Should Iowa Forfeit The Penn State Game This Year?

Figures the jesuits would use something freakish and scary as their mascot.
 
knighthawk13 said:
I'm sure all of the business owners in IC that rely on game day revenues would really enjoy Iowa making that kind of stand.
Click to expand...

This is what's wrong with college sports, D1 college football in particular. Everyone selfishly thinks it is about them, the game has to relate and serve back to them.

Fans, restaurants, boosters, politicians... are not in the equation. College football is solely about the STUDENT-ATHLETES and their experiences. And it's also about the universities, but that is saying sort of the same thing.

The fans, and the fans opinions, are of no consequence. They don't matter. Recently, when the college football playoff discussion heated up, everyone started talking like: 'this is what the people want to see, this is what the fans deserve'. Both the media and the fans have become so emotionally attached to the game that they think they are a part of it. Everyone on the outside thinks that their interests carry weight. That is totally wrong. (if that pisses off boosters...sorry)

I disagree with the OP too, but the author makes an interesting point. To shut down this idea by saying that local businesses would suffer for a Saturday afternoon is really small minded.
 
So if we forfeit this game due to our moral objections, then next year when a B10 team has a convicted rapist on their team, I assume we will forfeit that one as well. Because if we don't we will be implying that we condone rape, then after we forfeit that game, I assume we will need to start forfeiting games against teams with guys convicted of drug possession unless we want it to appear that Iowa condones that too.
 
hawkfan33 said:
So if we forfeit this game due to our moral objections, then next year when a B10 team has a convicted rapist on their team, I assume we will forfeit that one as well. Because if we don't we will be implying that we condone rape, then after we forfeit that game, I assume we will need to start forfeiting games against teams with guys convicted of drug possession unless we want it to appear that Iowa condones that too.
Click to expand...

This misstates PSU's problem. You can't blame Penn State or their administrators for Sandusky's crimes or hold them responsible. It's bad, but that's not an institutional problem, just like an individual athlete's actions do not necessarily mean there is an institutional or administrative problem.

The problem with PSU is how the school officials responded to the allegations -they covered it up. That's the problem. . . The school covered it up because they wanted to protect the football program's competitive advantage, reputation, and assistant coach.
 
DexterMorgan said:
I didn't read all that but no, Iowa shouldn't forfeit the game.
Click to expand...

On short notice Iowa cant forfeit/ not play the game for economic reasons. If the hawks had time to schedule another team and wanted to make a statement they could but you cant give up a million plus dollars for a home game.
 
BillikenHawkeye said:
Isn't that the same implied reason Spanier, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz decided to cover up Sandusky's crime?

I'm not saying I want to lose money or take a loss. But does a University at some point have a moral obligation to make certain values more important than money and wins? .)
Click to expand...

The big 10 can hold back TV and other money to punish penn st and there can be moral speeches and the hawk fans could really shame psu by having a minute of silence for the child victims right on national tv.

But dont punish hawk players and fans and current psu players.
 
BillikenHawkeye said:
This misstates PSU's problem. You can't blame Penn State or their administrators for Sandusky's crimes or hold them responsible. It's bad, but that's not an institutional problem, just like an individual athlete's actions do not necessarily mean there is an institutional or administrative problem.

The problem with PSU is how the school officials responded to the allegations -they covered it up. That's the problem. . . The school covered it up because they wanted to protect the football program's competitive advantage, reputation, and assistant coach.
Click to expand...

You say you are a lawyer. really. Sandusky will probably be shown to be doing these illegal activities while a coach. Just like sexual harassment cases the corporation and administrators are liable if they knew about the harassing environment. PSU know of this crap so they are liable.
 
Yes. Every opponent should forfeit so Penn State would win the national championship! That would show them!!!
 
BillikenHawkeye said:
This misstates PSU's problem. You can't blame Penn State or their administrators for Sandusky's crimes or hold them responsible. It's bad, but that's not an institutional problem, just like an individual athlete's actions do not necessarily mean there is an institutional or administrative problem.
Click to expand...

Bull crap.
 
uihawk82 said:
You say you are a lawyer. really. Sandusky will probably be shown to be doing these illegal activities while a coach. Just like sexual harassment cases the corporation and administrators are liable if they knew about the harassing environment. PSU know of this crap so they are liable.
Click to expand...

PSU is probably liable to some of the victims - but they aren't liable for Sandusky's actions - they are liable for their response once they knew or had reason to know about what was going on, or in PSU's situation, their lack of response. Big difference. An employer, in most cases, isn't going to be liable or responsible for criminal acts of their employees, just because the employer employs the employee. The employer has to breach some duty first that causes someone harm. That seems to have occurred here.

That's not what I was saying.

My point is that just because a player, or coach breaks the law does not necessarily mean the institution or program has completely broken down. We don't and shouldn't hold the school responsible just because of one idiot's actions.

PSU's fault, and the reason for the institutional problems are not because an employee committed a crime, but because the leadership and culture at PSU failed to respond appropriately once they knew or suspected Sandusky was raping children. The institution completely broke down. This differs from a random criminal act from a player.That was my point. (And distinguishes the PSU scandal from Iowa's Everson/Satterfield situation.)

If you read my comments in context, you would see that I was responding to a comment that suggested if we refuse to play PSU for what happened with the Sandusky trial, we should also refuse to play programs where a player rapes someone. I'm saying there is a difference between the two situations, I'm no trying to condone PSU. Refusing to play PSU because of PSU's institutional breakdown should be at least seriously considered. Refusing to play PSU because they had a player who raped someone (and was appropriately dealt with) is silly because there is is no institutional breakdown.
 
Last edited:
You should retreat now, billiken. Cut your losses. You're getting absolutely crushed in here.
 
No one listens.. no one responds...

NO ONE LISTENS... they only go off on their own tangent... thread.. no one will listen ...

and go OFF on their on .....

thx for not listening and going off on your own(?) tangent.. thread... I'm so self absorbed..

hmmm..
 
aaronzuriel said:
No one listens.. no one responds...

NO ONE LISTENS... they only go off on their own tangent... thread.. no one will listen ...

and go OFF on their on .....

thx for not listening and going off on your own(?) tangent.. thread... I'm so self absorbed..

hmmm..
Click to expand...

you crack me up, az
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top