Non-horrible Sandusky thread to discuss PSU sanctions (1 Viewer)

[Idiot Boxer]

He's just upset that you assumed he had a layman's understanding of due process.

I'm not upset. I am just :shuked: as to why he assumed he had to disprove something that I never said.

It was tongue-in-cheek. Forgot my smilie.

 

[Maude]

And as far as schadenfreude goes, it will indeed be good to see Penn State fans having a mediocre football team for a while (as it would for any of the factories). They've been up for a long long time and it will be good for the rest of us to have them join us in the wallows of mediocrity. Good life lesson for the PSUers, too.

Construxboy is a Bills fan. Speaking as one myself, I can verify that he really doesn't need any more life lessons on what it's like to root for a ####ty team.

I mean, really. And a Sabres fan. Mention Brett Hull and I'll kick you in the nuts. At least my college basketball team, the Tar Heels, have won two titles in the last 7 years and certainly couldn't get caught up in an academic fraud case started by the football team that could invalidate those titles. Oh wait. ####. I hate sports.

It was not a kick.

His freaking skate was in the crease! They called it that way all year. But OT in Game 6 of the cup? Eh, who cares.

There was no crease violation because Hull had possession of the puck when his skate entered the crease.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

And as far as schadenfreude goes, it will indeed be good to see Penn State fans having a mediocre football team for a while (as it would for any of the factories). They've been up for a long long time and it will be good for the rest of us to have them join us in the wallows of mediocrity. Good life lesson for the PSUers, too.

Construxboy is a Bills fan. Speaking as one myself, I can verify that he really doesn't need any more life lessons on what it's like to root for a ####ty team.

I mean, really. And a Sabres fan. Mention Brett Hull and I'll kick you in the nuts. At least my college basketball team, the Tar Heels, have won two titles in the last 7 years and certainly couldn't get caught up in an academic fraud case started by the football team that could invalidate those titles. Oh wait. ####. I hate sports.

It was not a kick.

His freaking skate was in the crease! They called it that way all year. But OT in Game 6 of the cup? Eh, who cares.

There was no crease violation because Hull had possession of the puck when his skate entered the crease.

I don't think it was clear that he did.

 

[roadkill1292]

I hope nobody holds Cappy personally responsible for this thread being advertised as "non-horrible." A couple of us have made it almost as horrible as the other one.

Sorry about that, everyone.

 

[Enraged Nerfball]

I agree the NCAA is hypocritical about a great many things. I think in large part it's a function of the huge cash flow coming in that is NCAA football and basketball. ...

Cash flow into the NCAA member institutions? Or cash flow into the NCAA the office? TheCommish posted the below a year ago (before all of this)Time for-football to pick a side

In exchange for all this, football provides a pittance to the NCAA. The revenue the national office made from football amounted to $420,000, the total of the licensing fees paid by the 35 bowl games. That’s not even enough to cover the NCAA’s estimated $500,000 loss that the Association takes putting on the FCS tournament.

Into the major football and basketball programs. Guess I wasn't clear.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I agree the NCAA is hypocritical about a great many things. I think in large part it's a function of the huge cash flow coming in that is NCAA football and basketball. ...

Cash flow into the NCAA member institutions? Or cash flow into the NCAA the office? TheCommish posted the below a year ago (before all of this)Time for-football to pick a side

In exchange for all this, football provides a pittance to the NCAA. The revenue the national office made from football amounted to $420,000, the total of the licensing fees paid by the 35 bowl games. That’s not even enough to cover the NCAA’s estimated $500,000 loss that the Association takes putting on the FCS tournament.

Into the major football and basketball programs. Guess I wasn't clear.

No worries. Mu reply was for the peanut gallery as much as it was for you.

 

[renesauz]

Back to this...why do you feel this way? Because Joe Paterno didn't win the most games in which he was the head coach fielding a team of players who met the NCAA qualifications for an "eligible player?" OR because you just feel that given this he should have to arbitrarily give up an honor that is, by all accounts, NOT subjective?

"Most wins" is not like a gymnast's score in the olympics, where the French judge can show bias and be subjective. It's like a soccer score...you either scored or you didn't. To me, if the NCAA is going to take away wins, they need to be able to show where the wins should be forefitted b/c of some on-field bias.

I can see this argument. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. Kind of like Pete Rose not being in the HOF. Does integrity matter or not? I can understand the NCAA not wanting Paterno on the top of this list forever, given what happened. I can also understand the folks who say that it should simply be about what happened on the field. Personally, I think integrity should matter, so I'm glad they stripped him of the wins.

I actually made the Pete Rose analogy when talking with friends...Pete Rose isn't in the HOF...which IS a subjective measure, and I do think integrity is one of those measures. It's a hall of greatness as voted on by media/baseball peers, etc. This would have been more like if they took Pete Rose's hit record and said, "We're taking away 1,500 of your career hits." I would have no issue with the NCAA taking JoePa out of it's coaching HOF. That's subjective...do whatever you want. But you can't take wins justly earned just like you can't say Pete Rose suddenly had 1,500 less hits.The NCAA might not want Paterno at the top of that list forever, but he earned those wins...he might have been an enabler, etc...but he won those games as a head coach. The same way Rose might have been a gambler, but he hit the baseball. Records like that shouldn't be about what the governing body "wants." That's what HOF/Coach of the Year/Lifetime Achievement Awards, etc. are for.

IN the end though...I don't care. Re-writing the record books doesn't change anything. Maybe a hundred years from now when some kid looks at the records and has never heard the history it will matter...but how does THAT punishment mean anything?

We all know Paterno won the most games. The NCAA can't erase our memories. It's a shallow and ultimately meaningless statement. If it makes the suits happy and content to re-write history...so be it. That part just makes me giggle.

 

[renesauz]

I think the fact that the punishment is such a big deal is a symptom of the real problem...sports are just way too important to way too many people.

When are we just going to admit that sports are an important part of our culture? Why have such a complex about it?

Education is an important part of my culture and colleges/universities exist to educate much moreso than play football. But many of the fanboys don't understand that and barely are able to remember that it's a school. I don't understand why those fanboys just don't follow the NFL instead of trying to make college football a NFL-Minors.Most of the Penn State guys that I actually know would have rathered the actual school get damn near destroyed over this before touching their beloved football factory. It's pretty sickening.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Very few people would argue your point, yet can still be huge fans of the team. If you grow up in Miami, there's a good chance you end up a die-hard life-long Dolphins fan. If you go to podunk university, you become a die-hard, life-long podunk university football fan. Few people consider the football team a necessary part of the REAL part of college...the classroom, but it's the home team. You and your college buddies share a team, much like the guy in Miami might share a team with his neighbors.I think most college fans actually view and support the college team in almost the exact same way, for almost the exact same reasons, that NFL fans support theirs. We all know that the stars are pampered a little, that they don't share our college experience. Why does that matter? We go to college to get an education to prepare for a career. So do they...only their career (talking about the stars at the big schools) is a game. For them, Saturday is their classroom. Many people talk about college as a learning experience that goes far beyond a classroom...that the experiences with other students, the culture, and even the parties provide just as much learning as the classess themselves. If this is true, then why should big time football be any different?I believe we'd be better off acknowledging what these athletes are and aren't. They aren't normal students. They provide entertainment and are paid in the form of free room and board and tuition. It's time to either stop being hypocritical about the relationship, or to take all profits out of it.

 

[Short Corner]

Back to this...why do you feel this way? Because Joe Paterno didn't win the most games in which he was the head coach fielding a team of players who met the NCAA qualifications for an "eligible player?" OR because you just feel that given this he should have to arbitrarily give up an honor that is, by all accounts, NOT subjective?

"Most wins" is not like a gymnast's score in the olympics, where the French judge can show bias and be subjective. It's like a soccer score...you either scored or you didn't. To me, if the NCAA is going to take away wins, they need to be able to show where the wins should be forefitted b/c of some on-field bias.

I can see this argument. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. Kind of like Pete Rose not being in the HOF. Does integrity matter or not? I can understand the NCAA not wanting Paterno on the top of this list forever, given what happened. I can also understand the folks who say that it should simply be about what happened on the field. Personally, I think integrity should matter, so I'm glad they stripped him of the wins.

I actually made the Pete Rose analogy when talking with friends...Pete Rose isn't in the HOF...which IS a subjective measure, and I do think integrity is one of those measures. It's a hall of greatness as voted on by media/baseball peers, etc. This would have been more like if they took Pete Rose's hit record and said, "We're taking away 1,500 of your career hits." I would have no issue with the NCAA taking JoePa out of it's coaching HOF. That's subjective...do whatever you want. But you can't take wins justly earned just like you can't say Pete Rose suddenly had 1,500 less hits.The NCAA might not want Paterno at the top of that list forever, but he earned those wins...he might have been an enabler, etc...but he won those games as a head coach. The same way Rose might have been a gambler, but he hit the baseball. Records like that shouldn't be about what the governing body "wants." That's what HOF/Coach of the Year/Lifetime Achievement Awards, etc. are for.

They are not taking away things earned, they are saying they should have never been in the position to achieve those milestones. the Pete Rose analogy is horrible as he was banned for acts committed after his playing career was over. With Reggie Bush, it was deemed that he voided his amture status, making him ineligible, so all of his records were removed. The same is being done with Paterno. They are in essence saying that he should not have been there after covering up the Sandusky scandal so they removed evrything he accomplished from that point forward. I guess you can argue that he didn't cover anything up until 2001.

 

[renesauz]

Back to this...why do you feel this way? Because Joe Paterno didn't win the most games in which he was the head coach fielding a team of players who met the NCAA qualifications for an "eligible player?" OR because you just feel that given this he should have to arbitrarily give up an honor that is, by all accounts, NOT subjective?

"Most wins" is not like a gymnast's score in the olympics, where the French judge can show bias and be subjective. It's like a soccer score...you either scored or you didn't. To me, if the NCAA is going to take away wins, they need to be able to show where the wins should be forefitted b/c of some on-field bias.

I can see this argument. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. Kind of like Pete Rose not being in the HOF. Does integrity matter or not? I can understand the NCAA not wanting Paterno on the top of this list forever, given what happened. I can also understand the folks who say that it should simply be about what happened on the field. Personally, I think integrity should matter, so I'm glad they stripped him of the wins.

I actually made the Pete Rose analogy when talking with friends...Pete Rose isn't in the HOF...which IS a subjective measure, and I do think integrity is one of those measures. It's a hall of greatness as voted on by media/baseball peers, etc. This would have been more like if they took Pete Rose's hit record and said, "We're taking away 1,500 of your career hits." I would have no issue with the NCAA taking JoePa out of it's coaching HOF. That's subjective...do whatever you want. But you can't take wins justly earned just like you can't say Pete Rose suddenly had 1,500 less hits.The NCAA might not want Paterno at the top of that list forever, but he earned those wins...he might have been an enabler, etc...but he won those games as a head coach. The same way Rose might have been a gambler, but he hit the baseball. Records like that shouldn't be about what the governing body "wants." That's what HOF/Coach of the Year/Lifetime Achievement Awards, etc. are for.

They are not taking away things earned, they are saying they should have never been in the position to achieve those milestones. the Pete Rose analogy is horrible as he was banned for acts committed after his playing career was over. With Reggie Bush, it was deemed that he voided his amture status, making him ineligible, so all of his records were removed. The same is being done with Paterno. They are in essence saying that he should not have been there after covering up the Sandusky scandal so they removed evrything he accomplished from that point forward. I guess you can argue that he didn't cover anything up until 2001.

I understand that.One of the things that realy bothers me, that makes me hesitate to accept the story as it has been told, is the fact that I can't see how any reasonable person would have held Paterno or Penn State footbally responsible had they outed him in 2001. If Paterno had immediately called the police when McQueary came to him...why would that have had any impact on his job? It shouldn't have. I think the overwhelming majority of people realize that sexual predators can exist anywhere, that they hide in all walks of life, all professions and locations. No reasonable person blames the people the predator worked with. We rightfully blame others when they enable or ignore the predators. In other words, Paterno had nothing to lose other than a recruit or two (maybe!) by turning Sandusky in.

So why didn't he? It doesn't make sense. I can't help but think there's either more to the story or parts of the story are flat wrong.

The Pete Rose analogy is a good one, because just like Rose, the actual results on the field would not have been much different had the right thing been done. Anyone who can say with a straight face that Paterno would have had 100 less wins by doing the right thing is delusional. Even five less wins is a tough argument to make with a straight face unless you accept the premise that his job would have been lost..which while possible...is unlikely...and had that happened, would have been grossly unfair.

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

 

[roadkill1292]

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Maybe it looks that way from your ivory tower but those players sweated and bled for those wins.

 

[E-Z Glider]

Think about it.

Penn State has been forced to vacate their wins from when Joe Paterno was coach, but not when Sandusky was a coach.

What a cluster####.

 

[Guest]

Think about it.

Penn State has been forced to vacate their wins from when Joe Paterno was coach, but not when Sandusky was a coach.

What a cluster####.

Touched

 

[Guest]

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Maybe it looks that way from your ivory tower but those players sweated and bled for those wins.

 

[renesauz]

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Maybe it looks that way from your ivory tower but those players sweated and bled for those wins.

Do you really think any of those players are now thinking...."Oh crap, we lost to Ohio State"? Changing what's written in a book in no way changes what actually happened on the field. Some of these players may be angry right now, but NONE of them are suddenly thinking "we lost".Ivory tower? Really?

 

[roadkill1292]

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Maybe it looks that way from your ivory tower but those players sweated and bled for those wins.

Do you really think any of those players are now thinking...."Oh crap, we lost to Ohio State"? Changing what's written in a book in no way changes what actually happened on the field. Some of these players may be angry right now, but NONE of them are suddenly thinking "we lost".Ivory tower? Really?

A couple of pages back I voiced very similar sentiments to your's and was castigated soundly for living in an "ivory tower." I am actually on your side in this particular argument and am just being rude to the people on the other side.

 

[Joe Summer]

One of the things that realy bothers me, that makes me hesitate to accept the story as it has been told, is the fact that I can't see how any reasonable person would have held Paterno or Penn State footbally responsible had they outed him in 2001. If Paterno had immediately called the police when McQueary came to him...why would that have had any impact on his job? It shouldn't have.

It wouldn't have affected Paterno's job -- it would have affected Paterno's legacy. "I've been one of the top coaches in the country for over 30 years, and now all I will ever be known as is 'the guy who hired a pedophile'."He was afraid of tarnishing his reputation. If you can't consider that scenario, then I think you're fooling yourself.

 

[Fat Nick]

They are not taking away things earned, they are saying they should have never been in the position to achieve those milestones. the Pete Rose analogy is horrible as he was banned for acts committed after his playing career was over. With Reggie Bush, it was deemed that he voided his amture status, making him ineligible, so all of his records were removed. The same is being done with Paterno. They are in essence saying that he should not have been there after covering up the Sandusky scandal so they removed evrything he accomplished from that point forward. I guess you can argue that he didn't cover anything up until 2001.

So where in the NCAA "code of conduct" is it written that Paterno acted improperly here? I'm not saying he DIDN'T...just saying that despite breaking moral/ethical rules, you can't break an NCAA rule that doesn't exist) Where did he violate a competitive rule? Saying he "should not have been coach" is subjective. Accepting ineligible benefits as specifically defined in the NCAA player eligiblity rules is not.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Maybe it looks that way from your ivory tower but those players sweated and bled for those wins.

Do you really think any of those players are now thinking...."Oh crap, we lost to Ohio State"? Changing what's written in a book in no way changes what actually happened on the field. Some of these players may be angry right now, but NONE of them are suddenly thinking "we lost".Ivory tower? Really?

The PSU-Ohio State games are funny aberrations now, as Both teams had to vacate wins against each other.

 

[renesauz]

One of the things that realy bothers me, that makes me hesitate to accept the story as it has been told, is the fact that I can't see how any reasonable person would have held Paterno or Penn State footbally responsible had they outed him in 2001. If Paterno had immediately called the police when McQueary came to him...why would that have had any impact on his job? It shouldn't have.

It wouldn't have affected Paterno's job -- it would have affected Paterno's legacy. "I've been one of the top coaches in the country for over 30 years, and now all I will ever be known as is 'the guy who hired a pedophile'."He was afraid of tarnishing his reputation. If you can't consider that scenario, then I think you're fooling yourself.

Actually...this is about the only reason I can think of that might have caused Paterno to do this (cover it up)...but he would have remained beloved in Happy Valley and the wins record would have still been easily set. I can't see how his job would have been even remotely threatened.

 

[fatness]

I'm glad to see some people are keeping this all in perspective.

One look around Tom and Sally Price’s home in Factoryville and it is clear that they are Penn State proud. Tom Price is a Penn State grad and both are die-hard football fans. They have been to almost every home game since 1986. They watched the news Monday of the sanctions against their school with heavy hearts.

“I just can’t put my arms around it, it’s, to me, it was our 9/11 today. I just saw planes crashing into towers,” said Tom Price.

Sally Price said she feels the same. She also said what hurt most, is the fact that the NCAA took away 14 years of football victories under Joe Paterno.

 

[ICON211]

Back to this...why do you feel this way? Because Joe Paterno didn't win the most games in which he was the head coach fielding a team of players who met the NCAA qualifications for an "eligible player?" OR because you just feel that given this he should have to arbitrarily give up an honor that is, by all accounts, NOT subjective?

"Most wins" is not like a gymnast's score in the olympics, where the French judge can show bias and be subjective. It's like a soccer score...you either scored or you didn't. To me, if the NCAA is going to take away wins, they need to be able to show where the wins should be forefitted b/c of some on-field bias.

I can see this argument. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. Kind of like Pete Rose not being in the HOF. Does integrity matter or not? I can understand the NCAA not wanting Paterno on the top of this list forever, given what happened. I can also understand the folks who say that it should simply be about what happened on the field. Personally, I think integrity should matter, so I'm glad they stripped him of the wins.

I actually made the Pete Rose analogy when talking with friends...Pete Rose isn't in the HOF...which IS a subjective measure, and I do think integrity is one of those measures. It's a hall of greatness as voted on by media/baseball peers, etc. This would have been more like if they took Pete Rose's hit record and said, "We're taking away 1,500 of your career hits." I would have no issue with the NCAA taking JoePa out of it's coaching HOF. That's subjective...do whatever you want. But you can't take wins justly earned just like you can't say Pete Rose suddenly had 1,500 less hits.The NCAA might not want Paterno at the top of that list forever, but he earned those wins...he might have been an enabler, etc...but he won those games as a head coach. The same way Rose might have been a gambler, but he hit the baseball. Records like that shouldn't be about what the governing body "wants." That's what HOF/Coach of the Year/Lifetime Achievement Awards, etc. are for.

They are not taking away things earned, they are saying they should have never been in the position to achieve those milestones. the Pete Rose analogy is horrible as he was banned for acts committed after his playing career was over. With Reggie Bush, it was deemed that he voided his amture status, making him ineligible, so all of his records were removed. The same is being done with Paterno. They are in essence saying that he should not have been there after covering up the Sandusky scandal so they removed evrything he accomplished from that point forward. I guess you can argue that he didn't cover anything up until 2001.

I understand that.One of the things that realy bothers me, that makes me hesitate to accept the story as it has been told, is the fact that I can't see how any reasonable person would have held Paterno or Penn State footbally responsible had they outed him in 2001. If Paterno had immediately called the police when McQueary came to him...why would that have had any impact on his job? It shouldn't have. I think the overwhelming majority of people realize that sexual predators can exist anywhere, that they hide in all walks of life, all professions and locations. No reasonable person blames the people the predator worked with. We rightfully blame others when they enable or ignore the predators. In other words, Paterno had nothing to lose other than a recruit or two (maybe!) by turning Sandusky in.

So why didn't he? It doesn't make sense. I can't help but think there's either more to the story or parts of the story are flat wrong.

The Pete Rose analogy is a good one, because just like Rose, the actual results on the field would not have been much different had the right thing been done. Anyone who can say with a straight face that Paterno would have had 100 less wins by doing the right thing is delusional. Even five less wins is a tough argument to make with a straight face unless you accept the premise that his job would have been lost..which while possible...is unlikely...and had that happened, would have been grossly unfair.

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Weren't there people calling for Paterno to step down in the early 2000s? I think outing the Sandusky stuff could have given fuel to that faction and could have afftected Paterno's job in 2001. I could see him believing that at the very least.

 

[Maude]

One of the things that realy bothers me, that makes me hesitate to accept the story as it has been told, is the fact that I can't see how any reasonable person would have held Paterno or Penn State footbally responsible had they outed him in 2001. If Paterno had immediately called the police when McQueary came to him...why would that have had any impact on his job? It shouldn't have. I think the overwhelming majority of people realize that sexual predators can exist anywhere, that they hide in all walks of life, all professions and locations. No reasonable person blames the people the predator worked with. We rightfully blame others when they enable or ignore the predators. In other words, Paterno had nothing to lose other than a recruit or two (maybe!) by turning Sandusky in.

So why didn't he? It doesn't make sense. I can't help but think there's either more to the story or parts of the story are flat wrong.

The Pete Rose analogy is a good one, because just like Rose, the actual results on the field would not have been much different had the right thing been done. Anyone who can say with a straight face that Paterno would have had 100 less wins by doing the right thing is delusional. Even five less wins is a tough argument to make with a straight face unless you accept the premise that his job would have been lost..which while possible...is unlikely...and had that happened, would have been grossly unfair.

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Because regardless of whatever the outcome, it would be a blemish. I think that Paterno was so concerned with his image and legacy that he would not tolerate even the slightest blemish on his otherwise heroic career. It just so happens that this would have been one HUGE zit on the face of PSU football by extension, Paterno himself.

 

[BigJohn]

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Maybe it looks that way from your ivory tower but those players sweated and bled for those wins.

Do you really think any of those players are now thinking...."Oh crap, we lost to Ohio State"? Changing what's written in a book in no way changes what actually happened on the field. Some of these players may be angry right now, but NONE of them are suddenly thinking "we lost".Ivory tower? Really?

The PSU-Ohio State games are funny aberrations now, as Both teams had to vacate wins against each other.

FWIW, tOSU only vacated the 2010 season. So, only 1 tOSU-PSU game is that way.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

I'm glad to see some people are keeping this all in perspective.

One look around Tom and Sally Price’s home in Factoryville and it is clear that they are Penn State proud. Tom Price is a Penn State grad and both are die-hard football fans. They have been to almost every home game since 1986. They watched the news Monday of the sanctions against their school with heavy hearts.

“I just can’t put my arms around it, it’s, to me, it was our 9/11 today. I just saw planes crashing into towers,” said Tom Price.

Sally Price said she feels the same. She also said what hurt most, is the fact that the NCAA took away 14 years of football victories under Joe Paterno.

This is why it needed to be done, imo.No doubt Tom and Sally would have turned a blind eye to Sandusky.

 

[culdeus]

I'm sort of surprised that nobody other than the 4 horsemen are implicated in the cover-up. It just seems too big to shut it all down with only those guys involved. You are telling me nobody at second mile has a paper trail of anything, or no whistleblower has stepped forward there?

 

[Christo]

I'm sort of surprised that nobody other than the 4 horsemen are implicated in the cover-up. It just seems too big to shut it all down with only those guys involved. You are telling me nobody at second mile has a paper trail of anything, or no whistleblower has stepped forward there?

What sort of paper trail?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The whole thing (removing wins) is silly anyway.

Maybe it looks that way from your ivory tower but those players sweated and bled for those wins.

Do you really think any of those players are now thinking...."Oh crap, we lost to Ohio State"? Changing what's written in a book in no way changes what actually happened on the field. Some of these players may be angry right now, but NONE of them are suddenly thinking "we lost".Ivory tower? Really?

The PSU-Ohio State games are funny aberrations now, as Both teams had to vacate wins against each other.

FWIW, tOSU only vacated the 2010 season. So, only 1 tOSU-PSU game is that way.

I wonder how they would have handled a tie.

 

[culdeus]

I'm sort of surprised that nobody other than the 4 horsemen are implicated in the cover-up. It just seems too big to shut it all down with only those guys involved. You are telling me nobody at second mile has a paper trail of anything, or no whistleblower has stepped forward there?

What sort of paper trail?

Like an email train around the time 2nd mile was told they couldn't haul kids up to PSU anymore, and the back/forth from that. I dunno. I would think some parents would have ratted first to 2nd Mile rather than PSU as well.

 

[Joe Summer]

I'm sort of surprised that nobody other than the 4 horsemen are implicated in the cover-up. It just seems too big to shut it all down with only those guys involved. You are telling me nobody at second mile has a paper trail of anything, or no whistleblower has stepped forward there?

Tim Curley had a meeting with the director of Second Mile in 2001, but all Curley told him was that a witness was "uncomfortable" with something Sandusky did in the locker room, but that "nothing inappropriate" had happened. Curley told the director that Sandusky couldn't bring kids on campus anymore. The director told 2 other executives at Second Mile but no one else was informed because they considered it to be a "non-issue".

 

[fatness]

I'm sort of surprised that nobody other than the 4 horsemen are implicated in the cover-up. It just seems too big to shut it all down with only those guys involved. You are telling me nobody at second mile has a paper trail of anything, or no whistleblower has stepped forward there?

There may be more criminal trials of Sandusky coming up since other victims have come forward. There will be trials for Curley and Schultz (unless they choose to avoid trial by plea agreement). I think there are both federal and state investigations of Penn State in progress. There will be lawsuits against Sandusky and/or Penn State and/or Paterno and/or the others. Other information may come to light as a result of one or more of those things. It's hard to guess. 8 months ago none of us could have guessed what has come to light in the last 8 months.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Brent Musberger went 5 minutes on PTI today, worth a listen for some, will sound like nails on a chalkboard to others. 1st time I have really heard someone speak out against the NCAA sanctions against Penn State, maybe some of you have heard others.

 

[fatness]

Penn State's Board of Trustees was meeting this afternoon with Erickson. Some of them are unhappy about not being informed of or consenting to the agreement with the NCAA that Erickson reached.

link

Penn State trustees scheduled an unplanned meeting Wednesday afternoon with university President Rod Erickson to discuss the NCAA sanctions against the school. Gov. Tom Corbett, a member of the board who was in Pittsburgh on a river sojourn, was advised of the meeting, said Corbett spokesman Kevin Harley. A second board member confirmed he too knew of the meeting, but said no votes are anticipated. Penn State officials could not be reached.

A spokeswoman for Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, an alumni group critical of the board and which formed after the Jerry Sandusky child-sex scandal, said she was told some board members are questioning whether Erickson had the authority to sign an agreement accepting the sanctions without a board vote.

"Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship" is the group who's been trying to get the entire board of trustees replaced since the day Paterno was fired, by the way. Meanwhile Erickson did an interview this afternoon with ESPN.

If Penn State had not accepted the package of NCAA sanctions announced Monday, the Nittany Lions faced a historic death penalty of four years, university president Rodney Erickson told "Outside the Lines" on Wednesday afternoon.

In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years. Emmert told Erickson in a phone conversation on July 17 that a majority of the NCAA's leadership wanted to levy the four-year penalty because of Penn State's leaders' roles in covering up the child sexual abuse of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

"Well, that's a pretty tough number to swallow," Erickson said he recalled thinking when told of the four-year possibility by Emmert. "It's unprecedented. It's a blow to the gut; there's no doubt about that ... I couldn't agree to that at all." Almost immediately after that conversation, intensive discussions between Penn State and the NCAA began in earnest, Erickson said. Penn State lobbied for the NCAA to take the death penalty off the table, and the NCAA described a series of other sanctions, both "punitive and corrective" in nature.

Erickson said if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the university could have faced a multiyear death penalty, as well as "other sanctions," including a financial penalty far greater than $60 million. "There were figures that were thrown around that were quite large," he said.

After five days of intense discussions last week, Erickson and Emmert agreed last Sunday to the historic punishment of a $60 million fine, a four-year postseason ban, significant loss of scholarships and the vacating of 14 years of 112 Penn State victories, causing Joe Paterno to fall from first to eighth on the all-time coaches' win list.

Erickson said his insistence that Penn State must avoid the death penalty was driven in large part with worry over the devastating economic impact of no Saturday afternoon football in central Pennsylvania and the words of newly hired coach Bill O'Brien.

O'Brien said in an interview Wednesday that he told Erickson, "I want to play football and I want to play football on television."

"Both of those things are possible under the sanctions," Erickson said Wednesday.

 

[fatness]

O'Brien's contract was extended 4 more years, until 2020. Good idea in my opinion.

 

[CrossEyed]

I'm glad to see some people are keeping this all in perspective.

One look around Tom and Sally Price’s home in Factoryville and it is clear that they are Penn State proud. Tom Price is a Penn State grad and both are die-hard football fans. They have been to almost every home game since 1986. They watched the news Monday of the sanctions against their school with heavy hearts.

“I just can’t put my arms around it, it’s, to me, it was our 9/11 today. I just saw planes crashing into towers,” said Tom Price.

Sally Price said she feels the same. She also said what hurt most, is the fact that the NCAA took away 14 years of football victories under Joe Paterno.

This is why it needed to be done, No doubt Tom and Sally would have turned a blind eye to Sandusky.

And why it's unlikely that the culture surrounding college football and sports in general will ever change. Your 9/11? Seriously?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

They are not taking away things earned, they are saying they should have never been in the position to achieve those milestones. the Pete Rose analogy is horrible as he was banned for acts committed after his playing career was over. With Reggie Bush, it was deemed that he voided his amture status, making him ineligible, so all of his records were removed. The same is being done with Paterno. They are in essence saying that he should not have been there after covering up the Sandusky scandal so they removed evrything he accomplished from that point forward. I guess you can argue that he didn't cover anything up until 2001.

So where in the NCAA "code of conduct" is it written that Paterno acted improperly here? I'm not saying he DIDN'T...just saying that despite breaking moral/ethical rules, you can't break an NCAA rule that doesn't exist) Where did he violate a competitive rule? Saying he "should not have been coach" is subjective. Accepting ineligible benefits as specifically defined in the NCAA player eligiblity rules is not.

Dartmouth kindly provide this link to the Division 1 Constitution. In the original NCAA letter here. While you may argue that this applies negatively to every single NCAA coach without much argument, Paterno certainly failed to live up to this standard.
Title:19.01.2 - Exemplary Conduct.

Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

O'Brien's contract was extended 4 more years, until 2020. Good idea in my opinion.

Really like Erickson as well. The BOT should ####.

 

[fatness]

O'Brien's contract was extended 4 more years, until 2020. Good idea in my opinion.

Really like Erickson as well. The BOT should ####.

I agree. Erickson deserves a medal from Penn State for negotiating the sanctions down from 4 years of no football. Or maybe a statue. O'Brien seems very dedicated to keeping the team together and making things the best they can be for the next 4 years.

The board of trustees and the Paternos have become Penn State's worst enemies.

 

[fatness]

Penn State trustees back decision to accept NCAA penalties

In a statement released after a three-hour, closed-door meeting, the trustees said they found "the punitive sanctions difficult and the process with the NCAA unfortunate."

"But as we understand it, the alternatives were worse," they added.

NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed, in a Wednesday interview with ESPN, that several members of its executive committee had floated a four-year death-penalty plan, but he maintained that threats were never made.

In the days leading up to Monday's announcement, Erickson consulted with board president Karen Peetz and a handful of other trustees before signing the agreement with the association, sources close to the board said.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Coach O'Brien has been impressive through this whole thing. He told Erickson they would be ok and all he wanted was to have penn state football be played and for them to be on tv and they'd be ok.

 

[cheese]

Coach O'Brien has been impressive through this whole thing. He told Erickson they would be ok and all he wanted was to have penn state football be played and for them to be on tv and they'd be ok.

Ya, he's been awesome IMO. Even though I was for sanctioning them, it's going to be hard not to root for this group now if you are a neutral fan.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Penn State trustees back decision to accept NCAA penalties

In a statement released after a three-hour, closed-door meeting, the trustees said they found "the punitive sanctions difficult and the process with the NCAA unfortunate."

"But as we understand it, the alternatives were worse," they added.

The deserve additional sanctions just for this statement.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm glad to see some people are keeping this all in perspective.

One look around Tom and Sally Price’s home in Factoryville and it is clear that they are Penn State proud. Tom Price is a Penn State grad and both are die-hard football fans. They have been to almost every home game since 1986. They watched the news Monday of the sanctions against their school with heavy hearts.

“I just can’t put my arms around it, it’s, to me, it was our 9/11 today. I just saw planes crashing into towers,” said Tom Price.

Sally Price said she feels the same. She also said what hurt most, is the fact that the NCAA took away 14 years of football victories under Joe Paterno.

This is why it needed to be done, No doubt Tom and Sally would have turned a blind eye to Sandusky.

And why it's unlikely that the culture surrounding college football and sports in general will ever change. Your 9/11? Seriously?

Doesn't it tick you off when people judge Christianity by the actions of a few outspoken idiots? Why do you feel so compfortable doing the same thing in this case?

 

[CrossEyed]

I'm glad to see some people are keeping this all in perspective.

One look around Tom and Sally Price’s home in Factoryville and it is clear that they are Penn State proud. Tom Price is a Penn State grad and both are die-hard football fans. They have been to almost every home game since 1986. They watched the news Monday of the sanctions against their school with heavy hearts.

“I just can’t put my arms around it, it’s, to me, it was our 9/11 today. I just saw planes crashing into towers,” said Tom Price.

Sally Price said she feels the same. She also said what hurt most, is the fact that the NCAA took away 14 years of football victories under Joe Paterno.

This is why it needed to be done, No doubt Tom and Sally would have turned a blind eye to Sandusky.

And why it's unlikely that the culture surrounding college football and sports in general will ever change. Your 9/11? Seriously?

Doesn't it tick you off when people judge Christianity by the actions of a few outspoken idiots? Why do you feel so compfortable doing the same thing in this case?

Didn't intend to imply that all college football fans are like this. But unfortunately there are plenty that would probably give an "amen" to what these folks are saying, and that's why I think the culture is unlikely to change. You disagree?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

It seems like the NCAA didn't really think through the recruiting process that is going on now for PSU players. It's a feeding frenzy. How is that good for the culture?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Didn't intend to imply that all college football fans are like this. But unfortunately there are plenty that would probably give an "amen" to what these folks are saying, and that's why I think the culture is unlikely to change. You disagree?

I think there are people out there who take college sports way too seriously. There are also people out there who take pro sports, golf, video games, music, politics etc. way too seriously. I don't see any of these as being incredibly severe social problems.

 

[Maude]

(CNN) -- Penn State's legal battles continued Wednesday with the university's primary general liability insurer filing a motion claiming coverage should be denied because the administration failed to disclose what it knew about former coach Jerry Sandusky's behavior, according to legal documents.

Can't say I blame them. Could get significantly worse for PSU financially.

 

[E-Z Glider]

It seems like the NCAA didn't really think through the recruiting process that is going on now for PSU players. It's a feeding frenzy. How is that good for the culture?

Illinois, Wisconsin, and Arizona all had coaches hanging out in the practice facility parking lot yesterday like a pack of vultures.

One mother asked O'Brien if there is anything he could do about the opposing coaches who are trying to recruit her son to leave Penn State for their schools. She said her son is under a lot of stress."It's what the NCAA set up," he said. "There's nothing we could do."

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

can a student transfer mid-season? Let's say a starting RB for a team gets hurt in their conf. championship game. Can that team then recruit Silas Redd to play in their bowl game? In theory there is enough time between the end of the season and bowl season for a player to learn a playbook.

 

[CrossEyed]

Didn't intend to imply that all college football fans are like this. But unfortunately there are plenty that would probably give an "amen" to what these folks are saying, and that's why I think the culture is unlikely to change. You disagree?

I think there are people out there who take college sports way too seriously. There are also people out there who take pro sports, golf, video games, music, politics etc. way too seriously. I don't see any of these as being incredibly severe social problems.

Agreed, but I think sports, in general, has reached god-like status in our culture. A lot of people's entire lives seem to revolve around it. Personally, I think it's unhealthy. People need to live their own lives, not have their identity wrapped up in a bunch of people they don't even know.