olivecourt
Well-Known Member
EDIT: I think the context for this is unclear. I'm responding to articles like this:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...e-scandal-punishment/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0
"What about a constructive rather than destructive solution [scholarship losses, bans, etc.]? What about helping victims of child abuse and helping adults identify the signs of abuse so they might help a child and catch predators?"
I've been reading the forums today and also peeking around Penn State sites as well as the web in general. There's an idea emerging that is frankly starting to make me angry, because it's so transparently self-serving: the idea that whatever penalties the NCAA levies towards Penn State, they should somehow be formulated to help sex abuse victims (i.e. PSU has to donate all of their football revenue to abuse charities, etc.).
This is ridiculous. The NCAA's role is to monitor and regulate its member institutions and to punish them when they break the rules, period. Incidentally, this is how most justice systems work. When someone is convicted of rape, they aren't sentenced to volunteer in a rape crisis center. They are sent to jail. So when Penn State is found to have covered up rape in order to protect their football program, why the hell would you suddenly go easy on them? And believe me, having Penn State donate their revenue to charity is going incredibly light. You have to laugh when you see Nick Saban, of all people, suggesting ideas like this. Of course that's what college football coaches want-- to just write a check and avoid all accountability/long-lasting negative consequences.
Here's the reality: if Penn State wants to donate money to child sexual abuse prevention, they should do that. But the idea that that should work in place of an actual punishment is ludicrous. Some people are going to argue that heavy sancions (bowl/TV bans, scholarship losses, etc.) punish the players, local businesses, etc.-- but wouldn't that same logic have applied with the Ohio State tattoos or the Reggie Bush fiasco? You're still punishing the many for the actions of a few-- and if you don't understand that that is how the world works, I don't know what to tell you. Again, you don't punish a rapist lightly because he has a family to support.
To sum up: the NCAA is a regulatory body. Period. They might be bad at their job, or good at it, but that is their job-- to regulate through the creation of rules and their enforcement. It is not their job to solve the problem of child sexual abuse, to protect the jobs of game-day vendors at Beaver Stadium, etc. When Penn State supporters/college football coaches start talking about punishments that are geared towards abuse prevention, what they're really saying, consciously or subconsciously, is that they don't want the football program harmed in any way, no matter what. And that's the mindset that produced this whole fiasco in the first place.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...e-scandal-punishment/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0
"What about a constructive rather than destructive solution [scholarship losses, bans, etc.]? What about helping victims of child abuse and helping adults identify the signs of abuse so they might help a child and catch predators?"
I've been reading the forums today and also peeking around Penn State sites as well as the web in general. There's an idea emerging that is frankly starting to make me angry, because it's so transparently self-serving: the idea that whatever penalties the NCAA levies towards Penn State, they should somehow be formulated to help sex abuse victims (i.e. PSU has to donate all of their football revenue to abuse charities, etc.).
This is ridiculous. The NCAA's role is to monitor and regulate its member institutions and to punish them when they break the rules, period. Incidentally, this is how most justice systems work. When someone is convicted of rape, they aren't sentenced to volunteer in a rape crisis center. They are sent to jail. So when Penn State is found to have covered up rape in order to protect their football program, why the hell would you suddenly go easy on them? And believe me, having Penn State donate their revenue to charity is going incredibly light. You have to laugh when you see Nick Saban, of all people, suggesting ideas like this. Of course that's what college football coaches want-- to just write a check and avoid all accountability/long-lasting negative consequences.
Here's the reality: if Penn State wants to donate money to child sexual abuse prevention, they should do that. But the idea that that should work in place of an actual punishment is ludicrous. Some people are going to argue that heavy sancions (bowl/TV bans, scholarship losses, etc.) punish the players, local businesses, etc.-- but wouldn't that same logic have applied with the Ohio State tattoos or the Reggie Bush fiasco? You're still punishing the many for the actions of a few-- and if you don't understand that that is how the world works, I don't know what to tell you. Again, you don't punish a rapist lightly because he has a family to support.
To sum up: the NCAA is a regulatory body. Period. They might be bad at their job, or good at it, but that is their job-- to regulate through the creation of rules and their enforcement. It is not their job to solve the problem of child sexual abuse, to protect the jobs of game-day vendors at Beaver Stadium, etc. When Penn State supporters/college football coaches start talking about punishments that are geared towards abuse prevention, what they're really saying, consciously or subconsciously, is that they don't want the football program harmed in any way, no matter what. And that's the mindset that produced this whole fiasco in the first place.
Last edited:
