shafnutz05 wrote:I do get kind of tired of Moody's, on a side note. Every time something happens, we have to hear the INTENSE SPECULATION on whether or not they will <GASP> downgrade something. It's pathetic.
Well, that's kinda what they do. Credit analysts are so misunderstood!
Doubt it's a downgrade of any significance though.
shafnutz05 wrote:I do get kind of tired of Moody's, on a side note. Every time something happens, we have to hear the INTENSE SPECULATION on whether or not they will <GASP> downgrade something. It's pathetic.
Well, that's kinda what they do. Credit analysts are so misunderstood!
Doubt it's a downgrade of any significance though.
haha I know, it's just inevitable. I didn't even realize they assigned credit ratings to universities, but I guess it makes sense. I highly doubt it's significant too.
so when are they demolishing the school? Hopefully they start with the Hammond building.
I always heard a story about that building, that they let a bunch of undergrad architectural engineers design that, and when they F'ed it up they just built it sideways, which is why it spans like 19 city blocks and has 3 split levels.
MWB wrote:Isn't it possible that this is a completely unique situation and that's why the NCAA handled it in a completely unique way? I understand people being concerned about precedent, but sometimes you actually do have to go outside the box to do what is right. It seems like most people are saying, "The punishment is fine, but how they got there is crazy." Sometimes the "how they got there" doesn't really matter and the fact that they got it right is the most important thing.
I've often found that the 'ends justify the means' philosophy to be dangerous...in just about any situation. Rules are in place for a reason. Circumventing the rules to arrive at an 'end' that you want is suddenly okay?
Yes, I believe in some unique, specific circumstances it's okay to circumvent the rules.
According to Emmert and the NCAA every case is unique.
Say what you will but ESPN is sure running away with the NCAAs perceived failures yesterday.
Keown misses the point- Emmert was not authorized to pursue the Death Penalty by the Executive Committee, despite his grandstanding. The Consent Agreement listed out the punishments Emmert could use and that wasn't one.
Say what you will but ESPN is sure running away with the NCAAs perceived failures yesterday.
Keown misses the point- Emmert was not authorized to pursue the Death Penalty by the Executive Committee, despite his grandstanding. The Consent Agreement listed out the punishments Emmert could use and that wasn't one.
So did Emmert flat-out lie to Erickson when he threatened the multi-year Death Penalty if PSU didn't agree to yesterday's sanctions?
Say what you will but ESPN is sure running away with the NCAAs perceived failures yesterday.
Keown misses the point- Emmert was not authorized to pursue the Death Penalty by the Executive Committee, despite his grandstanding. The Consent Agreement listed out the punishments Emmert could use and that wasn't one.
So did Emmert flat-out lie to Erickson when he threatened the multi-year Death Penalty if PSU didn't agree to yesterday's sanctions?
If Emmert wanted the Death Penalty, he would have had to have gone through the standard Committee on Infractions to get it. While it's entirely possible he would have gotten his way there, those who know more about the process suggest it's likely the COI wouldn't have found any grounds for sanctions as the rules are currently written.
Say what you will but ESPN is sure running away with the NCAAs perceived failures yesterday.
Keown misses the point- Emmert was not authorized to pursue the Death Penalty by the Executive Committee, despite his grandstanding. The Consent Agreement listed out the punishments Emmert could use and that wasn't one.
So did Emmert flat-out lie to Erickson when he threatened the multi-year Death Penalty if PSU didn't agree to yesterday's sanctions?
If Emmert wanted the Death Penalty, he would have had to have gone through the standard Committee on Infractions to get it. While it's entirely possible he would have gotten his way there, those who know more about the process suggest it's likely the COI wouldn't have found any grounds for sanctions as the rules are currently written.
Wow...So is it more likely that Erickson didn't know 'the rules' when he signed off on the sanctions, or that he knew Emmert was 'bluffing', but couldn't risk looking non-compliant to the NCAA, media, and public in general?
malkinshair wrote:
Wow...So is it more likely that Erickson didn't know 'the rules' when he signed off on the sanctions, or that he knew Emmert was 'bluffing', but couldn't risk looking non-compliant to the NCAA, media, and public in general?
Oh, so you're allowed to make logical connections without hearing from Erickson but former head of the FBI can't? Sure, now you can can hate on Erickson and Emmert based on you making loose connections.
Say what you will but ESPN is sure running away with the NCAAs perceived failures yesterday.
Keown misses the point- Emmert was not authorized to pursue the Death Penalty by the Executive Committee, despite his grandstanding. The Consent Agreement listed out the punishments Emmert could use and that wasn't one.
So did Emmert flat-out lie to Erickson when he threatened the multi-year Death Penalty if PSU didn't agree to yesterday's sanctions?
If Emmert wanted the Death Penalty, he would have had to have gone through the standard Committee on Infractions to get it. While it's entirely possible he would have gotten his way there, those who know more about the process suggest it's likely the COI wouldn't have found any grounds for sanctions as the rules are currently written.
Wow...So is it more likely that Erickson didn't know 'the rules' when he signed off on the sanctions, or that he knew Emmert was 'bluffing', but couldn't risk looking non-compliant to the NCAA, media, and public in general?
In "The Wire", prosecutor Rhonda Pearlman is meeting with corrupt defense attorney Maurice Levy. (I apologize for infringing on Jason Whitlock's gimmick, and if he's made this analogy I apologize since I stopped reading him and am unaware he's made this analogy.) Pearlman has pretty hefty charges against Levy's client Marlo Stanfield. The problem is the case is built on an illegal wiretap and the facts would embarrass Baltimore law enforcement and the mayor (who is running for governor). Levy knows this, but if he takes the case to trial, Pearlman will release information showing that Levy is responsible for leaking information to drug dealers, a crime that would cause him to be disbarred and thrown in prison. Plus while it's unlikely Pearlman would win, her chances are above zero. So a deal is worked out where Marlo isn't prosecuted but can't deal drugs anymore, other members of Marlo's crew take the fall for the crimes, charges aren't filed against Levy, and the illegal wiretap is never revealed to the public, which allows Pearlman to become a judge and the mayor to become governor.
Neither Emmert nor Erickson are as corrupt as Pearlman and Levy, but both had little to gain from a major trial and would lose more than they'd win.
DontToewsMeBro wrote:Erickson said he was threatened with harsher sanctions, the NCAA said they never considered the death penalty as an alternative. Somebody is lying.
Had Erickson not accepted the deal, the NCAA would have had to go through their standard Infractions procedure, and should they have convinced the COI that the actions were sanctionable they may have asked for the Death Penalty. Speculating, I'd say Emmert said this is what they'd ask for to Erickson, and Erickson took the deal without consulting the whole BOT because the BOT may not/would not have taken the deal. In that case neither would be lying. (I honestly don't know enough about PSU's structure to know if Erickson was authorized to do what he did. I'm assuming so, but the secrecy of everything done here should ring alarm bells given how similar it is to the behavior for which PSU is being sanctioned.)
Hmmm....liken the behavior of the people cleaning up the mess, to those who caused it.
Because, well, that hopefully casts a suspicion on the mess cleaners and potentially lessens the unacceptable behavior of the previous administration.
That's an interesting rhetorical ploy.
Not effective, but it is interesting.
malkinshair wrote:
Wow...So is it more likely that Erickson didn't know 'the rules' when he signed off on the sanctions, or that he knew Emmert was 'bluffing', but couldn't risk looking non-compliant to the NCAA, media, and public in general?
Oh, so you're allowed to make logical connections without hearing from Erickson but former head of the FBI can't? Sure, now you can can hate on Erickson and Emmert based on you making loose connections.
No, see, I was asking what was 'more likely'......not stating what appeared to me to be 'more likely' as fact.
Seriously, though, it is an interesting question. Did Erickson know that Emmert was overstating his power, or, in Erickson's mind, did it not matter?
Sure, now you can can hate on Erickson and Emmert based on you making loose connections.