We'll find out shortly.
I won't miss him if he's out.
I'd be shocked.
In June Boeheim was honored as "Father of the year"
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20110617/SPORTS03/306179968
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 03:57:49 PM
In June Boeheim was honored as "Father of the year"
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20110617/SPORTS03/306179968
I don't think that that's it. ::)
Update: Boeheim is expected to resign at an 8:15pm ET presser tonight
Sport reporters are twitter this about Boeheim. Will find out of true in about 20 minutes.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 05:53:14 PM
Update: Boeheim is expected to resign at an 8:15pm ET presser tonight
Sport reporters are twitter this about Boeheim. Will find out of true in about 20 minutes.
1hr 20 min?
Where are you getting your info? I don't see this anywhere?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on November 27, 2011, 06:18:22 PM
Where are you getting your info? I don't see this anywhere?
Search Twitter for "Boeheim" everything happens their first.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 06:21:34 PM
Search Twitter for "Boeheim" everything happens their first.
I'm too busy searching for "Durley" for accurate information....
http://www.syracusefan.com/threads/from-greg-swaim.9324/
then Buzz to Cuse...
I don't see anything about a 7:15 press conference?
Nothing on the Syracuse Scout board.
A Tweet that says his job is in trouble is misleading. HE wouldn't be fired at this point. If he resigns, that doesn't mean his job was in jeopardy....
NYT Reporter Peter Thamel reported 3 hours ago that Boeheim would issue a statement today (which is what I started this thread with). His source was a Syracuse spokesman.
That has morphed into a 8:15 PM presser, in about 45 minutes. Their is only one reason to issue a statement today, after ESPN's OTL story this morning. Further, their is absolutely only reason to hold an 8:15PM ET presser ... Boeheim is out.
As I've posted before, Paterno set a new standard. If your staff has a molester, you're gone. Do not try and parse or analyze it, that is the new rule and Boeheim is the first casualty of the "Paterno standard."
(If you want another reason, Syracuse is a public university, just like Penn State. No politician is going to tolerate him on the state payroll for five seconds.)
Quote from: IrwinFletcher on November 27, 2011, 06:29:18 PM
Nothing on the Syracuse Scout board.
A Tweet that says his job is in trouble is misleading. HE wouldn't be fired at this point. If he resigns, that doesn't mean his job was in jeopardy....
the only way i see this happening is if JB decides this is too much and walks away. he didn't like Cuse leaving the BEAST, he's old, maybe he's just had enough... doubt it, but it's the only scenario that makes sense to me.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 06:39:31 PM
As I've posted before, Paterno set a new standard. If your staff has a molester, you're gone. Do not try and parse or analyze it, that is the new rule and Boeheim is the first casualty of the "Paterno standard."
You really think it's fair to compare the two...or to say that anyone with a child molester on their staff is fired? if they had any idea it was going on i get it, but to just say you're out if it happens seems ridiculous to me.
Quote from: avid1010 on November 27, 2011, 06:42:25 PM
You really think it's fair to compare the two...or to say that anyone with a child molester on their staff is fired? if they had any idea it was going on i get it, but to just say you're out if it happens seems ridiculous to me.
Do I think it is fair ... no.
But people that get paid with taxpayer money (Paterno, Boeheim) are often held to unreasonable and emotional standards. That is the way the world works.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 06:39:31 PM
Their is only one reason to issue a statement today, after ESPN's OTL story this morning. Further, their is absolutely only reason to hold an 8:15PM ET presser ... Boeheim is out.
Or because they just fired Fine . . .
Quote from: MUeagle05 on November 27, 2011, 06:49:23 PM
Or because they just fired Fine . . .
It is official, Fine was fired. NYT is reporting.
Boeheim cannot stay after his defense of Fine. IF the presser happens as rumored in 20 minutes, we'll see if that is all they do.
ummm...Syracuse is a private school, not a public
Remember that Boeheim called Fine's accusers "liars". Now Fine has been fired.
Again I find it impossible Boeheim stays.
Makes you wonder how "Pearl" Washington got his nickname.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 06:55:25 PM
Remember that Boeheim called Fine's accusers "liars". Now Fine has been fired.
Again I find it impossible Boeheim stays.
I think he will be contrite, but will stay.
ESPN just said Jim is not talking.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 06:39:31 PM
(If you want another reason, Syracuse is a public university, just like Penn State. No politician is going to tolerate him on the state payroll for five seconds.)
(http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/small/0808/jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg)
Peter Thamel of the NYT just tweeted that we should "expect more from Syracuse tonight. This is all so far."
ESPNNEWS has now pulled out of Football score coverage to go with this story.
Boeheim publicly thrashed a victim of molestation by a member of his own staff. How can he continue to be a representative of SU?
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7288286/bernie-fine-fired-syracuse-amid-molestation-allegations
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 07:18:30 PM
Boeheim publicly thrashed a victim of molestation by a member of his own staff. How can he continue to be a representative of SU?
If he comes out and makes a public apology saying he jumped to conclusions, Fine was a life-long friend and didn't think he was capable of something like this, emotional roller-coaster, yadda yadda, yadda, making a donation to a charity for sexual assault victims. Then I could see him staying.
Quote from: Litehouse on November 27, 2011, 07:31:03 PM
If he comes out and makes a public apology saying he jumped to conclusions, Fine was a life-long friend and didn't think he was capable of something like this, emotional roller-coaster, yadda yadda, yadda, making a donation to a charity for sexual assault victims. Then I could see him staying.
But his job is recruiting and mentoring underage kids (less than 18).
That would work for the head of the accounting department explain why he defended a long-time friend/employee. How does Boeheim apologize and then go to watch another watch another 16 year old watch a game?
He's toast and if he doesn't go now, he will wind up gutting the entire program.
I guess I'm not following you. You make it sound like Boeheim was out there molesting boys. From what I've read, Boeheim didn't necessarily do anything wrong when this all came up 8-9 yrs ago. They turned it over to the police for an investigation. Boeheim's problem was his recent insensitive comments saying the alleged victims were lying and out for money. If he says it was a knee-jerk reaction to defend a longtime friend, and he realizes his comments were wrong and apologizes, SU might let him stay.
Statement:
"The allegations that have come forth today are disturbing and deeply troubling. I am personally very shocked because I have never witnessed any of the activities that have been alleged. I believe the university took the appropriate step tonight. What is most important is that this matter be fully investigated and that anyone with information be supported to come forward so that the truth can be found. I deeply regret any statements I made that might have inhibited that from occurring or been insensitive to victims of abuse."
Quote from: Litehouse on November 27, 2011, 07:48:48 PM
I guess I'm not following you. You make it sound like Boeheim was out there molesting boys. From what I've read, Boeheim didn't necessarily do anything wrong when this all came up 8-9 yrs ago. They turned it over to the police for an investigation. Boeheim's problem was his recent insensitive comments saying the alleged victims were lying and out for money. If he says it was a knee-jerk reaction to defend a longtime friend, and he realizes his comments were wrong and apologizes, SU might let him stay.
It was the worst knee-jerk reaction ever then. Jim should just step down, people have lost their jobs for saying a lot less.
Quote from: Litehouse on November 27, 2011, 07:48:48 PM
I guess I'm not following you. You make it sound like Boeheim was out there molesting boys. From what I've read, Boeheim didn't necessarily do anything wrong when this all came up 8-9 yrs ago. They turned it over to the police for an investigation. Boeheim's problem was his recent insensitive comments saying the alleged victims were lying and out for money. If he says it was a knee-jerk reaction to defend a longtime friend, and he realizes his comments were wrong and apologizes, SU might let him stay.
I'm with most of you that Boeheim is being railroaded out on the back of JoePa.
What I'm arguing is life is not fair and JoePa set a new standard. Your over-analyzing that standard. It is very simple. If you are a head coach and you have a molester on your staff, you're gone. If you thrash a victim of molestation, you cannot stay.
That statement was underwhelming. Now they should fire him.
Quote from: Litehouse on November 27, 2011, 07:59:15 PM
That statement was underwhelming. Now they should fire him.
+1. Couldn't even say it to a microphone?
I know why he plays the 2-3 zone, he's afraid of that man-to-man interaction.
Statement from Syracuse
Dear Students, Faculty, & Staff:
Tonight, in the wake of troubling new allegations that emerged in the media today, I am writing to let you know that Bernie Fine's employment at the University has been terminated effective immediately.
Frankly, the events of the past week have shaken us all. The taped phone call that ESPN revealed today was not provided to the University by Mr. Davis during the 2005 investigation by our legal counsel. Like the media review of the case a few years earlier, no other witnesses came forward during the university investigation, and those who felt they knew Bernie best could not imagine what has unfolded.
Since I last wrote to you, we have been cooperating fully with the authorities. On Friday, November 18, as the District Attorney has noted, we turned over to his office the results of our 2005 months-long investigation. Also on November 18, our Board of Trustees retained an independent law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, to review our procedures in responding to the initial allegations when they first came to the University's attention. I fully supported that decision and it is vital that we examine our protocols and actions in dealing with such serious allegations. We need to learn all we can from this terrible lesson.
All of us have the responsibility, individually and collectively, to ensure that Syracuse University remains a safe place for every campus community member and everyone with whom we interact on a daily basis on campus or in the community as part of our learning, scholarship, or work. We do not tolerate abuse. If anything good comes out of this tragedy, it will be that this basic principle is reinforced.
Sincerely,
Nancy Cantor
Quote from: Litehouse on November 27, 2011, 07:59:15 PM
That statement was underwhelming. Now they should fire him.
I wonder if Boeheim even wrote it. It has no real words and reads like lawyers scrubbed all emotion from it.
IF Boeheim makes it to Tuesday, SU plays Eastern Michigan at home. It will be a circus.
Quote from: marqptm on November 27, 2011, 08:04:00 PM
All of us have the responsibility, individually and collectively, to ensure that Syracuse University remains a safe place for every campus community member and everyone with whom we interact on a daily basis on campus or in the community as part of our learning, scholarship, or work. We do not tolerate abuse. If anything good comes out of this tragedy, it will be that this basic principle is reinforced.
This paragraph will toast JB. He attacked the victims to an absurd degree. No one in his position at a university should speak in those terms.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 07:58:25 PM
What I'm arguing is life is not fair and JoePa set a new standard. Your over-analyzing that standard. It is very simple. If you are a head coach and you have a molester on your staff, you're gone. If you thrash a victim of molestation, you cannot stay.
Just having a molester on your staff isn't the issue. Having one on your staff, you finding out about it, and then keeping him around is the issue.
Trashing the victims can be apologized for.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 08:06:37 PM
I wonder if Boeheim even wrote it.
Of course not. Emotion is what got him in trouble in the first place.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 06:55:25 PM
Again I find it impossible Boeheim stays.
You really think it's impossible Jim Boeheim is coaching Syracuse tomorrow? When I consider the impossible, his survival isn't among the first million or so things that come to mind.
Boeheim would have been in the clear had he not called the victims liars. Aside from that it sounds like he handled everything appropriately UNLIKE JoePa.
EDIT: I believe calling the victims liars is a fireable offense. People have been fired for far less.
Since Boheim is not resigning maybe the title of this thread should be changed........
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 27, 2011, 08:08:58 PM
Just having a molester on your staff isn't the issue. Having one on your staff, you finding out about it, and then keeping him around is the issue.
Trashing the victims can be apologized for.
Stop using reason and intellect. This is all about emotional reactions in the court of public opinion. In that court - molester on staff, you're fired. Thrashing an abuse victim, you're fired. Boeheim is guilty on two counts.
The only one that seems to be acting emotional is you. Paterno was fired for logical and reasonable reason.
Who at Penn State was fired due to emotion? Or in the court of public opinion?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 07:58:25 PM
It is very simple. If you are a head coach and you have a molester on your staff, you're gone.
In your brave new world are presidents impeached and removed if a member of their staff is a molester? Is the CEO summarily canned if there's a pedophile working in management? The witch hunts should prove very entertaining to some.
I don't make the rules, I understand them. Let's see if JB survives and who will be correct.
(Again, I think it is unfair but my opinion, which is similar to your opinion, does not matter. Yes this is a witch-hunt and JB was not smart enough to understand this on November 18 when he ripped the accuser. So now he will lose his job.)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 27, 2011, 08:25:24 PM
The only one that seems to be acting emotional is you. Paterno was fired for logical and reasonable reason.
Who at Penn State was fired due to emotion? Or in the court of public opinion?
+1...would it even be legal for Cuse to fire JB for having a molester on his staff? i don't work in hr, nor do i understand how the laws would pertain to a coach, but that wouldn't fly in my office.
I think JB had to know something wasn't right with that guy,sounds like his family all knew. Why did he protect him so voraciously in the beginning trying to kill the story with his clout?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 08:29:41 PM
I don't make the rules, I understand them. Let's see if JB survives and who will be correct.
(Again, I think it is unfair but my opinion, which is similar to your opinion, does not matter. Yes this is a witch-hunt and JB was not smart enough to understand this on November 18 when he ripped the accuser. So now he will lose his job.)
but you were claiming he'd be fired for having a molester on his staff...not for ripping the accuser. i think he survives. in your court of public opinion i'd have much more of an issue with the likes of Barry Alvarez, Rick Pitino, etc.
Quote from: marqptm on November 27, 2011, 07:50:24 PM
Statement:
"The allegations that have come forth today are disturbing and deeply troubling. I am personally very shocked because I have never witnessed any of the activities that have been alleged. I believe the university took the appropriate step tonight. What is most important is that this matter be fully investigated and that anyone with information be supported to come forward so that the truth can be found. I deeply regret any statements I made that might have inhibited that from occurring or been insensitive to victims of abuse."
Um, calling them liars
MIGHT have been insensitive????????
Quote from: avid1010 on November 27, 2011, 08:33:06 PM
+1...would it even be legal for Cuse to fire JB for having a molester on his staff? i don't work in hr, nor do i understand how the laws would pertain to a coach, but that wouldn't fly in my office.
By your logic, it is illegal to fire a coach for having a bad record.
Quote from: avid1010 on November 27, 2011, 08:33:06 PM
+1...would it even be legal for Cuse to fire JB for having a molester on his staff? i don't work in hr, nor do i understand how the laws would pertain to a coach, but that wouldn't fly in my office.
Would assume Boeheim, and probably most if not all D1 coaches are under At Will Employment. They don't have to fire him
for anything, they can just fire him. Little remedy against it, and nothing that would really apply to Boeheim.
Well, let's see how Jimmy B handles the post-game presser on Tuesday. I am sure all the media questions will involve the Eastern Michigan matchup, and nothing else.
The more I read about this, the more I'm with MU84. JB's statement is ALL lawyerly. Let him answer some questions from the media on this. Then let's see how genuinely contrite he is. JB is in trouble. If no more allegations come out this week and the story starts to die down, he may survive yet.
Quote from: chapman on November 27, 2011, 08:40:12 PM
Would assume Boeheim, and probably most if not all D1 coaches are under At Will Employment. They don't have to fire him for anything, they can just fire him. Little remedy against it, and nothing that would really apply to Boeheim.
They're not at-will, they're under contract. Depending on what Boeheim's contract says, Syracuse might have to pay a substantial buy-out to fire him.
In the statement 10 days ago, Boeheim calls the alleged victim a liar, saying the university investigated the claims in 2005 and never could corroborate them.
"He supplied four names to the university that would corroborate his story. None of them did ... there is only one side to this story. He is lying."
But Boeheim took it a step further, saying money was the motivation for the claims.
"Why wouldn't he come to the police? Why would he go to ESPN? What are people looking for here? I believe they are looking for money. I believe they saw what happened at Penn State and they are using ESPN to get money. That is what I believe. You want to put that on the air? Put that on the air."
Jim Boeheim, open mouth, insert foot.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 08:39:21 PM
By your logic, it is illegal to fire a coach for having a bad record.
i can fire a person for having poor results, not meeting goals/quotas, etc. that's easy to justify. if i try to fire someone because someone they were "supervising" did somethin illegal i'd have to prove that there was poor supervision or a cover-up. the poor supervision argument is great because it comes back to bite me in the butt, much like we saw at Penn State.
like i said, i have no clue how this works with coaches, and i always make a call to the lawyers/HR before firing because i'm far from understanding all the laws and how they play into a specific scenario, but i think it's a tough sell IF JB had no clue that this was happening...that's a big if, and imho the calling the accuser a liar and $$$ grabber is fireable if Cuse wants to go down that road. just don't think you can say anyone who has a molester on their staff is fired.
It would be a real shame if JB gets fired for speaking what he believed to be true. The fact that he so strongly defended his coach indicates he had no idea what was really happening. Furthermore, he spoke clearly and rationally, why did the victims not go to the police first. He wasn't condeming them just concluding they were money hungry based on their approach to the situation.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 27, 2011, 08:25:24 PM
The only one that seems to be acting emotional is you. Paterno was fired for logical and reasonable reason.
Who at Penn State was fired due to emotion? Or in the court of public opinion?
Actually Paterno was fired for PR....there was no proof of what he did or did not know nor was there proof of what he did or did not do. There is speculation and conjecture but no discernible evidence or proof.
So Paterno was fired because a loud enough voice turned that speculation into proof. No different than what should happen to Boeheim.
This is not a defense of Paterno, merely pointing out that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and Boeheim has been
proven to have taken no more and no less action than Paterno.
Quote from: noblewarrior on November 27, 2011, 09:29:24 PM
It would be a real shame if JB gets fired for speaking what he believed to be true. The fact that he so strongly defended his coach indicates he had no idea what was really happening. Furthermore, he spoke clearly and rationally, why did the victims not go to the police first. He wasn't condeming them just concluding they were money hungry based on their approach to the situation.
They did go to the police first, Syracuse also conducted an internal investigation and concluded there was nothing to see to the point of not coordinating with the Syracuse police. So going to ESPN was presumable their last resort since they were unable to get traction anywhere else.
Having said that, there is no evidence that Boeheim did anything wrong or knew anything and didn't act on it. Additionally, while it looks considerably more substantial today then even earlier in the week the accusations are far from proven. However, the level of proof is no different than the Paterno story so shouldn't the same standard apply?
Lastly, what culpability, legal or moral, does ESPN have? They purportedly had possession of these tapes in 2005 and didn't turn them over to police.....how is that different than what Paterno supposedly did?
http://bit.ly/s89rOp
Doyle hits the ball out of the park.
Interesting...the ESPN reporter who spoke to Bobby Davis today said that it "means the world" to him that Boeheim has seemed to shift his view after being read Boeheim's statement by the reporter. Strange that it could be his opinion that helps save Boeheim's job.
Wow, was watching NBC for football and they had the news teaser for Channel 4 Milwaukee news. They showed a picture of Fine and said how there was news of a latest sexual assault (but didn't name the school) and ended it with "and find out how it could affect Marquette's basketball season." Probably just being sensitive, but after the stuff over the summer, I just think that could be taken as very misleading and sound like it's an MU coach to people who don't follow MU basketball. Not that that was their intent, just poor reporting.
Chapman, I hadn't seen that, but something like that could save Boeheim's job. At the moment, the most important things are the victims (like in Penn State situation, although a lot of people seemed to forget that). If the victims don't come out against Boeheim and even commend him, then I think he has a much better chance of surviving.
Quote from: cheebs09 on November 27, 2011, 10:29:13 PM
Wow, was watching NBC for football and they had the news teaser for Channel 4 Milwaukee news. They showed a picture of Fine and said how there was news of a latest sexual assault (but didn't name the school) and ended it with "and find out how it could affect Marquette's basketball season." Probably just being sensitive, but after the stuff over the summer, I just think that could be taken as very misleading and sound like it's an MU coach to people who don't follow MU basketball. Not that that was their intent, just poor reporting.
Saw that too. If they were going for a local connection, they should have simply mentioned that it was a school in MU's conference. That likely wouldn't get the same number of eyes though.
Channel 4 said the local connection relates to Cuse playing MU at the Bradley Center in their last year in the conference.
It's Channel 4. Leave no innuendo unexploited.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 07:58:25 PM
I'm with most of you that Boeheim is being railroaded out on the back of JoePa.
What I'm arguing is life is not fair and JoePa set a new standard. Your over-analyzing that standard. It is very simple. If you are a head coach and you have a molester on your staff, you're gone. If you thrash a victim of molestation, you cannot stay.
You're the only one I'm reading doing any "railroading." Boeheim hasn't been fired or resigned.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_rosenberg/11/27/syracuse.fires.fine/index.html
"The accusations against Bernie Fine are very similar to the accusations against Jerry Sandusky, but the accusations against Syracuse are not similar to the accusations against Penn State.
Penn State is accused of covering up eyewitness accounts of sexual molestation. Nobody has alleged that at Syracuse. Boeheim said dumb things to support his friend, and he deserves heat for it. But Penn State officials allegedly heard about specific incidents, shortly after they occurred, from independent observers, and did nothing. That is an enormous difference."
+1
I think the one thing that could make this very bad for Boeheim is the claim that he knew Fine had Davis in his hotel room on road trips. While that in itself may not be proof he knew anything and if Boeheim trusted this guy, I'm sure it wouldn't be out of the norm to view him as more of a chaperone for the kid. However, if it was out of the norm for kids to travel with the team like that, especially sharing a room with a coach, it could get pretty ugly.
Ignoring all the other stuff, I just do not see why Boeheim risked continuing to have Fine on his staff after the 2002 allegations. Even, if he did not believe the allegations he should have been smart enough to separate himself from Fine.
Quote from: Hamostradamus on November 27, 2011, 10:42:50 PMChannel 4 said the local connection relates to Cuse playing MU at the Bradley Center in their last year in the conference.
That's really deceitful journalism, for two reasons. First, they are leading you to believe the Fine events are directly connected to Marquette. Second, it's inaccurate because this isn't Syracuse's last year in the conference. They are required to stay this year and next, unless they negotiate an earlier release, which hasn't happened yet.
All that aside...I think Boeheim needs to go. Early on, I was thinking this might be coat-tail riding after Penn State, I'm sure a lot of people were. But to come out and say it and launch an attack on the victim is simply something you cannot do. The Doyel article summed it up perfectly: defend your friend, say you don't believe the accusations, say you weren't aware of any of this going on, but don't attack the person before all the evidence is in. Now that it's coming in, and it looks bad, there's no going back. This lame retraction is too little, too late.
As much as I'm not a fan of Syracuse, or Boeheim, I've always respected them on the court. But this time, he really stuck his foot in it. There's no separating him from what he said, especially not the money-grab accusation. It's too bad, because based on what we know now, I don't think he was complicit in hiding a scandal like JoePa was, but for completely different reasons, he still needs to go.
Quote from: marqptm on November 27, 2011, 09:55:41 PM
http://bit.ly/s89rOp
Doyle hits the ball out of the park.
This.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 27, 2011, 09:43:05 PM
Actually Paterno was fired for PR....there was no proof of what he did or did not know nor was there proof of what he did or did not do. There is speculation and conjecture but no discernible evidence or proof.
He knew what McQueary told him and testified as such. That is irrefutable fact.
There is also pretty strong conjecture that he knew about previous incidents, kept them quiet, and kept him involved with the program.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 28, 2011, 07:47:04 AM
He knew what McQueary told him and testified as such. That is irrefutable fact.
There is also pretty strong conjecture that he knew about previous incidents, kept them quiet, and kept him involved with the program.
I find it humorous that your 2nd paragraph is "conjecture" apparently refuting the post you quoted as stating that "There is speculation and
conjecture but no discernible evidence or proof."
Well, I was pointing out that there was indeed proof (based on his own testimony to the grand jury) of what was going on.
I only added the second sentence as a throw in, but yeah I understand the issue.
Regardless, PSU didn't simply fire Paterno for PR reasons. It is silly to think so. Not to mention, that you don't need "jury proof" to fire someone.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 28, 2011, 08:01:06 AM
Well, I was pointing out that there was indeed proof (based on his own testimony to the grand jury) of what was going on.
I only added the second sentence as a throw in, but yeah I understand the issue.
Regardless, PSU didn't simply fire Paterno for PR reasons. It is silly to think so. Not to mention, that you don't need "jury proof" to fire someone.
I am not disagreeing with you. We do not know all that went into the decision, only what is public. Paterno forced their hands with his "retirement" announcement. That said, I do not believe he was fired unfairly, based upon the information in the public.
I just found that paragraph funny.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 28, 2011, 07:47:04 AM
He knew what McQueary told him and testified as such. That is irrefutable fact.
There is also pretty strong conjecture that he knew about previous incidents, kept them quiet, and kept him involved with the program.
If we are basing it off of what we know and evidence, all we have in Paterno is that he was told something of a sexual nature happened. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Boeheim was told things went on in 2005, however we don't know what he knew. Hell at the end of the day, ESPN probably had the biggest smoking gun off the whole thing in the audio tape they got in 2003....they didn't do anything with it, not bothering to even turn it into police that we know.
The Penn State situation and response has established the standard, at a minimum ESPN has fallen under that standard, and I think Boeheim, especially with his victim attacking has fallen under it as well.
And your second paragraph proves my point....the standard is now unless there is evidence proving the negative conjecture is sufficient for dismissal in these types of cases.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 28, 2011, 08:10:59 AM
If we are basing it off of what we know and evidence, all we have in Paterno is that he was told something of a sexual nature happened. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Boeheim was told things went on in 2005, however we don't know what he knew. Hell at the end of the day, ESPN probably had the biggest smoking gun off the whole thing in the audio tape they got in 2003....they didn't do anything with it, not bothering to even turn it into police that we know.
The Penn State situation and response has established the standard, at a minimum ESPN has fallen under that standard, and I think Boeheim, especially with his victim attacking has fallen under it as well.
And your second paragraph proves my point....the standard is now unless there is evidence proving the negative conjecture is sufficient for dismissal in these types of cases.
So Paterno being told something of a "sexual nature" occuring between Sandusky and a young boy, and still letting him being involved with the football program, isn't enough? That is is pretty solid reason to fire someone regardless of the PR involved.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 28, 2011, 08:01:06 AM
Regardless, PSU didn't simply fire Paterno for PR reasons. It is silly to think so. Not to mention, that you don't need "jury proof" to fire someone.
No, but it was PR, because the BOT who did the firing is knee deep in the whole situation. Basically firing Paterno was a way of deflecting the piercing eye of the media away from the Board of Trustees. So while Paterno needed to go, he was fired as cover therefore in my opinion as a PR move.
I'm not trying to re-litigate the Paterno firing, my point is that the level of "proof" we have with Boeheim is nearly as damning as Paterno why would the punishments be different? Especially since Boeheim attacked the victims in a public forum potentially preventing other victims from coming out.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 28, 2011, 08:14:16 AM
So Paterno being told something of a "sexual nature" occuring between Sandusky and a young boy, and still letting him being involved with the football program, isn't enough? That is is pretty solid reason to fire someone regardless of the PR involved.
You are proving my point....that is enough to fire Paterno. My PR point was that the BOT did not fire him for that reason, they fired him to deflect attention.
Boeheim was told the very same thing and via the victim himself and still employed Fine, why does the same standard not apply?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 28, 2011, 08:14:16 AM
So Paterno being told something of a "sexual nature" occuring between Sandusky and a young boy, and still letting him being involved with the football program, isn't enough? That is is pretty solid reason to fire someone regardless of the PR involved.
This is where I have more questions and see that it could have been a PR move/or Paterno was the scapegoat.
We know Paterno was told that by McQuerry. We also know that McQuerry did not confront Sandusky. We know that Paterno reported this to his superior. We know that after an "investigation", PSU did not pursue the matter. After that, the facts become less clear.
What was the response back to Paterno? If it was that we investigated and it has been properly handled, what more should Paterno have done? In retrospect, we now know a lot. But, at that time, we do not know if he knew more or not. If he was involved in any cover-up ... We can speculate, but the facts are not out in the open. But, we are told that he was advised the situation was investigated and properly discharged. Should he have gone above his superior and the investigative team?
Quote from: marqptm on November 27, 2011, 07:56:29 PM
It was the worst knee-jerk reaction ever then. Jim should just step down, people have lost their jobs for saying a lot less.
This is a poor reason to justify firing someone, much less justify anything.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 28, 2011, 08:16:11 AM
No, but it was PR, because the BOT who did the firing is knee deep in the whole situation. Basically firing Paterno was a way of deflecting the piercing eye of the media away from the Board of Trustees. So while Paterno needed to go, he was fired as cover therefore in my opinion as a PR move.
OK, I see where you are heading, but it could also be argued that the BOT finally did something that they should have done years ago - and only their own negligence prevented them from doing so.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 28, 2011, 08:19:03 AM
Boeheim was told the very same thing and via the victim himself and still employed Fine, why does the same standard not apply?
Because Syracuse looked into the allegations and came to the conclusion that they were false (mostly because they didn't have the latest piece of evidence.) That is way different than the systematic cover-up at PSU>
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 28, 2011, 08:48:14 AM
OK, I see where you are heading, but it could also be argued that the BOT finally did something that they should have done years ago - and only their own negligence prevented them from doing so.
One man's negligence is another man's willful cover-up
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 28, 2011, 08:48:14 AM
Because Syracuse looked into the allegations and came to the conclusion that they were false (mostly because they didn't have the latest piece of evidence.) That is way different than the systematic cover-up at PSU>
We don't know that Syracuse isn't a cover-up, just likely technically speaking we don't know that PSU was either.
What if the Sandusky thing went all the way to the BOT and they came back and told Paterno, don't worry we investigated there is nothing to worry about. Is that different than what Syracuse is now saying? We don't know all the facts in either the Penn State or the Syracuse situations, but what we do "know", IMHO, is roughly equivalent in both situations, shouldn't the reaction be the same?
Quote from: mu03eng on November 28, 2011, 08:19:03 AM
You are proving my point....that is enough to fire Paterno. My PR point was that the BOT did not fire him for that reason, they fired him to deflect attention.
Boeheim was told the very same thing and via the victim himself and still employed Fine, why does the same standard not apply?
So let me get this straight. If someone accuses a person who works for you of a crime the proper procedure is to fire the accused on the spot. Anything less means you're part of a cover up if the allegations prove truthful - and if the allegations prove to be false what's one guy's life compared to the immediate public relations boost for the institution.
Going from a system that does everything to trample the rights of the accuser to one which presumes the guilt of the accused isn't progress, just a different kind of injustice.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 28, 2011, 09:20:37 AM
So let me get this straight. If someone accuses a person who works for you of a crime the proper procedure is to fire the accused on the spot. Anything less means you're part of a cover up if the allegations prove truthful - and if the allegations prove to be false what's one guy's life compared to the immediate public relations boost for the institution.
Going from a system that does everything to trample the rights of the accuser to one which presumes the guilt of the accused isn't progress, just a different kind of injustice.
I agree with your premise, but we can't pick and choose when we want to presume guilt. I'm saying the situations are much more similar than people want to admit so if we are being honest than our responses should be similar. What we know between the two stories is nearly the same.....what we think we know is vastly different, but thats the point isn't it, we shouldn't be making decisions based on what we think we know.
When is God firing the Pope?
Quote from: mu03eng on November 28, 2011, 10:04:26 AM
I agree with your premise, but we can't pick and choose when we want to presume guilt. I'm saying the situations are much more similar than people want to admit so if we are being honest than our responses should be similar. What we know between the two stories is nearly the same.....what we think we know is vastly different, but thats the point isn't it, we shouldn't be making decisions based on what we think we know.
If a member of my staff supplies me with an eyewitness report of child rape/sexual abuse I think my responsibility to make sure the investigation proceeds is far greater than in a he said/he said situation. That's the crux of the difference regarding Joe Pa vs Boeheim.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 28, 2011, 09:20:37 AM
Going from a system that does everything to trample the rights of the accuser to one which presumes the guilt of the accused isn't progress, just a different kind of injustice.
+1
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 28, 2011, 10:49:58 AM
If a member of my staff supplies me with an eyewitness report of child rape/sexual abuse I think my responsibility to make sure the investigation proceeds is far greater than in a he said/he said situation. That's the crux of the difference regarding Joe Pa vs Boeheim.
Agreed, but we don't know how far either one of the gentlemen went to make sure the situation proceeds. We think we know, but we actually have no evidence in either case of what they did or did not do.
And the board favorite during the Paterno thing, how did he not know? Fine has ball boys stay in his hotel room on road games and his wife sounds bat guano crazy so there is no way Boeheim knew anything? Again pure speculation but that was the game played with Paterno, should be played with Boeheim.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on November 27, 2011, 07:58:25 PM
I'm with most of you that Boeheim is being railroaded out on the back of JoePa.
What I'm arguing is life is not fair and JoePa set a new standard. Your over-analyzing that standard. It is very simple. If you are a head coach and you have a molester on your staff, you're gone. If you thrash a victim of molestation, you cannot stay.
Those two things are completely different. I think that JB should keep his job, I also thing JoePa needed to be fired, 100%.
Here is what JoePa did:
99 found out his asst. showered with boys.
01 asst published a book that talked about his 'special friends' way more than football.
02 was told that his now retired asst. was f'ing boys on campus.
09 found out that his former asst, who showered and f'd boys was expelled from a high school.
99 - 2011 - sent the child rapist to high schools on recruiting trips.
How do you continue to send him out on recruiting trips? You should be fired for that. If you think that he did enough in 02, fine, but he was sending him out to meet high school kids this summer...
Defending a friend you had for 35 years, in the heat of the moment, is completely different. If he didn't know about it then he's OK in my book.
JoePa and JB are not comparable. JB still needs to be fired though.
It doesn't matter that JB was 'defending his friend in the heat of the moment', what he did with the words he spoke that day was create the worst environmental for sexual abuse.
The biggest figure in Syracuse (city & school) ever comes out states that if you go against my people, you're a liar and you're gold digging. That is highly unacceptable. Not only does this keep anyone else from coming forward, but what if there were some sexual assault cases with his players? I'd be afraid to come forward after the belittling Boeheim gave the victim.
Quote from: RawdogDX on November 28, 2011, 11:37:19 AM
Those two things are completely different. I think that JB should keep his job, I also thing JoePa needed to be fired, 100%.
Here is what JoePa did:
99 found out his asst. showered with boys.
01 asst published a book that talked about his 'special friends' way more than football.
02 was told that his now retired asst. was f'ing boys on campus.
09 found out that his former asst, who showered and f'd boys was expelled from a high school.
99 - 2011 - sent the child rapist to high schools on recruiting trips.
How do you continue to send him out on recruiting trips? You should be fired for that. If you think that he did enough in 02, fine, but he was sending him out to meet high school kids this summer...
Defending a friend you had for 35 years, in the heat of the moment, is completely different. If he didn't know about it then he's OK in my book.
First, while your list is thorough it also has a wide range of speculation and fact. I would agree the speculation seems likely but then again maybe its not, we have no documents other than a grand jury report that by its very definition is biased. Be that as it may, Paterno needed to go, thats ultimately not my point.
My point is that Boeheim knew Fine was investigated in 2005 and was presumably with him on roadtrips where Fine brought the ball boys with him to his hotel. ESPN knew of this tape in 2002. Clearly the wife knew since the 90s based on the tape. So all these people knew something, those are facts and yet Paterno is fired for knowing something and not "doing more". On top of that Boeheim comes out and crucifies the accusers, how is that establishing an environment to "do more". To PTM's point, why would anyone come forward with allegations after what the biggest figure in Syracuse said a week ago.
The great irony of all this is that while some might have been uncomfortable with what Boeheim said last week, now that the accusations seem more credible there is controversy. He should have been at a minimum been suspended for the statement alone, regardless of the situation.
In any case any parent considering sending their son there to play basketball should give them pause.
JB's statements after tonight's game do not exactly jibe with the contrite tenor of Sunday's written statement.
Longtime assistant men's basketball instructor Bernie Fine has been fired by Syracuse University. Fine, who will turn 66 in Dec., has been accused by three individuals. While Boeheim has denied knowledge of wrongdoing, the Network for Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has called for the university to take further disciplinary measures against him. Read more here: http://www.newsytype.com/13688-syracuse-bernie-fine-molestation/
This is a big scandal in the school.As well as to Fine's family and relatives.
Quote from: KC2016 on November 29, 2011, 10:18:30 PM
JB's statements after tonight's game do not exactly jibe with the contrite tenor of Sunday's written statement.
It appears that JB is waiting for the outcome of the investigation. If criminal charges are filed, whether it be a police affidavit or a grand jury indictment against Fine, then things may change in JB's status. He kept stating the "under my watch" terminology and so far no charges have been filed.
Quote from: nyg on November 30, 2011, 07:56:23 AM
It appears that JB is waiting for the outcome of the investigation. If criminal charges are filed, whether it be a police affidavit or a grand jury indictment against Fine, then things may change in JB's status. He kept stating the "under my watch" terminology and so far no charges have been filed.
My biggest issue with Boeheim is that he came out firing at the alleged victims and had no problem calling them liars and saying that they were only doing it for money. Now that some pretty damning evidence has come out against Fine, Boeheim very unapologetically states that everyone should wait until the investigation is complete before making judgments. He should have followed that advice from the beginning.
This sums up the impression I got.
http://news.yahoo.com/column-boeheim-survive-price-005456602.html