaints from their customers.

Out of curiosity though, at what point do you all feel that the accountability shifts from the individual to the company? What level of responsibility do you expect the individual to have in terms of actions vs. consequences?

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[geneticdrifter]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that part, I suppose. I wouldn't blame a car manufacturer for making a car that was too fast because someone wrapped it around a telephone pole. I wouldn't blame a skate company for making skates that weren't stable enough because someone fell on the ice and hurt themselves. 180-190 degree (F) isn't boiling hot (boiling point of water is 212 degree F). Ostensibly McD's had been serving coffee that hot for years; they apparently weren't getting many (any?) complaints from their customers.

Out of curiosity though, at what point do you all feel that the accountability shifts from the individual to the company? What level of responsibility do you expect the individual to have in terms of actions vs. consequences?

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

They lay it out pretty clearly in the article, IMO. They proved the coffee was too hot to consume. So, I'm not sure there is a car or a skate that could fall into that category but, if you could prove that the product was sold in a manner not fit for its intended use then you might have a case.

The company has to live up to its claims; assumed or deliberate. This sounds clear cut but that is the beauty, some would say failure, of court; its about what you can prove not whats true.

[joeypots]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that part, I suppose. I wouldn't blame a car manufacturer for making a car that was too fast because someone wrapped it around a telephone pole. I wouldn't blame a skate company for making skates that weren't stable enough because someone fell on the ice and hurt themselves. 180-190 degree (F) isn't boiling hot (boiling point of water is 212 degree F). Ostensibly McD's had been serving coffee that hot for years; they apparently weren't getting many (any?) complaints from their customers.

Out of curiosity though, at what point do you all feel that the accountability shifts from the individual to the company? What level of responsibility do you expect the individual to have in terms of actions vs. consequences?

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Is there any evidence that could come to light that would make you believe it was not a frivolous law suit?

[ptrthgr8]

Is there any evidence that could come to light that would make you believe it was not a frivolous law suit?

Honestly, probably not. The product wasn't defective (did exactly what it was designed to do) and it's not like she was standing there minding her own business and someone came along and accidentally dumped the hot coffee on her. And even then in that case I still wouldn't blame the coffee - I'd fault the person who dumped it on her. In the case of the lawsuit, the old lady dumped the coffee on herself. So I'd find her at fault. That obviously doesn't change the outcome of that lawsuit, of course. It's simply that I don't agree with the outcome for the reasons I gave previously.

But it's Friday and I've only got 45 mins to go before I can leave for the weekend, so I'm already thinking about the first drink and cigar of the evening.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[Freefallguy]

i'd rather have seen him alive to see the results of his actions and the humiliation he has brought on himself, his family (which is the only unfair aspect probably) and his school.

Ken- you and I have had our civil disagreements but you couldn't be more spot on.