Penn State Sanctions: $60M, Bowl Ban
MMAPlayground.com »
Off Topic »
Off Topic »
Penn State Sanctions: $60M, Bowl Ban
LuckyCharms
7/23/12 7:07:19PM
It's a terrible tragic but you know that Penn State is going to incur the cost of the $60 million on students with higher hidden fees and such.
So the real people getting hurt is the students more than the upper administration who cover up for Sandusky child abuse.
So the real people getting hurt is the students more than the upper administration who cover up for Sandusky child abuse.
grappler0000
7/23/12 7:58:11PM
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by grappler0000
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
No, even before then it commits the fallacy. It assumes that PSU wouldn't have gotten that talent without Sandusky. It operates under the assumption that another coach couldn't have developed/recruited that talent.
The difference being that I'm talking about his talent/acumen/resume...everything that he brought to the table, not the actual results that he produced.
Penn State is an elite institution, players go there because they have a history of developing talent and they know how to develop talent. Sandusky and Paterno had diminished roles within the actual football aspect of things.
The job of a defensive coordinator IS to recruit well and develop top talent. How is that a competitive advantage? Every coordinator does that.
Frankly, I have no idea whether it was actually a competitive advantage or not. I've never watched a College Football game in my life and I know little to nothing about either coach...that's why I left it as "arguable". And in doing so, I was merely stating that it was a logical argument, based on the veracity of that claim.
I get what you're saying, but any argument saying that Sandusky provided a competitive advantage inherently means that he was better than someone else would/could have done his position.
i.e. Without Sandusky, they don't get that talent.
That's the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. Anyone saying that is already arguing that he gets/develops better talent (competitive advantage). It's inherent within the argument.
You've added a step to bridge that gap, though. Without that much-needed step, there is no fallacy. Essentially, there is a logical "and" illogical way to phrase the argument. Both are saying similar things, yet have different meanings. Competitive advantage dictates nothing about results. Steroids are considered a competitive advantage, yet they speak nothing to actual results. In fact, I believe more fighters have been popped after losses than wins. It's the same thing here. What would make the statement illogical would be anytime you compare results of an event to assumed results of another. Therein lies the fallacy. My argument never made claims to any results. The value (which is actually the common thread) placed on Sandusky in my statement was never based on his results during that period, but rather his career prior to, talents, and other intangible qualities. And in order to bridge the gap between my statement about competitive advantage and a fallacy, one would have to make additional statements about outcome/results...which was the step that you added. I'll refer to a segment of my original statement: "Competitive edge doesn't always equal better results...and as long as that claim isn't made, I don't see a problem with that portion of the argument." and then I went on to say, "If someone argued that employing Sandusky made for a better record than there would have been without, then yes, Fallacy on all sides." These things were part of the basis for my argument.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/23/12 9:26:16PM
Posted by grappler0000
You've added a step to bridge that gap, though. Without that much-needed step, there is no fallacy. Essentially, there is a logical "and" illogical way to phrase the argument. Both are saying similar things, yet have different meanings. Competitive advantage dictates nothing about results. Steroids are considered a competitive advantage, yet they speak nothing to actual results. In fact, I believe more fighters have been popped after losses than wins. It's the same thing here. What would make the statement illogical would be anytime you compare results of an event to assumed results of another. Therein lies the fallacy. My argument never made claims to any results. The value (which is actually the common thread) placed on Sandusky in my statement was never based on his results during that period, but rather his career prior to, talents, and other intangible qualities. And in order to bridge the gap between my statement about competitive advantage and a fallacy, one would have to make additional statements about outcome/results...which was the step that you added. I'll refer to a segment of my original statement: "Competitive edge doesn't always equal better results...and as long as that claim isn't made, I don't see a problem with that portion of the argument." and then I went on to say, "If someone argued that employing Sandusky made for a better record than there would have been without, then yes, Fallacy on all sides." These things were part of the basis for my argument.
Okay, we're not talking about your statement. We're talking about Tim's.
The argument that Sandusky provided a competitive edge is the fallacy of the predetermined outcome.
In order to provide an edge, there must be a baseline that is enhanced. Regardless of the results Sandusky achieved on the field, the argument that he provided an edge is the fallacy of the predetermined outcome.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that Sandusky provided a competitive edge. The person making claim has the burden of proof. Not me.
I never made the claim that Sandusky provided an edge. Therefore, I don't have to defend it.
Here was the original quote
Posted by gartface The argument I've heard toward this was that harboring and protecting Sandusky was a competitive advantage due to his expertise in recruiting and pumping out amazing defensive talent. In a way, this did give them a competitive edge during the time they employed and hid his crimes.
The bolded portion is an outcome-based claim. The talent had already been pumped out. That's an outcome/results-based claim.
Because of this, I am not missing a step.
grappler0000
7/23/12 9:55:19PM
That sentence can be interpreted in two different ways. (1)...due to his (expertise in recruiting) and (pumping out amazing defensive talent). or (2)...due to his expertise in recruiting and expertise in pumping out amazing defensive talent.
That's part of the reason that I covered all bases in my original post and included my specific thoughts on the exclusion of any results/outcome base verbiage. I recognized that Tim's statement was somewhat ambiguous over the course of a couple of words, so when I responded to you, I spelled out my view on that area very clearly. My original statement in it's entirety still stands on its own. In fact, my original statement pretty much spells out what exactly would constitute a fallacy and what would not...and it was accurate.
That's part of the reason that I covered all bases in my original post and included my specific thoughts on the exclusion of any results/outcome base verbiage. I recognized that Tim's statement was somewhat ambiguous over the course of a couple of words, so when I responded to you, I spelled out my view on that area very clearly. My original statement in it's entirety still stands on its own. In fact, my original statement pretty much spells out what exactly would constitute a fallacy and what would not...and it was accurate.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/23/12 10:07:35PM
Posted by grappler0000
That sentence can be interpreted in two different ways. (1)...due to his (expertise in recruiting) and (pumping out amazing defensive talent). or (2)...due to his expertise in recruiting and expertise in pumping out amazing defensive talent.
That's part of the reason that I covered all bases in my original post and included my specific thoughts on the exclusion of any results/outcome base verbiage. I recognized that Tim's statement was somewhat ambiguous over the course of a couple of words, so when I responded to you, I spelled out my view on that area very clearly. My original statement in it's entirety still stands on its own. In fact, my original statement pretty much spells out what exactly would constitute a fallacy and what would not...and it was accurate.
Either way, the term "amazing" is a qualitative label, right?
You cannot qualitatively label something until you've measured it. In this case, you cannot, under your model or Tim's, remove that fact.
Whether he has recruiting expertise and is pumping out amazing talent or he has expertise in recruiting AND expertise in pumping out amazing talent.
It really doesn't matter. The adjective "amazing" means that the talent has been labeled after it was seen.
Therefore, the assumption operates on an outcome. Am I making sense? Either way you word it, it's still based on an outcome.
george112
7/23/12 10:40:32PM
jakewalters
7/23/12 11:26:56PM
Josh no likey the NCAA
Bubbles
7/23/12 11:56:39PM
warglory
7/24/12 12:08:34AM
warglory
7/24/12 12:13:55AM
I don't know what this is, but it made me laugh and I thought it could find a home here.
roadking95th
7/24/12 12:35:43AM
It is amazing what people post and have no clue what is going on.
cowcatcher
7/24/12 1:46:30AM
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
There are two things about this that I don't like.
1. They're vacating the wins as if the team was cheating. The players did everything right, why are their accomplishments being taken?
2. I don't like that the currently players now have to upend their lives and move if they want to follow their dreams. Stay here and never play football or pack up everything you own and move to a school that wants you (assuming any school wants ALL these players).
That said, I figured there would be collateral damage. I'm not overly upset at it. I am just bothered by any sort of punishment for people that had nothing to do with it.
These are the things that bother me too. The kids on those teams put in a ton of work and they're being robbed of something here and that doesn't seem quite right to me. I'm fine with punishing the University to the highest(and they did), but don't detract from what the kids did during their time there.
This thing in a roundabout way killed Joe Pa and his image is forever tarnished, I think he's paid his dues already as well, although if I was a family member of Sandusky's victims I guess nothing would ever be enough. It's a tough situation, but people come before sports, so in the end who gives a shit about football, it doesn't do anything to make what Sandusky did go away.
grappler0000
7/24/12 2:53:17AM
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
Posted by grappler0000
That sentence can be interpreted in two different ways. (1)...due to his (expertise in recruiting) and (pumping out amazing defensive talent). or (2)...due to his expertise in recruiting and expertise in pumping out amazing defensive talent.
That's part of the reason that I covered all bases in my original post and included my specific thoughts on the exclusion of any results/outcome base verbiage. I recognized that Tim's statement was somewhat ambiguous over the course of a couple of words, so when I responded to you, I spelled out my view on that area very clearly. My original statement in it's entirety still stands on its own. In fact, my original statement pretty much spells out what exactly would constitute a fallacy and what would not...and it was accurate.
Either way, the term "amazing" is a qualitative label, right?
You cannot qualitatively label something until you've measured it. In this case, you cannot, under your model or Tim's, remove that fact.
Whether he has recruiting expertise and is pumping out amazing talent or he has expertise in recruiting AND expertise in pumping out amazing talent.
It really doesn't matter. The adjective "amazing" means that the talent has been labeled after it was seen.
Therefore, the assumption operates on an outcome. Am I making sense? Either way you word it, it's still based on an outcome.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role of results/outcome in the conversation. I placed importance on it earlier as an easy way to separate the two arguments so that there would be less confusion. Basically, I was saying it's best to avoid all rectangles to avoid any possible confusion with squares. Even "if" you can attach the word "outcome" or "results" as part of some evaluation, that's still an invalid argument for it being a fallacy. Predetermined Outcome requires outcome-based analysis, but outcome-based analysis doesn't necessarily make for a PO Fallacy. An outcome-based analysis can be made of his past performances in a role...completely free of fallacy. It's not until you make further assumed analysis, which hasn't happened on my part, that it becomes a POF. For example...if someone were to say that Sandusky was "amazing", based on past performance, that is subjective, but logically sound. It's when statements that make claims about events that never actually took place, like "they'd have only won half the games with a different coach" or "replacing Sandusky with John Doe would've cost them at least 4 games the first year". There's no way of knowing those things. When you change history in your mind, there are more changing variables than people tend to give credit for...and there's no way of knowing the results even if you were to change just one small thing...kinda like the butterfly effect. You can evaluate someone all day long based on their performance, but you just can't make shoulda/coulda/woulda predictions based on that analysis. That would be faulty logic. A POF is essentially claiming to know the results of an event, based on hypothetically changing one or more variables. No such fallacies have been made. A perfect example in recent memory would be "if Chael hadn't thrown that spinning backfist, then ___________would've happened."
My original statement still stands on its own.
I don't believe it does, actually. You can claim competitive advantage, which is still arguable, without even discussing results. The same as Steroids are considered a competitive advantage, while nobody is actually able to identify whether usage has resulted in a better performance or not during a sporting competition. Competitive edge doesn't always equal better results...and as long as that claim isn't made, I don't see a problem with that portion of the argument. If someone argued that employing Sandusky made for a better record than there would have been without, then yes, Fallacy on all sides.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/24/12 3:27:55AM
Posted by grappler0000
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role of results/outcome in the conversation. I placed importance on it earlier as an easy way to separate the two arguments so that there would be less confusion. Basically, I was saying it's best to avoid all rectangles to avoid any possible confusion with squares. Even "if" you can attach the word "outcome" or "results" as part of some evaluation, that's still an invalid argument for it being a fallacy. Predetermined Outcome requires outcome-based analysis, but outcome-based analysis doesn't necessarily make for a PO Fallacy. An outcome-based analysis can be made of his past performances in a role...completely free of fallacy. It's not until you make further assumed analysis, which hasn't happened on my part, that it becomes a POF. For example...if someone were to say that Sandusky was "amazing", based on past performance, that is subjective, but logically sound. It's when statements that make claims about events that never actually took place, like "they'd have only won half the games with a different coach" or "replacing Sandusky with John Doe would've cost them at least 4 games the first year". There's no way of knowing those things. When you change history in your mind, there are more changing variables than people tend to give credit for...and there's no way of knowing the results even if you were to change just one small thing...kinda like the butterfly effect. You can evaluate someone all day long based on their performance, but you just can't make shoulda/coulda/woulda predictions based on that analysis. That would be faulty logic. A POF is essentially claiming to know the results of an event, based on hypothetically changing one or more variables. No such fallacies have been made. A perfect example in recent memory would be "if Chael hadn't thrown that spinning backfist, then ___________would've happened."
My original statement still stands on its own.
I don't believe it does, actually. You can claim competitive advantage, which is still arguable, without even discussing results. The same as Steroids are considered a competitive advantage, while nobody is actually able to identify whether usage has resulted in a better performance or not during a sporting competition. Competitive edge doesn't always equal better results...and as long as that claim isn't made, I don't see a problem with that portion of the argument. If someone argued that employing Sandusky made for a better record than there would have been without, then yes, Fallacy on all sides.
My point was that the argument, as it stands, implies that Sandusky's recruiting was the difference maker for Penn State.
Regardless of how anybody phrases it, the implication is that Penn State aided Sandusky to gain an edge in recruiting.
That, in it of itself, is absolutely absurd. To extrapolate that Penn State hid this for a competitive recruiting edge--not saying you did, but this is a generalization--from the Freeh report is grasping at straws if I have ever heard it. Penn State covered this up because they're morally bankrupt and figured these punishments would happen to them if they reported it then.
Anyhow, I digress. The implication made--and again, this is by the people who are making the claims that Tim repeated--is that Sandusky's role/position/influence helped Penn State during the recruiting process. Because he was such a well known name, Penn State was able to get better players. His longevity probably helped with recruiting.
These are all assumptions being made by the person using that argument. They're committing the fallacy of the predetermined outcome by suggesting that Penn State wouldn't have got those recruits if Sandusky weren't there.
I respect what you're trying to do here, but you said it yourself; you're not a college football guy and you really don't know enough about it to make a call one way or the next. I am familiar with college football and I am familiar with the different opinions people have had on this matter.
Like Tim, I have also seen these claims by people and every, single person follows the rabbit hole until they reach, "well, without Sandusky they don't get those players."
THAT is the fallacy of the predetermined outcome and THAT is what they're implying. I am sure you could write that sentence a thousand different ways and twist each way to ensure that the language doesn't sound like the FoPO, but the reality sees every person head there.
There's a reason that argument heads there and it's because they have no factual evidence to support the claim that Sandusky provided a competitive edge. There's just no way to prove or disprove that, but it's the easiest fallback for people who want to see Penn State hammered, hammered again, and then hammered some more.
Instead of just saying, "I don't give a shit that innocent kids were punished because the university deserves everything it gets and then some," they propose a claim that can neither be proven nor disproven. And the worst part is that I am not sure anyone would really blame them for wanting every possible penalty for Penn State.
They just realized how fucked up it sounds to say, "screw the players who will be impacted by this, as long as Penn State keeps getting punished." So, instead, they use a fallback of Sandusky's recruiting as a means to justify the innocent players who were stripped of their accomplishments, wins, and titles.
So, while you may not have been seeing it as the FoPO, but the people who are saying this stuff most certainly are.
jakewalters
7/24/12 4:08:53AM
Posted by BlueSkiesBurn
They just realized how fucked up it sounds to say, "screw the players who will be impacted by this, as long as Penn State keeps getting punished." So, instead, they use a fallback of Sandusky's recruiting as a means to justify the innocent players who were stripped of their accomplishments, wins, and titles.
I think they were able to minimize the punishment on ex and current players. The ex-players still got a free education and an amazing experience. The games they played and experiences they had still resonate just as much, and I'm sure for most of them the vacated wins won't affect the fond memories they have playing for Penn St. They will be received in the Happy Valley community just as warmly either way. For the current players, it does stink they have to transfer if they want to win a bowl; but transferring might be a welcomed option at this point for a lot of them. Relocating as a college undergraduate isn't as big of an ordeal as moving later in life, and either way they are going to be the big man on campus as well as receiving a full scholarship.
I see where you're coming from. These players did nothing wrong, as did most of the Penn State community. For a lot of these ex and current players, this sanctioning is going to hurt. It's sad that the NCAA had to levy punishments that had such wide-ranging collateral damage. But the fact remains that the Penn St. football program, although indirectly, enabled Jerry Sandusky to abuse multiple children; and when they were given the opportunity to stop it, they not only didn't stop it but they allowed Sandusky to remain a part of the Penn St. program. That fact alone is beyond comprehension for a lot of people, myself included, and it's understandable that the NCAA would want to enact a punishment that lays down a precedent that if anything is swept under the rug by the administration of any institution, harsh punishment will fall.
grappler0000
7/24/12 5:48:02AM
Whether Sandusky was an advantage to the team or not is a completely different argument...It has no bearing on our conversation, so I'd rather not even bother addressing it. The assertions that I made in this conversation earlier made it a moot point, really. And discussing it just takes away from the real topic.
I have no idea how many other people have made an illogical argument on the matter...but, I have not. I know not what these other people have said in other conversations...all that I know is what's been said here, within the confines of this conversation. And no fallacy was committed... neither by myself nor Tim. I can't be accountable for what people in the Twittershere or on blogs say, only myself. I don't know what those other conversations have to do with anything though, as I already pointed out much earlier that there is a logical "and" illogical way to phrase it. This is not new information.
We keep getting farther and farther away from what the actual conversation was about.
Here was Tim's statement:
Here is your response:
It doesn't matter how many people have worded it differently, it is not a fallacy as stated. I explained why that was the case here in my original post:
Really, everything was said here that needed to be said. I explained why under the current circumstances wouldn't be considered a fallacy. I also explained the difference in arguments and what an actual illogical argument would look like. All pretty much spot on.
You said:
Here's where you begin to ad things that don't belong. No such statements were made. No such implication were made either. The only fallacy ever injected into the conversation was by you, while trying to make implications on my behalf. If you are ever wondering if it was possible I was implying those things, even though I'd never make that connection, just reference my original statement...and you'll see exactly what I'm saying, as well as where I stand on the finer details.
Soon after, you made this statement:
This is where it really begins to fall apart.
Then you said:
This is just a simple misunderstanding of the definition of the fallacy in question.
And somewhere near the end, you say:
and
and
I don't know what or how many fallacies others have made on the subject, but it has no bearing on the conversation. The conversation never went beyond the statements included in the thread. And again, I went out of my way in my original statement, noting specifically what would and wouldn't make the argument a fallacy...so again, that's not new information.
I'll end there, as there really isn't a need to go further. My original statement is the only thing not being discussed. There's no point in going on any more tangents, while my original statement still holds water.
I have no idea how many other people have made an illogical argument on the matter...but, I have not. I know not what these other people have said in other conversations...all that I know is what's been said here, within the confines of this conversation. And no fallacy was committed... neither by myself nor Tim. I can't be accountable for what people in the Twittershere or on blogs say, only myself. I don't know what those other conversations have to do with anything though, as I already pointed out much earlier that there is a logical "and" illogical way to phrase it. This is not new information.
We keep getting farther and farther away from what the actual conversation was about.
Here was Tim's statement:
The argument I've heard toward this was that harboring and protecting Sandusky was a competitive advantage due to his expertise in recruiting and pumping out amazing defensive talent. In a way, this did give them a competitive edge during the time they employed and hid his crimes.
Here is your response:
No, even before then it commits the fallacy. It assumes that PSU wouldn't have gotten that talent without Sandusky. It operates under the assumption that another coach couldn't have developed/recruited that talent.
It doesn't matter how many people have worded it differently, it is not a fallacy as stated. I explained why that was the case here in my original post:
I don't believe it does, actually. You can claim competitive advantage, which is still arguable, without even discussing results. The same as Steroids are considered a competitive advantage, while nobody is actually able to identify whether an advantage was gained or not during a sporting competition. Competitive edge doesn't always equal better results...and as long as that claim isn't made, I don't see a problem with that portion of the argument. If someone argued that employing Sandusky made for a better record than there would have been without, then yes, Fallacy on all sides.
Really, everything was said here that needed to be said. I explained why under the current circumstances wouldn't be considered a fallacy. I also explained the difference in arguments and what an actual illogical argument would look like. All pretty much spot on.
You said:
No, even before then it commits the fallacy. It assumes that PSU wouldn't have gotten that talent without Sandusky. It operates under the assumption that another coach couldn't have developed/recruited that talent...
Here's where you begin to ad things that don't belong. No such statements were made. No such implication were made either. The only fallacy ever injected into the conversation was by you, while trying to make implications on my behalf. If you are ever wondering if it was possible I was implying those things, even though I'd never make that connection, just reference my original statement...and you'll see exactly what I'm saying, as well as where I stand on the finer details.
Soon after, you made this statement:
I get what you're saying, but any argument saying that Sandusky provided a competitive advantage inherently means that he was better than someone else would/could have done his position...
This is where it really begins to fall apart.
Then you said:
...The talent had already been pumped out. That's an outcome/results-based claim.
Because of this, I am not missing a step...
This is just a simple misunderstanding of the definition of the fallacy in question.
And somewhere near the end, you say:
These are all assumptions being made by the person using that argument. They're committing the fallacy of the predetermined outcome by suggesting that Penn State wouldn't have got those recruits if Sandusky weren't there.
and
Like Tim, I have also seen these claims by people and every, single person follows the rabbit hole until they reach, "well, without Sandusky they don't get those players." THAT is the fallacy of the predetermined outcome and
THAT is what they're implying.
and
So, while you may not have been seeing it as the FoPO, but the people who are saying this stuff most certainly are.
I don't know what or how many fallacies others have made on the subject, but it has no bearing on the conversation. The conversation never went beyond the statements included in the thread. And again, I went out of my way in my original statement, noting specifically what would and wouldn't make the argument a fallacy...so again, that's not new information.
I'll end there, as there really isn't a need to go further. My original statement is the only thing not being discussed. There's no point in going on any more tangents, while my original statement still holds water.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/24/12 6:58:00AM
Too many quotes for me to keep up and keep replying to them all.
I was taking the original post made by Tim in the context of how it's playing out in the real world. I will break down my train of thought of his entire quote by parts.
Here's the whole quote.
Part 1.
I'll start here because everything after due or more causal than anything. So, let's start with the meat.
People think that because Penn State protected Sandusky, they had a competitive advantage. The why, to me, at this point, could be considered irrelevant. The crux of the argument is that Sandusky was an edge in recruiting. They protected this edge by protecting him.
Part 2
Now, we've already stated that this can be read two ways. I won't bother repeating them. So, Sandusky was a competitive advantage due to his expertise in recruiting? Fine. There might be some merit here, but it's sketchy logic because it assumes several things.
Sandusky retired from Penn State after 1999. The wins that were vacated are from 1998 all the way through the 2011 season. So, since Sandusky wasn't coaching, how did he provide the competitive edge?
There's only one way he could have provided that advantage and that's by his name and reputation. In order for him to have provided an advantage, his reputation as a former coach must have been the reason they chose Penn State over other schools, right? That's what's implied. He couldn't have had any other impact as he was a retired coach.
We both know that there are a million reasons why people choose to do the things they do.
Part 3
Here's where things get tricky. Tim makes a claim that there was, in fact, a competitive advantage. He's using the phrase "in a way" as his qualifier. Either way, he's saying that there's was an advantage gained by keeping him on the payroll because of his reputation.
The argument operates under the assumption that the only reason those players chose Penn State is because Sandusky was there. Since Tim made the claim that an advantage was had by keeping Sandusky on the payroll, he's also making the claim that Sandusky was the deciding factor.
In order for his original claim of Sandusky providing a competitive advantage to hold any weight at all, then Sandusky must also be the reason they're choosing Penn State over any other school.
Inherent within their argument are the NCAA rules which stipulate that such a punishment is to be handed out when the violating party had an unfair advantage in the recruiting process.
I probably should have specified this during the argument, but I sometimes debate with people assuming they know what I know. Sandusky would have to provide an unfair advantage to Penn State in order for that to be the reasonable justification. Key word there is unfair.
That's where the argument is the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. The argument has to work backwards. Without Sandusky, no commitment. Penn State had to knowingly harbor Sandusky because they felt that, without him, they wouldn't get certain recruits. This, then, assumes that the Penn State harbored him to keep that edge and that the recruit chose Penn State because of the edge provided by Penn State harboring Sandusky.
If any one of those assumptions turn out to be incorrect, then the entire statement is blown to shit.
First, let's first assume that Penn State was harboring Sandusky because of his prestige as a coach. (Which was part 1 of his statement.)
Then, let's also assume that players are choosing Penn State over other schools simply because of Sandusky. (Which was part 2 of his statement.)
In order for the NCAA to justify that Penn State had an advantage, of any kind, it must also be a significant enough of an advantage that it is unfair to the opponent. i.e. Without that boost, the school would not have received a commitment from an athlete.
There has been no documentation shown by Tim, you, me, or anyone else to support the fact that Sandusky will/did/could/has provided a competitive advantage.Since there's a lack of evidence to support that theory, there's also no possible way to claim that it could/did/will/has provided a competitive advantage.
Simply put: There's no evidence that this claim is true. De facto, any punishment justified by a statement with no evidence commits the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. They are making this claim as if there will be evidence to support it. Until they have the evidence to support such a claim, they can not base any decisions upon that information.
I was taking the original post made by Tim in the context of how it's playing out in the real world. I will break down my train of thought of his entire quote by parts.
Here's the whole quote.
The argument I've heard toward this was that harboring and protecting Sandusky was a competitive advantage due to his expertise in recruiting and pumping out amazing defensive talent. In a way, this did give them a competitive edge during the time they employed and hid his crimes.
Part 1.
The argument I've heard toward this was that harboring and protecting Sandusky was a competitive advantage
I'll start here because everything after due or more causal than anything. So, let's start with the meat.
People think that because Penn State protected Sandusky, they had a competitive advantage. The why, to me, at this point, could be considered irrelevant. The crux of the argument is that Sandusky was an edge in recruiting. They protected this edge by protecting him.
Part 2
Sandusky was a competitive advantage due to his expertise in recruiting and pumping out amazing defensive talent.
Now, we've already stated that this can be read two ways. I won't bother repeating them. So, Sandusky was a competitive advantage due to his expertise in recruiting? Fine. There might be some merit here, but it's sketchy logic because it assumes several things.
Sandusky retired from Penn State after 1999. The wins that were vacated are from 1998 all the way through the 2011 season. So, since Sandusky wasn't coaching, how did he provide the competitive edge?
There's only one way he could have provided that advantage and that's by his name and reputation. In order for him to have provided an advantage, his reputation as a former coach must have been the reason they chose Penn State over other schools, right? That's what's implied. He couldn't have had any other impact as he was a retired coach.
We both know that there are a million reasons why people choose to do the things they do.
Part 3
In a way, this did give them a competitive edge during the time they employed and hid his crimes.
Here's where things get tricky. Tim makes a claim that there was, in fact, a competitive advantage. He's using the phrase "in a way" as his qualifier. Either way, he's saying that there's was an advantage gained by keeping him on the payroll because of his reputation.
The argument operates under the assumption that the only reason those players chose Penn State is because Sandusky was there. Since Tim made the claim that an advantage was had by keeping Sandusky on the payroll, he's also making the claim that Sandusky was the deciding factor.
In order for his original claim of Sandusky providing a competitive advantage to hold any weight at all, then Sandusky must also be the reason they're choosing Penn State over any other school.
Inherent within their argument are the NCAA rules which stipulate that such a punishment is to be handed out when the violating party had an unfair advantage in the recruiting process.
I probably should have specified this during the argument, but I sometimes debate with people assuming they know what I know. Sandusky would have to provide an unfair advantage to Penn State in order for that to be the reasonable justification. Key word there is unfair.
That's where the argument is the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. The argument has to work backwards. Without Sandusky, no commitment. Penn State had to knowingly harbor Sandusky because they felt that, without him, they wouldn't get certain recruits. This, then, assumes that the Penn State harbored him to keep that edge and that the recruit chose Penn State because of the edge provided by Penn State harboring Sandusky.
If any one of those assumptions turn out to be incorrect, then the entire statement is blown to shit.
First, let's first assume that Penn State was harboring Sandusky because of his prestige as a coach. (Which was part 1 of his statement.)
Then, let's also assume that players are choosing Penn State over other schools simply because of Sandusky. (Which was part 2 of his statement.)
In order for the NCAA to justify that Penn State had an advantage, of any kind, it must also be a significant enough of an advantage that it is unfair to the opponent. i.e. Without that boost, the school would not have received a commitment from an athlete.
There has been no documentation shown by Tim, you, me, or anyone else to support the fact that Sandusky will/did/could/has provided a competitive advantage.Since there's a lack of evidence to support that theory, there's also no possible way to claim that it could/did/will/has provided a competitive advantage.
Simply put: There's no evidence that this claim is true. De facto, any punishment justified by a statement with no evidence commits the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. They are making this claim as if there will be evidence to support it. Until they have the evidence to support such a claim, they can not base any decisions upon that information.
jakewalters
7/24/12 7:17:59AM
BlueSkiesBurn
7/24/12 7:25:06AM
Tim does.
He says it right here.
He asserts that Sandusky being there provided a competitive advantage with no evidence to support such claim.
Example:
Let's say you're watching a baseball game. Your team is up to bat and you have a runner on second with a man up to bat.
After throwing two balls, the opposing team's pitcher picks off the runner on second. The batter hits a single on the following pitch.
You say, "we would have scored a run if he hadn't have been picked off."
You can't possibly know that. The runner could have walked because the pitcher tried to pitch around him. He could have hit into a line-drive double play.
That's the fallacy of the predetermined outcome.
He's basically saying that the recruiting was dramatically affected by Sandusky and justifies the punishment while he's denying all of the other reasons that players chose Penn State over other school.
In a sense, if we go back and remove Sandusky, we don't get the same Penn State defense we have now.
The reality is that he was retired. Going back and rewriting history with him as an active coach is where I called it out.
He says it right here.
In a way, this did give them a competitive edge.
He asserts that Sandusky being there provided a competitive advantage with no evidence to support such claim.
Example:
Let's say you're watching a baseball game. Your team is up to bat and you have a runner on second with a man up to bat.
After throwing two balls, the opposing team's pitcher picks off the runner on second. The batter hits a single on the following pitch.
You say, "we would have scored a run if he hadn't have been picked off."
You can't possibly know that. The runner could have walked because the pitcher tried to pitch around him. He could have hit into a line-drive double play.
That's the fallacy of the predetermined outcome.
He's basically saying that the recruiting was dramatically affected by Sandusky and justifies the punishment while he's denying all of the other reasons that players chose Penn State over other school.
In a sense, if we go back and remove Sandusky, we don't get the same Penn State defense we have now.
The reality is that he was retired. Going back and rewriting history with him as an active coach is where I called it out.
grappler0000
7/24/12 7:53:14AM
This couldn't have gotten much further from the original topic, which is what I've been talking about at length. I've disregarded everything about evidence of a competitive advantage (which was nearly everything). From very early on, I recognized that was a debatable statement and to leave it at that, as it was not important in determining the soundness of he logic discussion at hand. Why did that become important all of a sudden? That wasn't an issue earlier, but managed to squirm its way into the conversation somehow anyway? It's a completely different argument and I swore off changing subjects long ago. I've stated that in nearly every post, yet the subject changes more and more with each rebuttal. Everything boils down to this...was there a fallacy where you claimed there to be as part of this discussion. The answer is "no". No, there was no fallacy. The side arguments, the changing of topics, they're all just distractions from that. What you are saying qualifies as a Predetermined Outcome, absolutely does not...not without adding your own words anyway. You can't make up rules as you go. If you're so inclined, quote exactly what you believe to be the fallacy. It won't be very difficult to show how silly it sounds among actual POFs. This could be the actual fastest way to the end of the debate, so I encourage this option.
If there is really anything worth salvaging in the debate, I'll point you in the direction of my original post. If there isn't a problem found there, then there isn't one to be found. That's what started the conversation and that's what should end it.
edit:
I completely disregarded the "In a way, this did give them a competitive edge" statement originally, as it appeared to be an add on by Tim and not really what he was pledging as the argument. But in the end, we can include that too, as it really doesn't change anything. You're confusing what an actual POF is. Your baseball example is basically the quintessential POF. What separated that from the "In a way, this did give them a competitive edge" statement is that the baseball example highlights a claim that cannot be known, because it didn't happen. The same scenario, but with a variable changed. Impossible to know the outcome. Sandusky, on the other hand did actually coach. All of those words, used to describe him, are based upon reflection of actual events. A POF is essentially claiming to know the results of an event, based on hypothetically changing one or more variables from reality. An opinion can be formed without issue, based upon Sandusky's work in that role. There's no guesswork, no what-if's, and best of all, no POF's.
If there is really anything worth salvaging in the debate, I'll point you in the direction of my original post. If there isn't a problem found there, then there isn't one to be found. That's what started the conversation and that's what should end it.
edit:
I completely disregarded the "In a way, this did give them a competitive edge" statement originally, as it appeared to be an add on by Tim and not really what he was pledging as the argument. But in the end, we can include that too, as it really doesn't change anything. You're confusing what an actual POF is. Your baseball example is basically the quintessential POF. What separated that from the "In a way, this did give them a competitive edge" statement is that the baseball example highlights a claim that cannot be known, because it didn't happen. The same scenario, but with a variable changed. Impossible to know the outcome. Sandusky, on the other hand did actually coach. All of those words, used to describe him, are based upon reflection of actual events. A POF is essentially claiming to know the results of an event, based on hypothetically changing one or more variables from reality. An opinion can be formed without issue, based upon Sandusky's work in that role. There's no guesswork, no what-if's, and best of all, no POF's.
roadking95th
7/24/12 8:07:04AM
You two do realize that Sandusky's last season coaching was the '99 season.
Theoutlaw08
7/24/12 11:17:16AM
Good!!! In my eyes they still deserved more. In no way is this equal punishment for what has happened at that school. For the current players that can't make the post season or get better players because of the program and its reputation...go a head and thank the child molester for ruining your college career.
roadking95th
7/24/12 1:08:57PM
I don't know how to state this right, but you all need to get a grip. This is the NCAA we are talking about. They admit that they have no real jurisdiction here, it is new territory. Many pundits say the same thing. There are so many ill informed opinions on here that it isn't even funny. It is sad.
I get tired of having to issue the statement "yes, it was a tragedy beyond compare" etc...before one can even discuss the sanctions. As if anyone would not think that.
I guess what I am saying is educate yourself on the issue. ESPN is not very good at stating facts. They do mess them up time to time. Know the story before you throw out punishments etc....
I do have on the blue colored glasses, and I am holding out hope that this simply "got away from them." From reading the emails and reports it appears that Shultz and Curley didn't grasp the scope of the problem. This is what I mean by "got away from them." Only two emails refer to "coach" and "Joe" neither of which are damning, they could be taken several ways. Like I said, I am holding out hope. Simply put, I believe two, maybe up to four men, tried to help a friend, not knowing how evil he truly was. Yes, alarms should have been going off after the 2001 event. Heck, it should have been bombs. They failed themselves, their friend, their university, and most importantly, they failed the innocents.
From memory, I am not re-reading this entire post, but here is where some are wrong.
1998, late winter, Sandusky is told he will not become head coach. This was BEFORE the first shower event. Want to know why? Ask.
1998, late spring, Shower event. Penn State went through ALL the channels they were supposed to. DA, Dept of Child Welfare, Police. Nothing to press charges on. Psych evaluation from the DofCW said he wasn't a child predator. Interviewed the child too. This is why I do not understand why they are going back to '98. The only explanation is to punish Joe's legacy.
$60 million. This is the number because that is what the football team GROSSES in a year. Not $100 million.
$13 million per year for B1G. This is their share of bowl revenue. Since that can't go, they won't share in it. Explain why Indiana gets to share
Sorry, a little humor. I also believe the B1G had a say in the death penalty. With no PSU football, there would be no championship game. That is 10's of million for the B1G.
All of last year's bowl revenue has been donated voluntarily.
I believe this is all about the money(not the 60 mil either) and the image of the NCAA.
That is over $124 million so far. There will be untold of millions in loss revenue due to sponsorships, competitiveness, etc...
None of this is for the real victims. Their justice is coming. Curley and Shultz are up for perjury charges. More charges could be coming. I would be surprised if the civil damages don't push the combine total to more than $300 million.
I can't put everything in this post. If you have a question about facts, I don't know all them, but I know more than most, ask me. Maybe you can point something out to me. If you want to just denigrate this to a piss match or bitch fest or whatever, grow up. Obviously you are not taking this with the seriousness one should be.
I get tired of having to issue the statement "yes, it was a tragedy beyond compare" etc...before one can even discuss the sanctions. As if anyone would not think that.
I guess what I am saying is educate yourself on the issue. ESPN is not very good at stating facts. They do mess them up time to time. Know the story before you throw out punishments etc....
I do have on the blue colored glasses, and I am holding out hope that this simply "got away from them." From reading the emails and reports it appears that Shultz and Curley didn't grasp the scope of the problem. This is what I mean by "got away from them." Only two emails refer to "coach" and "Joe" neither of which are damning, they could be taken several ways. Like I said, I am holding out hope. Simply put, I believe two, maybe up to four men, tried to help a friend, not knowing how evil he truly was. Yes, alarms should have been going off after the 2001 event. Heck, it should have been bombs. They failed themselves, their friend, their university, and most importantly, they failed the innocents.
From memory, I am not re-reading this entire post, but here is where some are wrong.
1998, late winter, Sandusky is told he will not become head coach. This was BEFORE the first shower event. Want to know why? Ask.
1998, late spring, Shower event. Penn State went through ALL the channels they were supposed to. DA, Dept of Child Welfare, Police. Nothing to press charges on. Psych evaluation from the DofCW said he wasn't a child predator. Interviewed the child too. This is why I do not understand why they are going back to '98. The only explanation is to punish Joe's legacy.
$60 million. This is the number because that is what the football team GROSSES in a year. Not $100 million.
$13 million per year for B1G. This is their share of bowl revenue. Since that can't go, they won't share in it. Explain why Indiana gets to share
Sorry, a little humor. I also believe the B1G had a say in the death penalty. With no PSU football, there would be no championship game. That is 10's of million for the B1G.All of last year's bowl revenue has been donated voluntarily.
I believe this is all about the money(not the 60 mil either) and the image of the NCAA.
That is over $124 million so far. There will be untold of millions in loss revenue due to sponsorships, competitiveness, etc...
None of this is for the real victims. Their justice is coming. Curley and Shultz are up for perjury charges. More charges could be coming. I would be surprised if the civil damages don't push the combine total to more than $300 million.
I can't put everything in this post. If you have a question about facts, I don't know all them, but I know more than most, ask me. Maybe you can point something out to me. If you want to just denigrate this to a piss match or bitch fest or whatever, grow up. Obviously you are not taking this with the seriousness one should be.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/24/12 2:44:15PM
Posted by roadking95th
You two do realize that Sandusky's last season coaching was the '99 season.
I said this. That's why I am saying it's POF. Sandusky wasn't coaching. Therefore he could not have had an impact from 99-11. Which is where the fallacy occurs. They're changing the variable of his retirement.
He retired after 99.
Wins vacated were from 98-2011.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/24/12 2:59:21PM
Posted by roadking95th
I can't put everything in this post. If you have a question about facts, I don't know all them, but I know more than most, ask me. Maybe you can point something out to me. If you want to just denigrate this to a piss match or bitch fest or whatever, grow up. Obviously you are not taking this with the seriousness one should be.
I'm not sure who this is directed towards, but who is misrepresenting the facts?
I've already covered most of your complaints.
. To extrapolate that Penn State hid this for a competitive recruiting edge--not saying you did, but this is a generalization--from the Freeh report is grasping at straws if I have ever heard it. Penn State covered this up because they're morally bankrupt and figured these punishments would happen to them if they reported it then.
Sandusky retired from Penn State after 1999. The wins that were vacated are from 1998 all the way through the 2011 season. So, since Sandusky wasn't coaching, how did he provide the competitive edge?
Grappler and I were having a side debate over sometime related, but different. I can promise you, neither one of us have taken any part of this story lightly.
Just because a debate occurs on a Penn State thread, does not mean that we aren't taking it seriously. We have just been talking about an argument people are using to justify the punishment in the eyes of the players.
I mean, I could always post the 20 page policy report I wrote this case, if you want.
If you still think I'm not taking this seriously then read this.
All Things Considered? Penn State & Justice
roadking95th
7/24/12 3:07:50PM
BlueSkiesBurn I got lost in the walls of words. I did see that you pointed out Sandusky wasn't a coach.
As far as taking lightly, it was more referred to anyone who wants to turn this into a pissing match, etc... Sorry if it did not come across that way.
There is so much misinformation out there that as soon as I saw a debate on the Sandusky advantage of coaching, my eyes glazed over. Sorry.
I will read your link tonight.
There are many many lessons to be learned. I hope everyone reflects on that and also take this serious. There are true victims who will never be healed.
As far as taking lightly, it was more referred to anyone who wants to turn this into a pissing match, etc... Sorry if it did not come across that way.
There is so much misinformation out there that as soon as I saw a debate on the Sandusky advantage of coaching, my eyes glazed over. Sorry.
I will read your link tonight.
There are many many lessons to be learned. I hope everyone reflects on that and also take this serious. There are true victims who will never be healed.
BlueSkiesBurn
7/24/12 3:15:56PM
Posted by roadking95th
BlueSkiesBurn I got lost in the walls of words. I did see that you pointed out Sandusky wasn't a coach.
As far as taking lightly, it was more referred to anyone who wants to turn this into a pissing match, etc... Sorry if it did not come across that way.
There is so much misinformation out there that as soon as I saw a debate on the Sandusky advantage of coaching, my eyes glazed over. Sorry.
I will read your link tonight.
There are many many lessons to be learned. I hope everyone reflects on that and also take this serious. There are true victims who will never be healed.
I get it, man. I completely get it.
I, myself, am tired of the false dilemmas people, including the media, are putting forward in this case. People say crap like, "so, you don't think Penn State should get the death penalty? So, you support what they did?"
What the fuck? I can be against the Death Penalty and not support what Penn State did. I get so tired of seeing that. I can only imagine that it's ten times worse for a fan of the program right now. I know the amount of crap I have received from people by saying that I don't think the players should be punished for something that administration did at the highest level.
Of course, the minute I say that, people jump all over me. Not on the PG, this is purely just in general.
Bottom line: I realize the NCAA tried to minimize the damage to the players, but they will still be affected. Some of those 85 men will not have the ability to transfer. I don't mean that they physically can't, I mean that there will be some players on the 85 man scholarship roster who, for one reason or another, will not get that same offer from another school. I'm not okay with that.
If even one innocent person is harmed by the NCAA's actions, to me, that's one too many. Everyone needs to direct their vitriol where it belongs; it belongs on the men who covered this up and the man who committed these crimes. That's where it belongs and that's where it should stay.
Enough innocent people have already had their lives turned upside down. Why create more?
scoozna
7/24/12 4:48:30PM
Cool debate fellas.
I think this comment cinched it for me:
I think this comment cinched it for me:
If someone argued that employing Sandusky made for a better record than there would have been without, then yes, Fallacy on all sides.
infestructure
7/24/12 6:52:25PM
This thread; TL,DNR
prozacnation1978
7/25/12 9:50:38AM
Talk about spitting on someone grave
10 years of games won being erased off a guy record is a bit harsh
Bowl ban I get
Loss of scholarships I get
60 m well Penn state will just increase everything from books to tuition to get that money back so the students pay for that
This will be a dark cloud over this school for a very long time
10 years of games won being erased off a guy record is a bit harsh
Bowl ban I get
Loss of scholarships I get
60 m well Penn state will just increase everything from books to tuition to get that money back so the students pay for that
This will be a dark cloud over this school for a very long time