Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

Penn State Sanctions: $60M, Bowl Ban

Print  
  Page 3 of 5     1     2     3     4     5  
Posted By Message

LuckyCharms

Standup Guy

LuckyCharms Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:255
Career:502-385
Joined:Mar 2011
Chips:
110
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.

Post #31   7/23/12 7:07:19PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
27
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,217
Career:3,003-1,643
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,507

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.

_______________________________________

Post #32   7/23/12 7:58:11PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,667
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
713

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.

Post #33   7/23/12 9:26:16PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
27
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,217
Career:3,003-1,643
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,507
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.

_______________________________________

Post #34   7/23/12 9:55:19PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,667
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
713

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.

Post #35   7/23/12 10:07:35PM   

george112

The Playground OG

george112 Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,413
Career:1,311-856
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: Playground Legends
Chips:
1,070

_______________________________________
Ron Paul 2016

Post #36   7/23/12 10:40:32PM   

jakewalters

BJ PENN FOREVER

jakewalters Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,582
Career:958-600
Joined:Jan 2012
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
692


Josh no likey the NCAA

_______________________________________
Twitter @TheMMApodcast

Post #37   7/23/12 11:26:56PM   

Bubbles

Come at me bro

Bubbles Avatar
5




 
 
 


 
 
Posts:9,368
Career:1,153-681
Joined:Oct 2009
Chips:
1,462

_______________________________________
The best cure for insomnia is a lot of sex. Even if it doesn't end up putting you to sleep, you don't mind so much

Men be careful, female sexual predators are using a date rape drug called a Blowjob to trap men into scams called relationships.

Post #38   7/23/12 11:56:39PM   

warglory

Heavyweight Champ

warglory Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,023
Career:535-344
Joined:Feb 2007
Chips:
776

Post #39   7/24/12 12:08:34AM   

warglory

Heavyweight Champ

warglory Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,023
Career:535-344
Joined:Feb 2007
Chips:
776
I don't know what this is, but it made me laugh and I thought it could find a home here.

Post #40   7/24/12 12:13:55AM   

roadking95th

In Cael We Trust!

roadking95th Avatar
7
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,030
Career:1,351-714
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
180
It is amazing what people post and have no clue what is going on.

Post #41   7/24/12 12:35:43AM   

cowcatcher

Steady MODdin'

cowcatcher Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:7,725
Career:2,671-1,523
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
1,688

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.

_______________________________________

Post #42   7/24/12 1:46:30AM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
27
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,217
Career:3,003-1,643
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,507

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.


Last edited 7/24/12 2:55AM server time by grappler0000
Edit note/reason: n/a

_______________________________________

Post #43   7/24/12 2:53:17AM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,667
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
713

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.

Last edited 7/24/12 3:29AM server time by BlueSkiesBurn
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #44   7/24/12 3:27:55AM   

jakewalters

BJ PENN FOREVER

jakewalters Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,582
Career:958-600
Joined:Jan 2012
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
692

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.

_______________________________________
Twitter @TheMMApodcast

Post #45   7/24/12 4:08:53AM   
 
  Page 3 of 5     1     2     3     4     5