MRandall25 wrote:
No, I'm just asking you a question. Why does it matter what the media does now as opposed to what they've already done previously?
What? Explain to me what would lead you to asking me that?
OK, here's what you said:
Mr. Colby wrote:Maybe the media needs a "culture change". They've been the ones who have dictated the play over the course of this entire thing. No one will think for themselves, media pressure has led to every decision outside of the trial itself.
I'm asking why you're complaining about the media as if this is only the 1st time the media has dictated the course of a university's punishment for infractions?
steve784 wrote:I really don't understand the 'culture change' aspect. Honestly, knowing PSU the way I do, all I see this doing is giving the base a bigger chip on the shoulder, and coming back even more obnoxious and loud once the program is back on track.
Is "changing the culture" going to involve telling people to take down statues of coaches?
Not 100% sure I get where you're going with that. I think it's known in this thread that I am PSU alum. My point is, the attitude of the fans isn't going to be changed by these sanctions, and if anything the fanbase as a whole will be more 'obnoxious/loud/overbearing' or whatever people want to call it once the program essentially starts back up again.
I'm just trying to figure out what people mean by changing the culture.
It has nothing to do with the fan base. It has everything to do with an institution that was, for all intents and purposes, run by the football coach. That had an administration that covered up this mess that involved someone in the football program. A culture that didn't see fit for the heads of the institution to do what is right. All of that is related to a "culture" that existed at PSU.
I don't even know why I'm taking your bait, maybe because I'm just bored and irritated.
But OK. Nowhere in the quoted material you have just supplied is there such wording suggesting I think this is the "1st time the media has dictated the course of a university's punishment for infractions".
Why don't you stop wasting your time trolling me and start using it to practice thinking rationally?
Mr. Colby wrote:I don't even know why I'm taking your bait, maybe because I'm just bored and irritated.
But OK. Nowhere in the quoted material you have just supplied is there such wording suggesting I think this is the "1st time the media has dictated the course of a university's punishment for infractions".
Why don't you stop wasting your time trolling me and start using it to practice thinking rationally?
I'm not trolling you. I'm asking why you're acting like this is the first time the media has affected a school's punishment? I don't really see how that's trolling. It's the tone of your post. I'm just asking a question.
MWB wrote:
It has nothing to do with the fan base. It has everything to do with an institution that was, for all intents and purposes, run by the football coach. That had an administration that covered up this mess that involved someone in the football program. A culture that didn't see fit for the heads of the institution to do what is right. All of that is related to a "culture" that existed at PSU.
The FOOTBALL side of things was run by the football coach. Obviously that's a completely flawed way to go about business, to let a football coach preside over even the president of the university when related to football activities. But to say the football coach ran the entire institution is a huge slap in the face to anyone else not involved in football.
Sadly, PSU is not the only program where this is true. Football coaches have way, way, way too much power. Money talks I guess.
Mr. Colby wrote:I don't even know why I'm taking your bait, maybe because I'm just bored and irritated.
But OK. Nowhere in the quoted material you have just supplied is there such wording suggesting I think this is the "1st time the media has dictated the course of a university's punishment for infractions".
Why don't you stop wasting your time trolling me and start using it to practice thinking rationally?
I'm not trolling you. I'm asking why you're acting like this is the first time the media has affected a school's punishment? I don't really see how that's trolling. It's the tone of your post. I'm just asking a question.
No need to get irritated. I'm just curious.
My post had no underlying meaning. It meant what it said. The media has too much power.
Mr. Colby wrote:I don't even know why I'm taking your bait, maybe because I'm just bored and irritated.
But OK. Nowhere in the quoted material you have just supplied is there such wording suggesting I think this is the "1st time the media has dictated the course of a university's punishment for infractions".
Why don't you stop wasting your time trolling me and start using it to practice thinking rationally?
I'm not trolling you. I'm asking why you're acting like this is the first time the media has affected a school's punishment? I don't really see how that's trolling. It's the tone of your post. I'm just asking a question.
No need to get irritated. I'm just curious.
My post had no underlying meaning. It meant what it said. The media has too much power.
MWB wrote:
It has nothing to do with the fan base. It has everything to do with an institution that was, for all intents and purposes, run by the football coach. That had an administration that covered up this mess that involved someone in the football program. A culture that didn't see fit for the heads of the institution to do what is right. All of that is related to a "culture" that existed at PSU.
The FOOTBALL side of things was run by the football coach. Obviously that's a completely flawed way to go about business, to let a football coach preside over even the president of the university when related to football activities. But to say the football coach ran the entire institution is a huge slap in the face to anyone else not involved in football.
Sadly, PSU is not the only program where this is true. Football coaches have way, way, way too much power. Money talks I guess.
I shouldn't have exaggerated to that extent. My point was that no one seemed to have oversight of Paterno and he could do what he wanted. And yes, this happens at other schools. Fortunately, this type of cover up hasn't happened elsewhere, that we know of.
MWB wrote:
It has nothing to do with the fan base. It has everything to do with an institution that was, for all intents and purposes, run by the football coach. That had an administration that covered up this mess that involved someone in the football program. A culture that didn't see fit for the heads of the institution to do what is right. All of that is related to a "culture" that existed at PSU.
The FOOTBALL side of things was run by the football coach. Obviously that's a completely flawed way to go about business, to let a football coach preside over even the president of the university when related to football activities. But to say the football coach ran the entire institution is a huge slap in the face to anyone else not involved in football.
Sadly, PSU is not the only program where this is true. Football coaches have way, way, way too much power. Money talks I guess.
I shouldn't have exaggerated to that extent. My point was that no one seemed to have oversight of Paterno and he could do what he wanted. And yes, this happens at other schools. Fortunately, this type of cover up hasn't happened elsewhere, that we know of.
It's not just you saying that though. That seems to be what people are saying all over the country, and if I were a Penn State student or alum, I'd be pretty **** irritated
MWB wrote:
It has nothing to do with the fan base. It has everything to do with an institution that was, for all intents and purposes, run by the football coach. That had an administration that covered up this mess that involved someone in the football program. A culture that didn't see fit for the heads of the institution to do what is right. All of that is related to a "culture" that existed at PSU.
The FOOTBALL side of things was run by the football coach. Obviously that's a completely flawed way to go about business, to let a football coach preside over even the president of the university when related to football activities. But to say the football coach ran the entire institution is a huge slap in the face to anyone else not involved in football.
Sadly, PSU is not the only program where this is true. Football coaches have way, way, way too much power. Money talks I guess.
I shouldn't have exaggerated to that extent. My point was that no one seemed to have oversight of Paterno and he could do what he wanted. And yes, this happens at other schools. Fortunately, this type of cover up hasn't happened elsewhere, that we know of.
It's not just you saying that though. That seems to be what people are saying all over the country, and if I were a Penn State student or alum, I'd be pretty **** irritated
Because when people are talking about PSU they are talking about what happened and its relationship to the football program. I don't think many people really think Paterno had his hand in the chemistry department.
Mr. Colby wrote:
My post had no underlying meaning. It meant what it said. The media has too much power.
So are you saying that the media is resopnsible for the football teams sactions?
No. But I am saying that both Penn State and the NCAA have seemingly caved to media scrutiny.
The football program covered up the rape of children so it wouldn't look bad. There's no media pressure that caused this, there is the rape of children and covering it up to protect the football program that caused this.
As my attorneys have pointed out, another investigation of my conduct, an investigation by federal officials responsible for my national top secret security clearance, was carried out simultaneously with the Freeh investigation. This clearance required a re-review when the Sandusky matter surfaced in November. Federal investigators then conducted a four-month investigation of their own in which they interviewed many of the same individuals the Freeh Group interviewed and other relevant individuals Freeh did not interview. The investigation was significantly focused on any possible role I might have played in the Sandusky matter.
At the conclusion of the investigation, my top secret clearance was reaffirmed. Although I told Mr. Freeh directly about the federal investigation and its result, there is no mention of it anywhere in his report.
Makes you wonder about how great the federal clearance process is.
As my attorneys have pointed out, another investigation of my conduct, an investigation by federal officials responsible for my national top secret security clearance, was carried out simultaneously with the Freeh investigation. This clearance required a re-review when the Sandusky matter surfaced in November. Federal investigators then conducted a four-month investigation of their own in which they interviewed many of the same individuals the Freeh Group interviewed and other relevant individuals Freeh did not interview. The investigation was significantly focused on any possible role I might have played in the Sandusky matter.
At the conclusion of the investigation, my top secret clearance was reaffirmed. Although I told Mr. Freeh directly about the federal investigation and its result, there is no mention of it anywhere in his report.
Makes you wonder about how great the federal clearance process is.
