The Freeh report has been made public today. It is NOT a criminal investigation. I am more interested what the Feds turn up with actual subpoena power and legal ramifications.
I don't ever want the MU community to ever put itself in a position where a single individual wields this much power.
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/report_final_071212.pdf (http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/report_final_071212.pdf)
The Big Ten Network didn't report the story because they said they "are not a news network".
Death Penalty. This program needs to go away for a little bit.
I don't think the death penalty is going to happen based on economics. The B1G (and for that matter the BCS)will beg, wheedle and cajole to keep their 12 team league intact. If PSU goes on the death penalty, the ripple effect throught he BCS would be monstrous. I DO think that the Paternos and PSU are going to end up paying out 8 to 9 figures in compensation to the victims.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 12, 2012, 03:17:24 PM
The Big Ten Network didn't report the story because they said they "are not a news network".
Well, they're technically right... The BTN is a propaganda network.
Quote from: tower912 on July 12, 2012, 03:41:54 PM
I don't think the death penalty is going to happen based on economics. The B1G (and for that matter the BCS)will beg, wheedle and cajole to keep their 12 team league intact. If PSU goes on the death penalty, the ripple effect throught he BCS would be monstrous. I DO think that the Paternos and PSU are going to end up paying out 8 to 9 figures in compensation to the victims.
Unfortunately, there is so much money at stake I also fear that the NCAA will do nothing. I don't care how much it costs PSU, the conference, or the NCAA, I want death penalty. Stuff like this makes me hate the NCAA even more.
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on July 12, 2012, 04:33:48 PM
Unfortunately, there is so much money at stake I also fear that the NCAA will do nothing. I don't care how much it costs PSU, the conference, or the NCAA, I want death penalty. Stuff like this makes me hate the NCAA even more.
If they do nothing to punish PSU for what they did...aren't they just keeping the "sweeping under the rug" trend going in college sports?
Also, I believe the same people that ran this report have been contracted to look into the Saints issues. That would be an interesting read also (not 100% sure i heard this correctly though)
Quote from: robmufan on July 12, 2012, 04:37:29 PM
If they do nothing to punish PSU for what they did...aren't they just keeping the "sweeping under the rug" trend going in college sports?
Also, I believe the same people that ran this report have been contracted to look into the Saints issues. That would be an interesting read also (not 100% sure i heard this correctly though)
You are correct. His firm, which has two partners who were former federal district court judges (Sullivan and Sporkin) has been contracted to conduct the Saints investigation.
If this doesn't earn the death penalty what does?
I'm going to take the opposite approach. While the investigation will continue, and Penn State officials may even end up in jail, and while the university should essentially consider itself bankrupt, I believe that the NCAA may choose to inoculate itself by dealing out the harshest penalty it can muster.
We all know that the 'privileged athletic program' is a problem. We've even had to deal with it at MU. The NCAA has to think about long term damage control. It needs maximum distance from the horrific crimes at Penn State University.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 12, 2012, 06:29:43 PM
If this doesn't earn the death penalty what does?
The NCAA can only dole out punishment that follows its bylaws...now there can be "lack of institutional control" here in play, but that would be a pretty broad interpretation of that bylaw. I mean, if they are going to give out the death penalty for this kind of stuff, that is a slippery slope and we dont know where that ends.
I mean, Marquette was in violation of the Cleary Act right? Clearly its not at the same level as PSU, but where is that line then drawn?
I think the NCAA is doing its due dilligence and is going to wait to see what they put in place in the area of compliance. But since they have no history of violation, and didn't play a single event with an ineligible player or engaged in no illegal recruiting practices, I think the NCAA would be viewed by many as overstepping its reach.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 12, 2012, 09:30:29 PM
The NCAA can only dole out punishment that follows its bylaws...now there can be "lack of institutional control" here in play, but that would be a pretty broad interpretation of that bylaw. I mean, if they are going to give out the death penalty for this kind of stuff, that is a slippery slope and we dont know where that ends.
I mean, Marquette was in violation of the Cleary Act right? Clearly its not at the same level as PSU, but where is that line then drawn?
I think the NCAA is doing its due dilligence and is going to wait to see what they put in place in the area of compliance. But since they have no history of violation, and didn't play a single event with an ineligible player or engaged in no illegal recruiting practices, I think the NCAA would be viewed by many as overstepping its reach.
Agreed. The NCAA will have a tough time trying to sell lack of institutional control.
The Big Ten might be more interested than the NCAA, but I doubt either are interested.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 12, 2012, 09:30:29 PM
The NCAA can only dole out punishment that follows its bylaws...now there can be "lack of institutional control" here in play, but that would be a pretty broad interpretation of that bylaw. I mean, if they are going to give out the death penalty for this kind of stuff, that is a slippery slope and we dont know where that ends.
I mean, Marquette was in violation of the Cleary Act right? Clearly its not at the same level as PSU, but where is that line then drawn?
The lack of institutional control is an interesting issue - Penalties for "lack of institutional control" assume that institutional control is a good thing, and that it cures the ills of individual bad actors. But here, the institution had complete control from the janitors to the Prez -- and it was morally repugnant in every way. So while you're right that lack of institutional control certainly doesn't parse onto the PSU situation very well, this situation would seem to be the most deserving of the death penalty inasmuch as the program has proven itself unfit for civilian life, let alone "the privilege" of NCAA sports.
This is a moment for the NCAA to define itself. Many people think the NCAA is a joke... the eqivalent of a mentally challenged aunt who is being led around by the spoiled, undisciplined brats she's supposed to be chaperoning.
Granted, a former coach playing games in the shower with underage boys is a criminal act, not an NCAA violation. But maybe there's an NCAA ethics code or something applicable to the institution whereby conspiracy to cover up forty-some felonies is a violation.
Nevertheless, if the NCAA wants to show that it has any shred of character and/or decency, it has to do something. Exactly what it can do is my question... and if there's any ambiguity, PSU's legal team will bury the NCAA.
Benny, in my heart I want the NCAA to give them the death penalty for two years.
In my head, I worry about "ethics violations" as a basis for doing so. Where does this end?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 12, 2012, 06:29:43 PM
If this doesn't earn the death penalty what does?
Was going to ask this. As long as there are no recruiting violations, etc., involved -- if a coach and his players developed a meth production and distribution network, using school facilities, would it incur any NCAA sanction?
Quote from: warrior07 on July 13, 2012, 07:37:52 AM
Was going to ask this. As long as there are no recruiting violations, etc., involved -- if a coach and his players developed a meth production and distribution network, using school facilities, would it incur any NCAA sanction?
I think actually think that's a pretty fair comparison. I think people are hesitatant of the death penalty in this case because this is out of the typical scope of paying players, recruiting infractions, etc. This has been the worst display of abuse of power and lack of judgment by several administrative officials ever. All these guys should be held to a much higher stander than college athletes and a punishment to fit the crime should be the death penalty. An educational institution placed a football team before the law, the safety of children, morals, ethics, common decency, you name it...that tells me this program should go away for a little
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 13, 2012, 07:27:41 AM
Benny, in my heart I want the NCAA to give them the death penalty for two years.
In my head, I worry about "ethics violations" as a basis for doing so. Where does this end?
I agree with you.
I just hope the NCAA decides to "nut up" and deal with the fall-out/consequences of the death penalty. Just prepare for it, and deal with it. It will be litigious, cost them money, and will be a pain in the ass. But, in the long run, it's probably best.
The irony is: This whole situation was created because Penn State refused to step up and do the right thing, even though it would have been litigious, painful, cost them money, PR, etc.
Penn State shouldn't receive the death penalty because they had a child molester, Penn State should get the death penalty because they enabled a child molester because it was easier than the alternative.
The NCAA has a chance to show that they can do the right thing, even when it's difficult.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 13, 2012, 07:27:41 AM
Benny, in my heart I want the NCAA to give them the death penalty for two years.
In my head, I worry about "ethics violations" as a basis for doing so. Where does this end?
Agreed... IMO, this is an Penn State "institutional" issue, not an Penn State "athletics" or "competition" issue. If the NCAA is going to start monitoring what the institution does instead of what the athletic department and athletes do, then where do you draw the line? Does the NCAA shut down BYU because LDS isn't doing enough to control polygamy and forced marriage in fundamentalist sects? Should they shut down Va Tech because they "can't control" gun violence on their campus?
Quote from: Benny B on July 13, 2012, 11:05:28 AM
Agreed... IMO, this is an Penn State "institutional" issue, not an Penn State "athletics" or "competition" issue. If the NCAA is going to start monitoring what the institution does instead of what the athletic department and athletes do, then where do you draw the line? Does the NCAA shut down BYU because LDS isn't doing enough to control polygamy and forced marriage in fundamentalist sects? Should they shut down Va Tech because they "can't control" gun violence on their campus?
wouldn't that be kind of like a post-season ban if you have a native American mascot?
Quote from: Benny B on July 13, 2012, 11:05:28 AM
Agreed... IMO, this is an Penn State "institutional" issue, not an Penn State "athletics" or "competition" issue. If the NCAA is going to start monitoring what the institution does instead of what the athletic department and athletes do, then where do you draw the line? Does the NCAA shut down BYU because LDS isn't doing enough to control polygamy and forced marriage in fundamentalist sects? Should they shut down Va Tech because they "can't control" gun violence on their campus?
This is why the only good slippery slope argument is that all slippery slope arguments are slippery slopes. BYU should get shut down if Bronco Mendenhall and the athletic department, at the consent of the Prez, were complicit in one of their coaches procuring as many sister wives as he could but keeping it quiet for the good of the program. Va Tech should get shut down if they have a top-down cover up of Frank Beamer partaking in Fast and Furious behavior while he lectures schoolchildren about the danger of guns. Those would be comparable to PSU.
Ultimately, I think the comparisons to ND, MU, and other schools with reporting problems in their relationship with actual police are much better comparisons. In those cases (to varying degrees - I don't want this to turn into a pissing match about that) you have institutional problems, flirting with illegality, about the way University infrastructure reports crime to the actual authorities. I think the dividing line between these cases and PSU is similar to a "knowing" or "reckless" standard in criminal law. Everyone at PSU knew that Sandusky raping young boys was illegal, and by extension knew of their duties once aware of that accusation. In the reporting cases though, an investigation would almost certainly show that the entire program, from coaching staff to AD to Office Presidency was not aware of the strict reporting procedures or their accompanying (il?)legal status. To me, thats the difference and its not an overly ambiguous one - criminal law employs it constantly.
Quote from: Red Stripe on July 13, 2012, 11:48:04 AM
wouldn't that be kind of like a post-season ban if you have a native American mascot?
Well played. Find one administrator at Penn State on the record saying he/she supports this ban, and the NCAA has themselves a damn good case.
Quote from: MUBurrow on July 13, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
This is why the only good slippery slope argument is that all slippery slope arguments are slippery slopes. BYU should get shut down if Bronco Mendenhall and the athletic department, at the consent of the Prez, were complicit in one of their coaches procuring as many sister wives as he could but keeping it quiet for the good of the program. Va Tech should get shut down if they have a top-down cover up of Frank Beamer partaking in Fast and Furious behavior while he lectures schoolchildren about the danger of guns. Those would be comparable to PSU.
Ultimately, I think the comparisons to ND, MU, and other schools with reporting problems in their relationship with actual police are much better comparisons. In those cases (to varying degrees - I don't want this to turn into a pissing match about that) you have institutional problems, flirting with illegality, about the way University infrastructure reports crime to the actual authorities. I think the dividing line between these cases and PSU is similar to a "knowing" or "reckless" standard in criminal law. Everyone at PSU knew that Sandusky raping young boys was illegal, and by extension knew of their duties once aware of that accusation. In the reporting cases though, an investigation would almost certainly show that the entire program, from coaching staff to AD to Office Presidency was not aware of the strict reporting procedures or their accompanying (il?)legal status. To me, thats the difference and its not an overly ambiguous one - criminal law employs it constantly.
PSU/Sandusky is nothing near comparability to MU:
1) There was ambiguity regarding the non-reporting part of WI law that dealt with "reasonable suspicion" that a crime occurred. Given what has been disclosed publicly about the MU incident(s), it is plausible that the officer in charge did not believe that a crime took place and therefore there was no obligation to report anything. PSU officials didn't just "reasonably suspect" something, in the email strings they basically acknowledged something criminal was going on.
2) DPS repeatedly gave the victim(s) an opportunity to file a report with MPD; if I recall correctly, they encouraged it on at least one occasion. Nobody at PSU encouraged anyone to go to the police, and in fact, stood in the way on multiple occasions.
MU was a matter of bad policy at best, negligence at worst; regardless, there was no malicious intent on the part of DPS or the university. You can criticize the process, the disciplinary hearings or the university's response, but at least MU did
something.
PSU, on the other hand, appears to be a full-blown conspiracy where people deliberately and continually placed children in danger in order to keep this matter from seeing the light of day.
I don't think anyone is seriously comparing the two. But the point is, if everyone wants PSU to get the death penalty...and everyone believe that MU should get no sanctions....there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. Warrior07 asked this question:
"As long as there are no recruiting violations, etc., involved -- if a coach and his players developed a meth production and distribution network, using school facilities, would it incur any NCAA sanction?"
Good question....
What if the above occurred, but the meth lab was located in the coaches house? What if it was an assistant coach?
Generally, the overuse of ambiguous statements to justify taking action never really ends well because of the subjectivity involved. Now, all laws have some subjectivity....and being over-literal can bring trouble as well. But I would be really worried about this precedent.
Quote from: Benny B on July 13, 2012, 02:06:25 PM
PSU/Sandusky is nothing near comparability to MU:
Sultan alludes to this above, but I wasn't saying I think they all belong grouped together by severity, etc, but merely that when discussing NCAA's role in the transgressions of member schools, MU & ND are more of a species to PSU than the hypotheticals you had posted. That species being the institutional consensus and handling of a certain subject in a way that is contrary to law, yet does not involve an on-field competitive advantage.
Quote from: MUBurrow on July 13, 2012, 02:45:30 PM
Sultan alludes to this above, but I wasn't saying I think they all belong grouped together by severity, etc, but merely that when discussing NCAA's role in the transgressions of member schools, MU & ND are more of a species to PSU than the hypotheticals you had posted. That species being the institutional consensus and handling of a certain subject in a way that is contrary to law, yet does not involve an on-field competitive advantage.
My bad... deep down, I understood what you were saying; however, it isn't the first time I've heard a comparison of MU to PSU in the past 24 hours... you simply got what was leftover of my defense mechanism after being egged on by a rodent earlier today. (Once again, the Booker Stanley card delivers a crushing blow, metaphorically speaking of course.)
We're all saying the same thing... where do you draw the line? There may be justice in it being drawn right through State College today, but remain mindful that such precedent could lead to a future injustice somewhere closer to home.
Hopefully that line goes 90 miles to the west and not an inch closer. Sorry... sorry... I don't know what's come over me today.
No worries, I definitely agree on the precedent. I guess my next question is whether there is a history of the NCAA dropping lesser penalties for non-competitive advantage issues. They have penalized for absolutely idiotic things (Majerus buying a kid lunch after his old man passed away pops immediately to mind) but they couch those in competitive advantage/improper benefits terms. I guess I doubt it, since its likely that conduct in the past would just be one or two people, and never as widespread as this. What a (even aside from the obvious repugnance of it all) weird situation for the NCAA.
There isn't a school in america that doesn't have a student-athlete sex assault in their closet. I really hope that every school in the US doesn't have a 15 year history of paying a guy to bring kids on campus and ass rape them in the shower.
Quote from: RawdogDX on July 13, 2012, 03:23:11 PM
There isn't a school in america that doesn't have a student-athlete sex assault in their closet. I really hope that every school in the US doesn't have a 15 year history of paying a guy to bring kids on campus and ass rape them in the shower.
In the literal sense, me too.
In the figurative sense, it's called a "buy game;" however the NCAA at least has a rule that doesn't allow it to happen more than 10 times a year.
Quote from: Benny B on July 13, 2012, 03:49:04 PM
In the literal sense, me too.
In the figurative sense, it's called a "buy game;" however the NCAA at least has a rule that doesn't allow it to happen more than 10 times a year.
OK, I've got to admit that I didn't expect to get a laugh out of this thread.
Quote from: tower912 on July 12, 2012, 03:41:54 PM
I don't think the death penalty is going to happen based on economics. The B1G (and for that matter the BCS)will beg, wheedle and cajole to keep their 12 team league intact. If PSU goes on the death penalty, the ripple effect throught he BCS would be monstrous.
I truly hope you are wrong, as it was the coordinated effort to cover this nightmare up for the sake of brand protection and the almighty dollar (particularly those going into Joe Paterno's pocket) that led to this. If the NCAA doesn't take serious action on this, they further expose the,selves as the blood sucking hypocrites we already know they are.
The death penalty is not only appropriate, but necessary (with the current athletes being able to immediately transfer to other schools with no restrictions).
It's funny because as recently as yesterday, I heard former PSU player, Marco Rivera say that Joe Paterno was "about education and doing it the right way." Since the day this broke it has been shocking to me how many people just don't get it. None of the stuff about turning football players into great men, etc. matters any more. This ugliness exposed without a doubt what he was ultimately all about. Former players, fans, etc., no longer have the right to claim that he did it the right way. He (along with Spanier, etc.) could not have possibly done it more wrong if they tried. He knew how to coach football. Big effin deal.
I agree that PSU deserves the death penalty. I don't think the NCAA delivers it, though, because, as heinous as all of this is, it does not have anything to do with recruiting, paying players, eligibility issues related to the football players. I predict that PSU football plays on, but the civil lawsuits are massive and there is jail time for some of the administrators who assisted in the coverup.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on July 14, 2012, 09:49:11 AM
It's funny because as recently as yesterday, I heard former PSU player, Marco Rivera say that Joe Paterno was "about education and doing it the right way." Since the day this broke it has been shocking to me how many people just don't get it. None of the stuff about turning football players into great men, etc. matters any more. This ugliness exposed without a doubt what he was ultimately all about. Former players, fans, etc., no longer have the right to claim that he did it the right way. He (along with Spanier, etc.) could not have possibly done it more wrong if they tried. He knew how to coach football. Big effin deal.
I'm not comparing Paterno to Adolph Hitler, but believe it or not, Hitler did have a trait or two that was "commendable"... for instance, the Nazis were firm believers in animal welfare. But how many people do you hear today going around saying, "well, Hitler was an evil man, but hey, he did a lot of great things for animals, right?"
Joe Paterno knowingly and, through inaction, deliberately endangered scores of vulnerable boys and indirectly contributed to the most heinous act anyone can do to a young child all for the sake of his money and reputation. Those children had something taken away from them that cannot be replaced by anything Joe Paterno did or could have ever done. To defend his reputation is a slap in the face to every single one of the children whose lives he ruined.
Quote from: Benny B on July 14, 2012, 01:34:25 PM
I'm not comparing Paterno to Adolph Hitler, but believe it or not, Hitler did have a trait or two that was "commendable"... for instance, the Nazis were firm believers in animal welfare. But how many people do you hear today going around saying, "well, Hitler was an evil man, but hey, he did a lot of great things for animals, right?"
Nothing to do with PSU, but there's an interesting book that investigates that issue. The author's claim is that one of the primary reason the Nazi's were so interested in animal welfare, (and nature, in general) was to justify their opinions on the superiority of races. A predator kills the biologically inferior.
Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust by Boria Sax
http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Third-Reich-Scapegoats-Holocaust/dp/0826414087 (http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Third-Reich-Scapegoats-Holocaust/dp/0826414087)
Boers & Bernstein are going to be playing a clip of Mark Emmert on PBS last night shortly.
They are teasing it as a possibility of the death penalty.
Awesome, these fucktards in Happy Valley need a realty check.
Boers & Bernstein are going to be playing a clip of Mark Emmert on PBS last night shortly.
They are teasing it as a possibility of the death penalty.
Awesome, these fracktards in Happy Valley need a realty check.
I don't support killing all the sports programs, but football should be done.
It would suck for DJ Newbill to have to transfer again.
I want the Death Penalty for PSU football here. It's not like they're hurting for money - didn't they raise over $200M in donations in the past fiscal year (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48126906/ns/us_news-giving/#.UAWuz9XE_IU), their second highest total ever?
A postseason ban isn't going to be enough punishment. Stripping away tons of scholarships won't be enough, either. This might be enough of a punishment:
http://www.youtube.com/v/YssMT0qXYOw
Quote from: PTM on July 17, 2012, 01:34:48 PM
Boers & Bernstein are going to be playing a clip of Mark Emmert on PBS last night shortly.
They are teasing it as a possibility of the death penalty.
Emmert's statement is crouched in so many "ifs" that I doubt it will happen. PSU doesn't owe the NCAA a response to its letter until December, and once they play football this year, I would be seriously surprised if anything happens later.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 17, 2012, 01:46:00 PM
Emmert's statement is crouched in so many "ifs" that I doubt it will happen. PSU doesn't owe the NCAA a response to its letter until December, and once they play football this year, I would be seriously surprised if anything happens later.
If the "death penalty" wouldn't be implemented, what other harsh penalty could reasonably be implemented?
None. The NCAA will do something that will masquerade as a harsh penalty.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 17, 2012, 01:46:00 PM
Emmert's statement is crouched in so many "ifs" that I doubt it will happen. PSU doesn't owe the NCAA a response to its letter until December, and once they play football this year, I would be seriously surprised if anything happens later.
In the NCAA's defense, all judgment should be held until the Paterno Family's investigation is complete.
Quote from: PTM on July 17, 2012, 02:31:39 PM
In the NCAA's defense, all judgment should be held until the Paterno Family's investigation is complete.
Then the NCAA should launch its own investigation into both the Freeh and Paterno family investigations.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 17, 2012, 02:42:03 PM
Then the NCAA should launch its own investigation into both the Freeh and Paterno family investigations.
I've always said, "The more launchin', the better."
I don't see why we should put a bunch of local bars, restaurants and hotels out of business by killing the football team.
They aren't going to be able recruit, players should be allowed to transfer without penalty, their donations are going to plummet, game attendance is going to drop, school applicants are probably going to drop; they will suffer plenty. Just make sure anyone even slightly involved is fired and ban them from a few bowl games. Perhaps they will be a real program again in 5-8 years.
Quote from: RawdogDX on July 17, 2012, 02:44:30 PM
I don't see why we should put a bunch of local bars, restaurants and hotels out of business by killing the football team.
They aren't going to be able recruit, players should be allowed to transfer without penalty, their donations are going to plummet, game attendance is going to drop, school applicants are probably going to drop; they will suffer plenty. Just make sure anyone even slightly involved is fired and ban them from a few bowl games. Perhaps they will be a real program again in 5-8 years.
While I would normally agree with this statement, there is no sense of wrong doing in Happy Valley. The student group that changed the football campground name from 'Paternoville' to 'Nittanyville' is getting creamed by those loons. Paterno is still being defended with his football contributions. It is disgusting and the program needs to be dealt with.
Quote from: PTM on July 17, 2012, 02:50:19 PM
While I would normally agree with this statement, there is no sense of wrong doing in Happy Valley. The student group that changed the football campground name from 'Paternoville' to 'Nittanyville' is getting creamed by those loons. Paterno is still being defended with his football contributions. It is disgusting and the program needs to be dealt with.
That's the scary part - there are people who will defend JoePa to the end.
As Dan Patrick put it yesterday (paraphrasing)...JoePa did a lot of great things at Penn State and he had a positive impact on the lives of many, many people. But he also did something awful.
How about this for an alternative punishment to the Death Penalty:
http://www.youtube.com/v/qXS39gNkNjw
Make 'em rebuild their stadium.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 03:39:51 PM
How about this for an alternative punishment to the Death Penalty:
Make 'em rebuild their stadium.
Aww hell, they would just use the opportunity to build something Kim Jong Il would be proud of
Quote from: MUBurrow on July 17, 2012, 03:42:28 PM
Aww hell, they would just use the opportunity to build something Kim Jong Il would be proud of
You mean like this? (Warning: One naughty word used at the beginning)
http://www.youtube.com/v/UEaKX9YYHiQ
I'm not going to weigh in on the Freeh report itself and the accuracy or conclusions thereof, however for those that want vengeance in the form of the death penalty, you do realize you are creating more victims of this tragedy by such an action correct?
If you haven't been to central Pennsylvania, Penn State and the football team especially are a major if not the major cog in the financial well being of the area. State College and the businesses in it only exist for big PSU occasions and football Saturdays. The hotels charge $40 bucks on a normal weekend day and $240 on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday of football weekend. You have all the restaurants and stores and then all the businesses that support those businesses. In fact a lot of the 2nd Mile kids(J#$^Y f$%K S#@$%y's chartity) are underprivileged youth from the State College area who's parents have jobs either directly or indirectly because of Penn State. You take away that economic cog and you are talking about thousands of innocent people being victims of this as well.
How does that help? Its easy to run to the pitch fork and torch store, but I think the appropriate thing is to let the legal system play out and let Curley, Schultz, and Spanier get their punishment, let the victims get some measure of satisfaction from the purse of Penn State(which stays more full with football), keep awareness of this terrible issue alive every time they play, and prevent further victims from being developed.
I'd also remind you the Freeh report doesn't have all the information, there is still a lot to come out through the legal process, lets see what that holds, things could actually be worse than they imagine.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 17, 2012, 04:26:25 PM
I'm not going to weigh in on the Freeh report itself and the accuracy or conclusions thereof, however for those that want vengeance in the form of the death penalty, you do realize you are creating more victims of this tragedy by such an action correct?
If you haven't been to central Pennsylvania, Penn State and the football team especially are a major if not the major cog in the financial well being of the area. State College and the businesses in it only exist for big PSU occasions and football Saturdays. The hotels charge $40 bucks on a normal weekend day and $240 on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday of football weekend. You have all the restaurants and stores and then all the businesses that support those businesses. In fact a lot of the 2nd Mile kids(J#$^Y f$%K S#@$%y's chartity) are underprivileged youth from the State College area who's parents have jobs either directly or indirectly because of Penn State. You take away that economic cog and you are talking about thousands of innocent people being victims of this as well.
How does that help? Its easy to run to the pitch fork and torch store, but I think the appropriate thing is to let the legal system play out and let Curley, Schultz, and Spanier get their punishment, let the victims get some measure of satisfaction from the purse of Penn State(which stays more full with football), keep awareness of this terrible issue alive every time they play, and prevent further victims from being developed.
I'd also remind you the Freeh report doesn't have all the information, there is still a lot to come out through the legal process, lets see what that holds, things could actually be worse than they imagine.
Disagree.
The fact that Penn State football is the only economic force is one of the problems. There is too much pandering to a single college sports program that allows this environment to exist.This includes these business owners unfortunately.
If your business model is entirely driven by seven weekends in the fall and not by the 45,000 student campus next door, that's your problem.
Quote from: PTM on July 17, 2012, 04:46:47 PM
Disagree.
The fact that Penn State football is the only economic force is one of the problems. There is too much pandering to a single college sports program that allows this environment to exist.This includes these business owners unfortunately.
If your business model is entirely driven by seven weekends in the fall and not by the 45,000 student campus next door, that's your problem.
Because there is going to continue to be 45,000 students if PSU gets the death penalty. You advocate to take down 200,000 innocents for the actions of less than a dozen
Quote from: mu03eng on July 17, 2012, 05:44:24 PM
Because there is going to continue to be 45,000 students if PSU gets the death penalty. You advocate to take down 200,000 innocents for the actions of less than a dozen
Well, sometimes that has to happen. Knock some sense into them.
If they as a fanbase were more contrite, I would agree with you.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 17, 2012, 05:48:38 PM
Well, sometimes that has to happen. Knock some sense into them.
If they as a fanbase were more contrite, I would agree with you.
+1
The fan base and surrounding community has done very little to separate the school from the actions of the dozen. In fact their insanity for Joe Pa has made it worse. They don't think the man did wrong.
I don't get why the NCAA should be looked at any differently than any other market force in this situation. Sure it sucks for the people with bars and hotels if there isn't Penn State football for two years, but then again those businesses bet the farm on the system that can be taken away just this easily. I feel legitimate empathy for the people whose jobs might depend on PSU football, but if the NCAA allows that to enter its consideration, its doing exactly what we always accuse it of doing in a negative way - letting the money drive the ship. The NCAA doesn't exist to support entire college town's economics, and those indirect beneficiaries shouldn't figure into its decisionmaking process.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 17, 2012, 05:48:38 PM
Well, sometimes that has to happen. Knock some sense into them.
If they as a fanbase were more contrite, I would agree with you.
Yea, I think the internet is hurting them here. There is a loud faction of PSU and JoPa supporters that are making them look TERRIBLE right now, and it's getting repeated over and over online.
Joe Pa had too much power, and in the end, it corrupted him. Not the first guy. Not the last guy. PSU fans need to accept this and move on. Keep quite. Keep a low profile.
Unfortunately, that's not happening, and it's making them look like idiots.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 17, 2012, 04:26:25 PM
In fact a lot of the 2nd Mile kids(J#$^Y f$%K S#@$%y's chartity) are underprivileged youth from the State College area who's parents have jobs either directly or indirectly because of Penn State. You take away that economic cog and you are talking about thousands of innocent people being victims of this as well.
Too late, per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mile_Foundation):
QuoteThe Second Mile is a nonprofit organization for underprivileged youth, providing help for at-risk children and support for their parents in Pennsylvania. It was founded in 1977 by Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant college football coach.[1][2][3] The charity said its youth programs serve as many as 100,000 children annually.[4] Since November 2011, the organization has been preparing to cease operations after Sandusky was charged and found guilty of child sex abuse.
...
Jack Raykovitz, the longtime president and CEO of The Second Mile, announced his resignation on November 14.[17] Under new management, the charity told The New York Times on November 18, 2011 that it was preparing to fold, with plans to transfer some programs to other charities.[18] An attorney for one of Sandusky's victims filed suit to prevent the transfer of assets,[19] and the charity soon thereafter made an announcement asking potential donors to instead give to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape; programs were expected to continue at least through the end of the year.[20] On May 25, 2012, interim CEO David Woodle announced the organization had requested court approval to transfer its programs and remaining assets to Arrow Child & Family Ministries, after which The Second Mile would cease operations.[21]
Even if some programs are able to be transferred to other organizations, the odds are that there will be cuts (duplication of resources within the existing non-profits that receive the programs, etc), regardless of PSU Football getting the Death Penalty.
Blah blah blah don't punish the innocent student athletes blah blah blah.
I'm sorry, but life isn't fair. Sometimes innocent people get unwillingly caught up in situations they didn't create. Should the SEC have let Enron off the hook because of the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs? Should the courts let murderers who are single-parents go free because the kids need their parent? Should we not ban BPA because of all the Chinese chemical factory workers who might mass suicide? If your employer is, unbeknownst to you, secretly supplying arms to Al-Qaeda, should we let it go because you'd lose your job?
If you're not going to hold someone accountable because of innocent bystanders, how do you deter this behavior in the future?
Quote from: mu03eng on July 17, 2012, 05:44:24 PM
Because there is going to continue to be 45,000 students if PSU gets the death penalty. You advocate to take down 200,000 innocents for the actions of less than a dozen
Darn straight. Take down a million if you have to. Society is not accountable to the innocents, Penn State is accountable to the innocents. Society is accountable to justice being served. If you're going to go Utilitarian here, I'll throw it right back at you by saying that not "punishing" the 200,000 "innocents" punishes the millions of society instead. Penn State created this situation. If the innocents want retribution, go after the University that lied to you, not the society who seeks to heal itself.
Only on Jerry Springer and in Happy Valley does it make sense to blame "the other guy" instead of dumping the sleazy whore that's been cheating on you the past twenty years.
First, the vast majority of PSU fans and alumni are deeply disappointed in Joe and especially the university but that gets lost in the few idiots that the angry mob holds up as examples of all PSU people. This is a perfect example of how twitter and the internet have created a human hive mind....the mob has been formed and knows EXACTLY what went down and knows that the PSU are all contributors.
Second, I honestly think some of the "protective" behavior or excuse making coming from PSU is because the angry mob has backed them into a corner. They feel attacked and are going to rally together no matter how misplaced that concept is.
Third, alumni and fans raised $500,000 in the 2 weeks following the scandal breaking, not saying its ever enough for what happened but they aren't without compassion or wanting to help.
Lastly......remind me again, does the catholic church still operate in America or did we give them the death penalty?
Quote from: mu03eng on July 18, 2012, 06:50:11 AM
Third, alumni and fans raised $500,000 in the 2 weeks following the scandal breaking, not saying its ever enough for what happened but they aren't without compassion or wanting to help.
If they really are compassionate, they'll take their medicine and not make a fuss. Otherwise, what they're doing isn't called compassion, it's called bribery.
Quote from: Benny B on July 18, 2012, 06:59:27 AM
If they really are compassionate, they'll take their medicine and not make a fuss. Otherwise, what they're doing isn't called compassion, it's called bribery.
Out of curiosity do you wear your judges robe with the executioners mask or is that a day of the week kind of thing?
Flying over Penn State.
(http://i.imgur.com/bO65Z.jpg)
Quote from: mu03eng on July 18, 2012, 06:50:11 AM
Lastly......remind me again, does the catholic church still operate in America or did we give them the death penalty?
Well played
Quote from: mu03eng on July 17, 2012, 04:26:25 PM
If you haven't been to central Pennsylvania, Penn State and the football team especially are a major if not the major cog in the financial well being of the area. State College and the businesses in it only exist for big PSU occasions and football Saturdays.
I couldn't care less. None of that garbage would exist were it not for the heavy subsidization by the taxpayers of the State of Pennsylvania. Cry me a river. Let's see what kind of industries would develop if the business and taxpayer climate didn't have to fund so many worthless colleges with 50% graduation rates and sports programs that generate zero revenue.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 18, 2012, 08:17:03 AM
Out of curiosity do you wear your judges robe with the executioners mask or is that a day of the week kind of thing?
I don't wear the mask... it doesn't go well with my mail hood & eyepatch.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 18, 2012, 06:50:11 AM
Lastly......remind me again, does the catholic church still operate in America or did we give them the death penalty?
What a dumb analogy. No one is suggesting that the University close...just that the athletic department may have run afoul of NCAA bylaws.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 18, 2012, 10:27:52 AM
What a dumb analogy. No one is suggesting that the University close...just that the athletic department may have run afoul of NCAA bylaws.
I love the analogy because it helps re-frame the appropriate level of outrage at PSU. If we are "X" upset with PSU, then how upset should we be with the Catholic Church?
Quote from: Warrior's Path on July 18, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
I love the analogy because it helps re-frame the appropriate level of outrage at PSU. If we are "X" upset with PSU, then how upset should we be with the Catholic Church?
The analogy is a stretch because the Catholic Church isn't a government funded place of education. I have no interest in defending the Catholic Church, and those priests are hopefully getting pounded in jail.
Quote from: Warrior's Path on July 18, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
I love the analogy because it helps re-frame the appropriate level of outrage at PSU. If we are "X" upset with PSU, then how upset should we be with the Catholic Church?
I can't understand why any rational person would be enraged by Penn State's football program being shut down after what was known about the Sandusky string of events. As a Catholic, I want to see guilty priests and their conspirators brought to justice. It doesn't enrage me at all that victims' advocate groups are now doing the same thing to many dioceses (in a financial sense) that these priests did to their victims (in the literal sense).
Quote from: Warrior's Path on July 18, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
I love the analogy because it helps re-frame the appropriate level of outrage at PSU. If we are "X" upset with PSU, then how upset should we be with the Catholic Church?
I am much more upset with the Catholic Church than I am at PSU. But you can't "shut down" the Catholic Church....you can shut down Penn State football.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 18, 2012, 01:56:45 PM
I am much more upset with the Catholic Church than I am at PSU. But you can't "shut down" the Catholic Church....you can shut down Penn State football.
But you can shut down churches an diosces
Quote from: PTM on July 18, 2012, 11:42:15 AM
The analogy is a stretch because the Catholic Church isn't a government funded place of education. I have no interest in defending the Catholic Church, and those priests are hopefully getting pounded in jail.
Catholic church is tax exempt so in a real way federally funded and a lot of the churches have schools
Quote from: mu03eng on July 18, 2012, 05:14:55 PM
But you can shut down churches an diosces
This might be the first time I've come across an instance on the internet where Godwin's law would not apply.
Quote from: warrior07 on July 18, 2012, 09:32:11 PM
This might be the first time I've come across an instance on the internet where Godwin's law would not apply.
Umm...
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 01:35:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/YssMT0qXYOw
and
Quote from: WI_inferiority_complexes on July 15, 2012, 12:01:43 AM
Nothing to do with PSU, but there's an interesting book that investigates that issue. The author's claim is that one of the primary reason the Nazi's were so interested in animal welfare, (and nature, in general) was to justify their opinions on the superiority of races. A predator kills the biologically inferior.
Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust by Boria Sax
http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Third-Reich-Scapegoats-Holocaust/dp/0826414087 (http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Third-Reich-Scapegoats-Holocaust/dp/0826414087)
Just might be applicable under Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)...
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 18, 2012, 09:38:19 PM
Umm...
and
Just might be applicable under Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)...
Damn, forgot about that post.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 18, 2012, 09:38:19 PM
Umm...
and
Just might be applicable under Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)...
Neither of those were
comparisons to Hitler. One was parody, the other was a side remark.
Quote from: Benny B on July 18, 2012, 10:43:06 PM
Neither of those were comparisons to Hitler. One was parody, the other was a side remark.
Per the link in my post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law):
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.[4]
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it's appropriate or not. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.[5]
And further:
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy.
Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.So yeah... my parody/humorous use could be construed as implementing Godwin's law.
OK, you win... yay Hitler, I guess.
So wait, there is a law saying that the longer a conversation on the internet goes the more likely some idiot is going to bring Hitler into it, even without having a context to do so???? Talk about setting the bar low Mr Godwin. How is this a law, isn't that is what the internet is? At least Murphy had an insightful observation, Godwin just took fact and presented it as some keen observation.
Though I will say, in the Buzz to SMU thread I don't remember a single Hitler reference but I could be wrong.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 20, 2012, 08:01:12 AM
So wait, there is a law saying that the longer a conversation on the internet goes the more likely some idiot is going to bring Hitler into it, even without having a context to do so???? Talk about setting the bar low Mr Godwin. How is this a law, isn't that is what the internet is? At least Murphy had an insightful observation, Godwin just took fact and presented it as some keen observation.
Though I will say, in the Buzz to SMU thread I don't remember a single Hitler reference but I could be wrong.
If there wasn't, it needs to be resurrected.
Yesssssssss....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477382/ncaa-source-unprecedented-penalties-against-penn-state?tag=socsh
Rumors are no death penalty, but that the death penalty might be preferable. Huge scholarship losses IMO.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 22, 2012, 10:11:45 AM
Rumors are no death penalty, but that the death penalty might be preferable. Huge scholarship losses IMO.
So what else are you hearing other than no death penalty? Other than huge scholarship losses, what else would have made the death penalty preferable?
If the penalties do prove to be that heavy, would Penn St. consider doing what SMU did the year after their death penalty and just shutter their football program for a year or more?
Some talking sports heads mentioning:
Loss of at least 10 schollies
Loss of televised games for ? years
Five year bowl ban
Probably some smoke to this fire of rumor.....
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 22, 2012, 10:11:45 AM
Rumors are no death penalty, but that the death penalty might be preferable. Huge scholarship losses IMO.
The NCAA might be something great here.
Instead of just shutting the program down that means so much to these ignorant fools in Happy Valley, they'll cripple that team into a new Indiana or Kent State. Make these clowns pay to watch Northwestern travel to Penn State and destroy the team by 50+.
The potential impairing of Penn State's level of competition almost makes me want to see these debacles on TV every Saturday.
Quote from: PTM on July 22, 2012, 02:19:56 PM
The NCAA might be something great here.
Instead of just shutting the program down that means so much to these ignorant fools in Happy Valley, they'll cripple that team into a new Indiana or Kent State. Make these clowns pay to watch Northwestern travel to Penn State and destroy the team by 50+.
The potential impairing of Penn State's level of competition almost makes me want to see these debacles on TV every Saturday.
Good point... death let's them off the hook. Keep them just alive enough to feel the pain.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027 (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027)
This has to be a joke... you mean the penalty is going to be to further line the NCAA's pockets?
Quote from: MUBurrow on July 22, 2012, 05:41:13 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027 (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027)
This has to be a joke... you mean the penalty is going to be to further line the NCAA's pockets?
QuoteThe record fine will go toward an endowment for children's causes, sources said.
and that kids, is why you don't skim in incredulity
Proving that there is no such thing as too much cynicism, I am literally amazed at how many Penn State (or otherwise) fans are outraged at even the thought of sanctions in the comments sections of these kinds of articles.
-$60 million fine
-4 year bowl ban
-13 years of wins vacated
-Loss of 10 scholarships per year for 4 years.
They probably would have preferred the death penalty. Wow.
Quote from: MUfan12 on July 23, 2012, 08:19:42 AM
-$60 million fine
-4 year bowl ban
-13 years of wins vacated
-Loss of 10 scholarships per year for 4 years.
They probably would have preferred the death penalty. Wow.
AND, all players can leave if they want with no transfer penalty. AND, the future recruiting aspects will kill them. The 13 years of wins vacated was over the top. Wow is right.
Quote from: nyg on July 23, 2012, 08:23:17 AM
AND, all players can leave if they want with no transfer penalty. AND, the future recruiting aspects will kill them. The 13 years of wins vacated was over the top. Wow is right.
Glad they are letting players leave. The vacated wins was a shot at Paterno's grave, no doubt about it.
Quote from: warrior07 on July 23, 2012, 07:28:22 AM
Proving that there is no such thing as too much cynicism, I am literally amazed at how many Penn State (or otherwise) fans are outraged at even the thought of sanctions in the comments sections of these kinds of articles.
It's in their best interest to not continue to fight or complain about this. It only fuels the outrage and leads to more desire for penalties. Iowa's president reminded the media yesterday that the Big Ten has the authority to levy its own punishments. While it doesn't seem probable to happen, getting kicked out of the conference would be more crippling than anything the NCAA just did.
Quote from: chapman on July 23, 2012, 08:24:44 AM
It's in their best interest to not continue to fight or complain about this. It only fuels the outrage and leads to more desire for penalties. Iowa's president reminded the media yesterday that the Big Ten has the authority to levy its own punishments. While it doesn't seem probable to happen, getting kicked out of the conference would be more crippling than anything the NCAA just did.
I agree. If I had to put a percentage on it, for the CBS sports stories at least, I'd say it's between 5%-15% of the posts are in defense of Penn State. Really stunning to see.
Quote from: MUfan12 on July 23, 2012, 08:24:10 AM
Glad they are letting players leave. The vacated wins was a shot at Paterno's grave, no doubt about it.
The NCAA definitely does not want the all-time wins leader of their highest profile sport to be a man who looked the other way to child molestation.
I actually think the NCAA got this one right, although I wouldn't have minded if the fine was bigger. The people who don't think this punishment was harsh enough don't really understand the ramifications of losing 40% of your scholarships over a 4-year window.
So regarding the vacated wins... if you take away all the wins since '98, do they come off of Paterno's all time record as well?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 23, 2012, 08:47:08 AM
So regarding the vacated wins... if you take away all the wins since '98, do they come off of Paterno's all time record as well?
I would say yes, just like Bobby Bowden.
I believe Eddie Robinson is once again the all-time leader.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 23, 2012, 08:47:08 AM
So regarding the vacated wins... if you take away all the wins since '98, do they come off of Paterno's all time record as well?
Yes. Paterno loses approx 110 wins.
Quote from: MUfan12 on July 23, 2012, 08:24:10 AM
Glad they are letting players leave. The vacated wins was a shot at Paterno's grave, no doubt about it.
You can't try a dead man, but you can take away his legacy.
In other words, if Paterno was still alive today and could have stood trial for his role in the conspiracy, I firmly believe the NCAA would not have vacated the wins.
Frankly, I have this sneaking suspicion that Paterno's death was effectively a suicide; not necessarily the Kervorkian "self-assisted" method, but the guy was old enough to and had enough heart problems over the years that he was probably on some life-sustaining meds, especially after his cancer treatment... maybe JoePa knew he was guilty & thought death was the only way to preserve his legacy. (Or, perhaps, Junior thought it was the only way to preserve his and started thinking about the youth in Asia.)
JP's last NCAA D I win vs Wisconsin in 97.
Additional Big Ten penalties coming at 11 AM.
Quote from: warrior07 on July 23, 2012, 07:28:22 AM
Proving that there is no such thing as too much cynicism, I am literally amazed at how many Penn State (or otherwise) fans are outraged at even the thought of sanctions in the comments sections of these kinds of articles.
Found in the comments of ESPN's story on the statue being taken down:
1. They turned it the other way because that's the way Joe Paterno looked at things.
2. The Board of Trustees took a long time taking the statue down because they were waiting for Joe Paterno to tell them what to do.
3. Somehow the Paterno family made money from the contract to take down statue.
4. In its place a plaque will be engraved with the most important thing Joe Paterno ever said - "..............."
5. They will place the statue in the PSU library to remind all who see it to remain quiet.
6. Anyone interfering with the removal or site of the statue will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law....14-15 odd years later and only after several cover up attempts and severe negligence by university officials
7. The statue was revered for being so lifelike--it stood there and did nothing for years
8. Although removed, the statue will continue to have access to the university private plane, coach's skybox seats, locker room facilities and hydrotherapy program.
9. The statue was unveiled in 2001, making it another 11 year old ruined by Penn State
10. The statue was brought down quietly, behind curtains, and covered up so no one could see...because that's the way Paterno liked to do things around there
Actually, changed my mind. It's probably around 20% on these stories. The fanaticism stuns me.
What a clown show.
That press conference was an embarrassment that embodies the undeserved sanctimonious nature of today's society.
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090129204429/uncyclopedia/images/4/45/Nuke_explosion.gif)
Quote from: MUfan12 on July 23, 2012, 08:19:42 AM
-$60 million fine
-4 year bowl ban
-13 years of wins vacated
-Loss of 10 scholarships per year for 4 years.
They probably would have preferred the death penalty. Wow.
Actually it's 10 initially and then 20 for the remainder of the 4 years (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/23/penn-state-gets-fined-postseason-ban-scholarship-reduction/).
That program's gonna take a LONG time to recover, although I wish they'd strip TV from them too...
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 23, 2012, 10:02:36 AM
Actually it's 10 initially and then 20 for the remainder of the 4 years (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/23/penn-state-gets-fined-postseason-ban-scholarship-reduction/).
That program's gonna take a LONG time to recover, although I wish they'd strip TV from them too...
I have to imagine the networks won't need to be told to avoid PSU on the television. BTN is another story.
Quote from: PTM on July 23, 2012, 10:10:13 AM
I have to imagine the networks won't need to be told to avoid PSU on the television. BTN is another story.
Agree on the networks, but it still would have been good to have publicly announced it as part of the punishment, if for no other reason than to make it official.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 23, 2012, 09:06:14 AM
Additional Big Ten penalties coming at 11 AM.
Rumor is that it will be no revenue for PSU from Big Ten bowl games for 4 years. Average is about 4 million a year, so that is an additional 16 million.
Have to agree with Awesome with scholarship loss as the biggie. 85 players is the norm, now down to 65, with average recruits at best for next 6 to 8 years. PSU will be bottom feeders.
I'm a little puzzeled on the wins being vacated..., had they cheated, paid recruits, or in some other fashion gained advantage it would make sense. I guess they decided it was a necessary punishment-although they did in fact win those games.
I would have preferred they be banned from television.
Quote from: augoman on July 23, 2012, 10:21:48 AM
I'm a little puzzeled on the wins being vacated..., had they cheated, paid recruits, or in some other fashion gained advantage it would make sense. I guess they decided it was a necessary punishment-although they did in fact win those games.
I would have preferred they be banned from television.
It was to punish Paterno and his family.
I believe the networks themselves will banish PSU to the BTN.
It wouldn't be fair to banish them from TV since it affects every opponent they play as well.
From the AP:
"The postseason ban is the longest handed out by the NCAA since it gave a four-year ban to Indiana football in 1960."
Let's see.... death penalty or Indiana football? Death penalty or Indiana football? Indiana football or death penalty?
(http://rayfinkle.host.sk/Home_files/shapeimage_5.png)
So in addition to being disgraced and having it's leaders maybe put in jail, PSU will be an even bigger patsy on the gridiron than they are on the basketball court. Unhappy days in Happy Valley and at the Big 10 headquarters.
Quote from: PTM on July 23, 2012, 10:10:13 AM
I have to imagine the networks won't need to be told to avoid PSU on the television. BTN is another story.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Penn State football on TV a fair amount next season, especially the first home game, which will be a national news story - 90,000 fans moving on from a tragedy and rallying around a new coaching staff and the current players is likely to create a buzz. When they turn into 1980s Wisconsin in the next few seasons, they'll go largely ignored by the major networks.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 23, 2012, 11:32:09 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see Penn State football on TV a fair amount next season, especially the first home game, which will be a national news story - 90,000 fans moving on from a tragedy and rallying around a new coaching staff and the current players is likely to create a buzz.
+1. Penn State's first game will be a mega-story. Probably, the most covered and examined game in the history of PSU football. And, certainly that will be case for their opponent, Ohio U (who I feel sorry for, as I wouldn't want my team in that game.) In addition, I think their first Big Ten home game will be a big deal as well, but after that, they will be forgotten.
Quote from: RJax55 on July 23, 2012, 11:44:33 AM
+1. Penn State's first game will be a mega-story. Probably, the most covered and examined game in the history of PSU football. And, certainly that will be case for their opponent, Ohio U (who I feel sorry for, as I wouldn't want my team in that game.) In addition, I think their first Big Ten home game will be a big deal as well, but after that, they will be forgotten.
It's somewhat difficult to feel bad for Ohio U who stands a good chance of going into Happy Valley and walking out with some beaver tail.
Drew Magary from Deadspin has quite the take...
http://deadspin.com/5928204/the-ncaa-is-using-penn-state-to-justify-its-own-horrid-existence
The NCAA Is Using Penn State To Justify Its Own Horrid Existence
OK, first of all, you people at the NCAA are gutless shitbags. I know you're probably spending this morning in an Indianapolis conference room patting each other on the back and tugging each other's cocks and ordering EXTRA Einstein bagels for everyone for a job well done (why not, you've got $60 million in bureaucratic charity funds to spend), but you're still gutless shitbags. You gave Penn State everything but the death penalty specifically so they would be encouraged to shut down the program themselves. I see what you did there. You handed down enough meaty punishment for everyone to nod along in approval, but you didn't cross the line and risk a backlash by destroying the program outright by your own hand. You buffed your image nicely this morning, yes you did.
Because that's what NCAA sanctions are, when you get right down to it. They're an exercise in branding. Punishment time is the only time people really pay attention to the NCAA. It's the NCAA's sax solo. Punishing a school is what helps the NCAA justify its existence to people, to say to the country, "WE ARE IN CONTROL HERE, EVERYONE." There's a certain reaction it's looking for from the general public in response to those sanctions. They're the ones you might've read in last night's CBS report on the school's fine:
That second quote is the perfect NCAA response quote. "Why, I've never seen bureaucracy be so bureaucratic!" It's important to the NCAA that you be properly shocked and awed by the totality of its justice system. There was no way they were gonna miss out on shitting all over Penn State when shitting on Penn State makes for such good business these days. (Take it from us Deadspin folk. We know how to milk that titty for all it's worth.)
This was cynical crap. I couldn't give two fucks what happens to the football team—dress them in white unitards and make them a French mime troop, for all I care—but there's nothing more ridiculous than watching the NCAA parade around its values and make frowny faces on national television, months and months after the scandal broke (and years and years after evil was allowed to take root). Blowing up Penn State gives perfect cover for every other big football school that is now, to use NCAA president Mark Emmert's phrase, "too big to fail," which describes all of them, and which describes the NCAA, too, while we're at it. It creates the illusion that everything is on the up-and-up again, and that other schools will see Penn State and totally get it now (they won't). In its own stupid way, it's the perfect end point for the Penn State scandal: rotten institution punishes institutional rot.
The next great college sports scandal isn't gonna be at Penn State. It'll be at some other pretty boy school where the head coach still has too much power and the football program still makes too much money. There's no "stark wake-up call." The system is still fucked, and nothing the NCAA did today will do anything to change that. It only serves to extend the fucked-upness a touch longer. Among the many sick ironies of the Penn State saga is the fact that it was horrible enough to be considered by everyone a terrific anomaly. It wasn't. Sandusky's crime was, but the scandal that ensued was about concentrated power and institutional capture and all the shitty things enabled by the durable belief that the goals of big-time sports and higher education are at all reconcilable. The next great college sports scandal won't be about child rape. It'll be a different kind of awful. A school will get caught in a Bulgarian sex slave ring. A coach will turn out to be embezzling funds from AIDS babies. An AD will turn out to have ties to the Hezbollah. And whenever that new scandal happens, you can bet the NCAA will be there again, ready to put a band-aid on an amputated head.
Quote from: reinko on July 23, 2012, 01:12:18 PM
Drew Magary from Deadspin has quite the take...
http://deadspin.com/5928204/the-ncaa-is-using-penn-state-to-justify-its-own-horrid-existence
The NCAA Is Using Penn State To Justify Its Own Horrid Existence
OK, first of all, you people at the NCAA are gutless crapbags. I know you're probably spending this morning in an Indianapolis conference room patting each other on the back and tugging each other's cocks and ordering EXTRA Einstein bagels for everyone for a job well done (why not, you've got $60 million in bureaucratic charity funds to spend), but you're still gutless crapbags. You gave Penn State everything but the death penalty specifically so they would be encouraged to shut down the program themselves. I see what you did there. You handed down enough meaty punishment for everyone to nod along in approval, but you didn't cross the line and risk a backlash by destroying the program outright by your own hand. You buffed your image nicely this morning, yes you did.
Because that's what NCAA sanctions are, when you get right down to it. They're an exercise in branding. Punishment time is the only time people really pay attention to the NCAA. It's the NCAA's sax solo. Punishing a school is what helps the NCAA justify its existence to people, to say to the country, "WE ARE IN CONTROL HERE, EVERYONE." There's a certain reaction it's looking for from the general public in response to those sanctions. They're the ones you might've read in last night's CBS report on the school's fine:
That second quote is the perfect NCAA response quote. "Why, I've never seen bureaucracy be so bureaucratic!" It's important to the NCAA that you be properly shocked and awed by the totality of its justice system. There was no way they were gonna miss out on crapting all over Penn State when crapting on Penn State makes for such good business these days. (Take it from us Deadspin folk. We know how to milk that titty for all it's worth.)
This was cynical crap. I couldn't give two fracks what happens to the football team—dress them in white unitards and make them a French mime troop, for all I care—but there's nothing more ridiculous than watching the NCAA parade around its values and make frowny faces on national television, months and months after the scandal broke (and years and years after evil was allowed to take root). Blowing up Penn State gives perfect cover for every other big football school that is now, to use NCAA president Mark Emmert's phrase, "too big to fail," which describes all of them, and which describes the NCAA, too, while we're at it. It creates the illusion that everything is on the up-and-up again, and that other schools will see Penn State and totally get it now (they won't). In its own stupid way, it's the perfect end point for the Penn State scandal: rotten institution punishes institutional rot.
The next great college sports scandal isn't gonna be at Penn State. It'll be at some other pretty boy school where the head coach still has too much power and the football program still makes too much money. There's no "stark wake-up call." The system is still fracked, and nothing the NCAA did today will do anything to change that. It only serves to extend the fracked-upness a touch longer. Among the many sick ironies of the Penn State saga is the fact that it was horrible enough to be considered by everyone a terrific anomaly. It wasn't. Sandusky's crime was, but the scandal that ensued was about concentrated power and institutional capture and all the crapty things enabled by the durable belief that the goals of big-time sports and higher education are at all reconcilable. The next great college sports scandal won't be about child rape. It'll be a different kind of awful. A school will get caught in a Bulgarian sex slave ring. A coach will turn out to be embezzling funds from AIDS babies. An AD will turn out to have ties to the Hezbollah. And whenever that new scandal happens, you can bet the NCAA will be there again, ready to put a band-aid on an amputated head.
Sooo...what exactly does he think the NCAA should have done to Penn State?
Quote from: RJax55 on July 23, 2012, 11:44:33 AM
+1. Penn State's first game will be a mega-story. Probably, the most covered and examined game in the history of PSU football.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't buy any advertising that appears after three minutes into the game. All of the looky-loos will have changed the channel by then.
NM
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 23, 2012, 02:00:10 PM
Sooo...what exactly does he think the NCAA should have done to Penn State?
If I'm reading him correctly, PSU is almost irrelevant to the discussion. He feels universities and "big time" sports are incompatible. A death penalty for intercollegiate sports as we know them seems to be his logical conclusion.
I'm not defending PSU or anyone there involved with this. Having said that, is the NCAA going off of the Freeh report along witht he results of the Sandusky trial? If not, who conducted their investigation? Where is their report? If they have done one, let's see it. Did Penn St get to respond? The NCAA may have entered into some murky ethical waters themselves.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 23, 2012, 02:22:05 PM
If I'm reading him correctly, PSU is almost irrelevant to the discussion. He feels universities and "big time" sports are incompatible. A death penalty for intercollegiate sports as we know them seems to be his logical conclusion.
Right, this is an systemic problem, not a specific problem.
Jerry Sandusky didn't ruin Penn State. The culture of athletics and money being the #1 priority ruined Penn State. We know that it's still happening at other schools (as we speak).
The NCAA can show off and tell everybody about how tough they are, but the system and culture of big time college athletics (esp. football) is still about winning and $, and the NCAA is allowing for that.
There will be another "scandal", and we will all acted shocked... but we probably shouldn't.
People with absolute power sometimes cut corners (even immoral ones) in the name of power, performance and $.
Quote from: tower912 on July 23, 2012, 02:39:40 PM
I'm not defending PSU or anyone there involved with this. Having said that, is the NCAA going off of the Freeh report along witht he results of the Sandusky trial? If not, who conducted their investigation? Where is their report? If they have done one, let's see it. Did Penn St get to respond? The NCAA may have entered into some murky ethical waters themselves.
By all indications, the NCAA basically seemed not to want to spend the time investigating on their own dime once the Freeh report was issued. The two problems with this are obvious: 1) why dole out punishment outside your jurisdiction based on someone else's research?, and 2) why take into account a report that started as a biased reflection of the BoT's fear that never interviewed Sandusky, any Paterno, Spanier, Curley, McQueary, etc.?
It opens a wide chasm of interjection. In essence, the NCAA is punishing a school for its moral/ethical vagaries but not for the clear violation of NCAA rules. If that is to be the case going forward, with the path they laid today, the NCAA could step in the next time Marquette mishandles a sexual assault allegation. If you claim a moral obligation to report child rape, you must also claim moral obligation to report adult rape.
But will they continue with the moral policing and punishment based on no rules violations being committed or is this a one time grandstanding that they think will show the world just how strong their muscles are? I think it's just so clownish.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on July 23, 2012, 03:38:42 PM
It opens a wide chasm of interjection. In essence, the NCAA is punishing a school for its moral/ethical vagaries but not for the clear violation of NCAA rules. If that is to be the case going forward, with the path they laid today, the NCAA could step in the next time Marquette mishandles a sexual assault allegation.
If Marquette covers up the serial rape of minors by one of its staff, I'm happy to have Marquette have the same penalties apply to the school.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on July 23, 2012, 03:38:42 PM
If you claim a moral obligation to report child rape, you must also claim moral obligation to report adult rape.
Is the entire university bureaucracy covering up the rapes in your hypothetical scenario?
- Edit: I suck at HTML, apparently.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 23, 2012, 09:05:53 AM
JP's last NCAA D I win vs Wisconsin in 97.
And His QB?....Mike McQueary.
Quote from: tower912 on July 23, 2012, 02:39:40 PM
I'm not defending PSU or anyone there involved with this. Having said that, is the NCAA going off of the Freeh report along witht he results of the Sandusky trial? If not, who conducted their investigation? Where is their report? If they have done one, let's see it. Did Penn St get to respond? The NCAA may have entered into some murky ethical waters themselves.
The university has accepted the Freeh Report as the truth. Therefore, the NCAA does not need to do its own investigation.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on July 23, 2012, 03:38:42 PM
By all indications, the NCAA basically seemed not to want to spend the time investigating on their own dime once the Freeh report was issued. The two problems with this are obvious: 1) why dole out punishment outside your jurisdiction based on someone else's research?, and 2) why take into account a report that started as a biased reflection of the BoT's fear that never interviewed Sandusky, any Paterno, Spanier, Curley, McQueary, etc.?
They never interviewed those people because they were either indicted or witnesses to a trial and the DA asked them not to interview them. They accepted the Freeh report....PSU accepted it...the sanctions were issued and PSU agreed to them.
Quote from: tower912 on July 23, 2012, 02:39:40 PM
I'm not defending PSU or anyone there involved with this. Having said that, is the NCAA going off of the Freeh report along witht he results of the Sandusky trial? If not, who conducted their investigation? Where is their report? If they have done one, let's see it. Did Penn St get to respond? The NCAA may have entered into some murky ethical waters themselves.
They issued a letter. PSU responded. The NCAA skipped their usual process (with their Exeuctive Committee's approval), and PSU agreed with the penalties.
Quote from: warrior07 on July 23, 2012, 03:53:07 PM
If Marquette covers up the serial rape of minors by one of its staff, I'm happy to have Marquette have the same penalties apply to the school.
Is the entire university bureaucracy covering up the rapes in your hypothetical scenario?
- Edit: I suck at HTML, apparently.
Perhaps they do. Last year's allegations were punted on by the Head Coach, Athletic Director, and President. What Emmert's power play asserts is that he could step in and punish the program based upon their lack of morals rather than their lack of following the rules. That's an awfully gray line to be crossing.
Remember, this is the same organization that found no punishment for a recent college football program whose star quarterback was publicly shopped to the highest bidder simply because there wasn't a bylaw they could find to accuse them of breaking. Yet, with no bylaws broken by PSU, they easily found time to punish.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 23, 2012, 09:00:54 PM
They never interviewed those people because they were either indicted or witnesses to a trial and the DA asked them not to interview them. They accepted the Freeh report....PSU accepted it...the sanctions were issued and PSU agreed to them.
Exactly. Which is completely antithetical to their entire process of taking an excruciatingly long time to investigate. Who needs due process when you only want to listen to one side? Paints this more as an Emmert play to be front and center and act as a moral beacon in the corrupt crevasse that is college athletics.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on July 24, 2012, 10:59:36 AM
Exactly. Which is completely antithetical to their entire process of taking an excruciatingly long time to investigate. Who needs due process when you only want to listen to one side? Paints this more as an Emmert play to be front and center and act as a moral beacon in the corrupt crevasse that is college athletics.
The NCAA is acting both without due process and outside its authority...BUT it is not a government entity, it is an organization freely participated in, and as such it has every right to break due process and extend its authority if the members comprising it authorized it--which they did.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 24, 2012, 11:06:46 AM
The NCAA is acting both without due process and outside its authority...BUT it is not a government entity, it is an organization freely participated in, and as such it has every right to break due process and extend its authority if the members comprising it authorized it--which they did.
It's funny you said this, as now four of PSU's trustees have filed an appeal to the NCAA (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8240385/penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-appeal-ncaa-vow-federal-lawsuit), in which one of their points is how the NCAA acted without due process.
They're also vowing a federal lawsuit, too.
If these members of the board of trustees is somehow successful in saying that Erickson "lacked the legal authority" to agree to the sanctions without the board's approval, I vote for the 4 Year Death Penalty. If PSU wants to get into a big legal fight, then the NCAA needs to destroy them. Let their hubris be their own demise.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on August 06, 2012, 10:34:09 PM
It's funny you said this, as now four of PSU's trustees have filed an appeal to the NCAA (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8240385/penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-appeal-ncaa-vow-federal-lawsuit), in which one of their points is how the NCAA acted without due process.
They're also vowing a federal lawsuit, too.
If these members of the board of trustees is somehow successful in saying that Erickson "lacked the legal authority" to agree to the sanctions without the board's approval, I vote for the 4 Year Death Penalty. If PSU wants to get into a big legal fight, then the NCAA needs to destroy them. Let their hubris be their own demise.
Yeah. These guys are ridiculous. Erickson reportly made a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty, and if some trustees and the Paterno family wants to fight it, then they don't under stand the point the NCAA was trying to make.
Put the program to sleep.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on August 06, 2012, 10:34:09 PM
It's funny you said this, as now four of PSU's trustees have filed an appeal to the NCAA (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8240385/penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-appeal-ncaa-vow-federal-lawsuit), in which one of their points is how the NCAA acted without due process.
They're also vowing a federal lawsuit, too.
If these members of the board of trustees is somehow successful in saying that Erickson "lacked the legal authority" to agree to the sanctions without the board's approval, I vote for the 4 Year Death Penalty. If PSU wants to get into a big legal fight, then the NCAA needs to destroy them. Let their hubris be their own demise.
The problem is they don't have standing. The collective board reaffirmed Erickson's decision afterwards. If they have a problem with what Erickson did, they should get rid of him.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 07, 2012, 07:41:29 AM
The problem is they don't have standing. The collective board reaffirmed Erickson's decision afterwards. If they have a problem with what Erickson did, they should get rid of him.
I don't understand what they'd sue the NCAA for, probably because this is an area of law I'm unfamiliar with. They're a member of a voluntary organization. If they don't like the penalties imposed by that voluntary organization, isn't the remedy to leave the NCAA?
Quote from: Rubie Q on August 07, 2012, 09:03:10 AM
I don't understand what they'd sue the NCAA for, probably because this is an area of law I'm unfamiliar with. They're a member of a voluntary organization. If they don't like the penalties imposed by that voluntary organization, isn't the remedy to leave the NCAA?
A couple of the PSU trustees are elected by the populace. They are doing this to appeal to the PSU masses who feel that the penalties were unjustified.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 07, 2012, 07:41:29 AM
The problem is they don't have standing. The collective board reaffirmed Erickson's decision afterwards. If they have a problem with what Erickson did, they should get rid of him.
They didn't reaffirm anything, they decided to yell at him and then not take a vote and let everyone assume they reaffirmed it.
They have standing, the PSU bylaws clearly state that PSU president has to have board(budget committee at a minimum) approval on contracts that will exceed $50,000 in nature. That wasn't done, so Erickson doesn't have the ability to sign the consent decree. The board also never voted to accept the Freeh report, the board president put out a statement accepting the results, but its not the same thing.
From a PR standpoint this is a bad idea, they should have just taken their medicine and moved on. Its ultimately high risk-high reward, maybe the get the penalties off, if they get it overturned the NCAA could always come back at them with the death penalty. But even that is muted somewhat, because if they have to follow the bylaws the NCAA can only give them a max of 2 years and only if they have a way to prove they are a repeat offender.
This is where the NCAA getting involved, while making sense from a PR and ethical standpoint puts themselves on shaky grounds. I also think the whole 4 year death penalty thing is air cover for Erickson and the loyalists on the board so they can say say "we fought and got the best deal we could lets all just move along". A 4 year death penalty is a clear violation of the bylaws, whereas the current punishment is merely not in the bylaws.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/bigeast/story/2012-07-05/syracuse-findings-bernie-fine-investigation/56041250/1
Apparently back on July 5th, during the run up to the Freeh Report release, Syracuse quietly released their own internal investigation into Bernie Fine's alleged rapes.
Star-divide
In the report it was found that Syracuse:
1) Treated the matter internally solely as a HR issue.
2) Immediately contacted legal counsel, who did not advise them to report it as a crime.
3) Had a two hour interview with Davis over his actions. The report stated that this was insufficient given the nature of the accusations.
5) Was given witness names and did not follow up with said victims.
6) Failed to properly provide for the safety of the young men under their protection.
Curious to see if the NCAA takes out the new powers out for a spin on this one too or if they will look the other way. Based on the direction the media wind is blowing I'm guessing nothing will be said or done.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 07, 2012, 12:21:29 PM
They didn't reaffirm anything, they decided to yell at him and then not take a vote and let everyone assume they reaffirmed it.
They have standing, the PSU bylaws clearly state that PSU president has to have board(budget committee at a minimum) approval on contracts that will exceed $50,000 in nature. That wasn't done, so Erickson doesn't have the ability to sign the consent decree. The board also never voted to accept the Freeh report, the board president put out a statement accepting the results, but its not the same thing.
But the Executive Committee did accept it, and the bylaws allow the Committee to act on behalf of the Board in between meetings.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 07, 2012, 12:51:04 PM
But the Executive Committee did accept it, and the bylaws allow the Committee to act on behalf of the Board in between meetings.
Not true as far as I'm aware, the Board president accepted it, but there were never any reports of the Exec committee meeting let alone approving. Besides if they meet in secret that would be a violation of Pennsylvania's sunshine laws.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 07, 2012, 02:01:36 PM
Not true as far as I'm aware, the Board president accepted it, but there were never any reports of the Exec committee meeting let alone approving. Besides if they meet in secret that would be a violation of Pennsylvania's sunshine laws.
I do not believe that the Executive Committee is necessarily beholden to sunshine laws, and if so, can retroactively reaffirm any decisions anyway.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 07, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
I do not believe that the Executive Committee is necessarily beholden to sunshine laws, and if so, can retroactively reaffirm any decisions anyway.
I believe you are incorrect on that. That was why Paterno was fired twice. First time they didn't have a quorum and were in violation of the sunshine law when they voted to fire Paterno, so they had to hold a conference call 6 days later to "officially" fire him or face legal ramifications.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 08, 2012, 07:46:58 AM
I believe you are incorrect on that. That was why Paterno was fired twice. First time they didn't have a quorum and were in violation of the sunshine law when they voted to fire Paterno, so they had to hold a conference call 6 days later to "officially" fire him or face legal ramifications.
That is what I meant by "retroactively reaffirm."
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 08, 2012, 07:54:17 AM
That is what I meant by "retroactively reaffirm."
Understood, I just don't think based on what I saw that they even did that with the consent decree.
All in all this is somewhat definition of is type of stuff....right, wrong, or indifferent there is a legal angle to be played that has some possibility of "success". However the implications of that success could have enormous implications in college sports going forward, so was all of this really worth if for the NCAA and is it really worth it now for Penn State. I think there is a strong law of unintended consequences here that could boomerang on the NCAA.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 08, 2012, 10:48:06 AM
Understood, I just don't think based on what I saw that they even did that with the consent decree.
Well, you were correct....and it looks like they are going to do so on Sunday.
http://live.psu.edu/story/60657