TMZ reported this morning about the removal of the Joe Paterno statue on Penn State’s campus:
The statue was removed via forklift as 100-150 students watched, chanting, “We are Penn State.”
Erickson released a statement saying, “I now believe that, contrary to is original intention, Coach Paterno’s statue has become a source of division and an obstacle to hearing in our university and beyond. For that reason, I have decided that it is in the best interest of our university and public safety to remove the statue and store it in a secure location.”
In related news, Yahoo! Sports and CBS News have reported on breaking news from the NCAA regarding Penn State’s football program:
The NCAA has scheduled a news conference for 9 a.m. EDT at NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis Monday to announce “corrective and punitive measures” against Penn State because of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal.
According to a report from CBS News, a source says those penalties will be ‘unprecedented’ and ‘I’ve never seen anything like it.’
If this inside source is correct, one could extrapolate that the punishment against PSU will be worse than what SMU experienced in 1986 when the entire 1987 football program was cancelled. However, there is speculation that the punishment may be something totally different, but equally as damaging. CBS News explains:
A source confirmed for CBSSports.com that there are indications the penalties could be so unique they would be different than any previously applied by the NCAA. They could last beyond one season.
The NCAA announced the 9 a.m. press conference in a statement Sunday morning, one saying the organization would be detailing the “corrective and punitive actions” taken against Penn State. Both Emmert and Ed Ray, Oregon State president and the NCAA Executive Committee Chair, will be present. That suggests that the committee itself may have taken the action outside of the formal investigative process…
Emmert has repeatedly raised the possibility of NCAA sanctions for Penn State, however, and in the wake of the Freeh Report’s account of the program’s failures to stop Sandusky, would not rule out the use of the death penalty.”
CBS News also references a source familiar with the process who suspects that in the wake of such penalties, the university may prefer the so-called death penalty.
What do you think? Will the removal of the Joe Paterno statue help heal the community and give some level of closure to the survivors of the horrific abuse they experienced at the hands of Jerry Sandusky, and enabled by Joe Paterno?
What punitive measures do you suspect will befall Penn State’s football program? Are they deserved?
[For commentary that suggests we’re more like Paterno than we’d like to admit, see Marcus Williams’ Sandusky, Paterno, Rick Reilly, & Me.]
Photo: John Beale/AP
What punitive measures do you suspect will befall Penn State’s football program? Are they deserved? It’s odd but The Penn State football team are not members of the NCAA – PENN STATE is! The Punitive action will be against PSU for what was allowed to happen in and through PSU and PSU’s Football program. It will be well deserved. There still seems to be this Aire of because it’s football it’s some how different – exempted – can’t have been real! It seems the Sports fans can’t get with the rest of the world! I hope they get the death… Read more »
“If it was you as a child, what would you think was fair? If it was you a parent, would you believe it too little?” And this is exactly why we try and keep victims out of the criminal system: when you lose objectivity you cannot make good judgments. PSU is a massive institution that a great number of people are dependent upon. The football program has attracted donations and generated revenue through ticket sales, ultimately supporting undergraduates, graduate students, academics, and research. The overwhelming majority of the individuals at PSU had nothing to do with the scandal and the… Read more »
How about at SMU back in 1986? Did the players on the 1987 team deserve to be punished for what the admins were doing from the late 70s until ’86?
(The Wiki link is in the body of the article).
Two points, First, the situation at SMU was fundamentally different because the players were directly benefitting from slush fund payments. At PSU the players are completely uninvolved. Ending the program will primarily affect the players: they would probably be forced to transfer to another school, and not all would make it (SMU still had a handful of scholarship athletes in 1988 when they cancelled that season, the scholarship athletes didn’t get to play). A punishment that displaces the players makes sense when the players were the ones benefitting. When they were totally uninvolved it does not makes sense. Second, regardless… Read more »
One more thing to add to your comment, the players were able to transfer and were recruited after SMU suffered the death penalty
Spidaman3, SOME of the players were able to transfer, not ALL. That is the important distinction. Seriously, look it up, as I mentioned in my comment there were still some scholarship athletes that lost out come the 1988 season. It is not sufficient to say “Most of the athletes will transfer, so it’s okay,” unless we can guarantee that they will ALL be okay. Furthermore, this idea that transferring is no big deal is silly: it often involves moving cross country and leaving years of your life behind. Is that really acceptable to foist upon people who had nothing to… Read more »
The end of that revenue stream will have other implications for other sports at Penn State which received subsidies from the football program.
How about bans on University officials who could have acted from management of sports programs?
How about requiring Penn State to fund long-term PTSD counselling for victims of sex abuse?