Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[Rocco]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. However, the "inherent danger" when speaking about college athletics is quite relative.

I dunno, PSU's leadership disregarded authority to get what they wanted and that seemed to go pretty badly for a lot of innocent children.

[DontToewsMeBro]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. However, the "inherent danger" when speaking about college athletics is quite relative.

So in this case, you're willing to take that gamble? Emmert said that the powers "weren't on his toolbelt" so-to-speak. We will see.

Maybe soon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/ ... 3G20120502" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What gamble am I taking?

Not "you" per se. You don't perceive there will be any unforeseen negative consequences from the NCAA President's extra-ordinary display of power? It opens up a can of worms. It sets a precedent in getting involved in criminal cases. In the words of the man who brought you "Simply put, success in LSU Football is essential for the success of Louisiana State University," the punishment is "a stark wake-up call to everyone in college sports."

[MWB]

I'm not overly concerned about this punishment opening a can of worms, no. As I've said before, I think this was a very specific and unique circumstance on many levels. I'd rather the NCAA step in and institute what I consider fair consequences (with exception of vacated wins) than twiddle their thumbs for a couple years and then decide to do something, considering this specific case.

[malkinshair]

I'm not overly concerned about this punishment opening a can of worms, no. As I've said before, I think this was a very specific and unique circumstance on many levels. I'd rather the NCAA step in and institute what I consider fair consequences (with exception of vacated wins) than twiddle their thumbs for a couple years and then decide to do something, considering this specific case.

Would you support the NCAA adding amendments to their own written by-laws to allow easier intervention into cases such as these so that, in the future, they were actually acting within their stated jurisdiction?

[Rocco]

Emmert's interview:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... -penalties" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At about 3:50, he mentions that proceeding through the traditional process would have "an unknown outcome". I interpret "unknown" from Emmert as "not the outcome I wanted", but I suppose that's up for interpretation.

At around the 8:00 minute mark, Emmert tries to explain how saying that LSU football's success is vital to LSU's success isn't part of the culture problem. In the process hethrows Gerry DiNardo under the bus for low graduation rates. Just one problem:

[DontToewsMeBro]

You could see Bob Ley's face light up as Emmert walked himself right into his follow-up questions.

[MWB]

Emmert's interview:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... -penalties" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At about 3:50, he mentions that proceeding through the traditional process would have "an unknown outcome". I interpret "unknown" from Emmert as "not the outcome I wanted", but I suppose that's up for interpretation.

About a minute later he said that he thought the investigation would have resulted in punishments "significantly worse" if PSU wasn't so forthcoming.

[MWB]

I'm not overly concerned about this punishment opening a can of worms, no. As I've said before, I think this was a very specific and unique circumstance on many levels. I'd rather the NCAA step in and institute what I consider fair consequences (with exception of vacated wins) than twiddle their thumbs for a couple years and then decide to do something, considering this specific case.

Would you support the NCAA adding amendments to their own written by-laws to allow easier intervention into cases such as these so that, in the future, they were actually acting within their stated jurisdiction?

I wouldn't oppose that.

[Rocco]

Emmert's interview:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... -penalties" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At about 3:50, he mentions that proceeding through the traditional process would have "an unknown outcome". I interpret "unknown" from Emmert as "not the outcome I wanted", but I suppose that's up for interpretation.

About a minute later he said that he thought the investigation would have resulted in punishments "significantly worse" if PSU wasn't so forthcoming.

He's certainly entitled to his opinion. Former heads of the enforcement committee have stated that it would have been difficult/unlikely for the COI to find that they had jurisdiction.

[bhaw]

I find myself in about 95% agreement with MWB at this point. I will let his opinion speak for me

[MWB]

Emmert's interview:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... -penalties" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At about 3:50, he mentions that proceeding through the traditional process would have "an unknown outcome". I interpret "unknown" from Emmert as "not the outcome I wanted", but I suppose that's up for interpretation.

About a minute later he said that he thought the investigation would have resulted in punishments "significantly worse" if PSU wasn't so forthcoming.

He's certainly entitled to his opinion. Former heads of the enforcement committee have stated that it would have been difficult/unlikely for the COI to find that they had jurisdiction.

Just pointing out that it's not really up for interpretation because he said what he thought the outcome would be.

[Rocco]

Emmert's interview:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... -penalties" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At about 3:50, he mentions that proceeding through the traditional process would have "an unknown outcome". I interpret "unknown" from Emmert as "not the outcome I wanted", but I suppose that's up for interpretation.

About a minute later he said that he thought the investigation would have resulted in punishments "significantly worse" if PSU wasn't so forthcoming.

He's certainly entitled to his opinion. Former heads of the enforcement committee have stated that it would have been difficult/unlikely for the COI to find that they had jurisdiction.

Just pointing out that it's not really up for interpretation because he said what he thought the outcome would be.

"I don't know what the outcome would have been, but I suspect the outcome would have been worse."- Emmert

Thinking what the outcome would be and knowing it will be the outcome you want are separate matters. Emmert had to have enough doubt in his mind that the COI would find no jurisdiction to impose sanctions to cut them out of the loop and not run that risk.

[mac5155]

THere are a bunch of retards on the Pitt boards saying PSU got off easy in all of this.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

http://onwardstate.com/2012/07/25/erick ... ing-order/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to this opinion piece, Erickson didn't have the authority to sign the consent agreement without the BOT approval. I'm not a lawyer, but could the BOT contest the consent agreement as a result?

[DontToewsMeBro]

Probably, yes.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(From BSD): So they took "Success With Honor" and replaced it with "Burn our Anger as Fuel". Thanks Prince Emmert.

[Rocco]

http://onwardstate.com/2012/07/25/erick ... ing-order/

According to this opinion piece, Erickson didn't have the authority to sign the consent agreement without the BOT approval. I'm not a lawyer, but could the BOT contest the consent agreement as a result?

The BOT apparently would like a word.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breakin ... ees_t.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think it's pretty clear why both Emmert and Erickson did this as quickly and quietly as possible and in the way they did.

[Rocco]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... th-penalty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Emmert confirms that the death penalty for 4 years was an option after going on TV and saying otherwise. I guess he misremembered some things in between the back-patting. This also runs counter to what Ed Ray is saying.

[DontToewsMeBro]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... th-penalty

Emmert confirms that the death penalty for 4 years was an option after going on TV and saying otherwise. I guess he misremembered some things in between the back-patting. This also runs counter to what Ed Ray is saying.

What a lying POS. This guy is a power hungry clown.

[stopper40]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... th-penalty

Emmert confirms that the death penalty for 4 years was an option after going on TV and saying otherwise. I guess he misremembered some things in between the back-patting. This also runs counter to what Ed Ray is saying.

What a lying POS. This guy is a power hungry clown.

Yep. While it's not there yet he's making himself into a villain and Penn State his victim

[DontToewsMeBro]

I'll just say he's making the NCAA look like a band of morons and I'll leave it at that. The sanctions are showing the true culture of college football, where the headlines start with coaches showing up down the road to throw rocks at players windows in their apartment's parking lot. This is what the NCAA wanted, right? To change a culture?

PS you can't say any person or institution is hurting from this because they automatically assume that you are placing their misfortune on an equal pedestal of those who were abused.

[MWB]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... th-penalty

Emmert confirms that the death penalty for 4 years was an option after going on TV and saying otherwise. I guess he misremembered some things in between the back-patting. This also runs counter to what Ed Ray is saying.

What a lying POS. This guy is a power hungry clown.

Yep. While it's not there yet he's making himself into a villain and Penn State his victim

It's already there, for a small segment of people.

What does it really matter? This was a negotiation between PSU and the NCAA. The NCAA went in with the four year ban, and PSU negotiated it down to what it is now.

[DontToewsMeBro]

Maybe because Emmert lied on national television to Bob Ley's face that PSU was not threatened with a death penalty at all. Or maybe because Erickson didn't speak with the BoT before signing the decree.

[Factorial]

Maybe the BOT will veto the agreement. Then PSU could get the death penalty for four years.

[Pitt87]

Maybe the BOT will veto the agreement. Then PSU could get the death penalty for four years.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard a group of smart people doing. Its like they enjoy the attention.

[Pavel Bure]

Who gives a ****? I'm not sure what you guys are whining about.