Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[DontToewsMeBro]

the players who are leaving (aka the "innocent victims") want them there anyways.

We have chosen to stay at Penn State and opposing coaches are outside our apartment, was that the intention of the NCAA?

Sounds that way to me too.

[columbia]

the players who are leaving (aka the "innocent victims") want them there anyways.

We have chosen to stay at Penn State and opposing coaches are outside our apartment, was that the intention of the NCAA?

Sounds that way to me too.

Aren't you blaming a previously sick man, for still being sick?

Big time college sports are inherently sleazy.

[DontToewsMeBro]

So you're saying the sanctions are perpetuating the culture Emmert said the NCAA was going to abolish?

[columbia]

No.

[DontToewsMeBro]

No.

fair point.

Spoiler:

Did we sign Parise yet?

[shmenguin]

the players who are leaving (aka the "innocent victims") want them there anyways.

We have chosen to stay at Penn State and opposing coaches are outside our apartment, was that the intention of the NCAA?

Sounds that way to me too.

like i said, the players who are leaving want to be recruited

[DontToewsMeBro]

The players who are leaving have reached out to the schools they wish to speak to. That is not the same as Illinois dispatching 7 assistant coaches to sit outside the parking lot and throwing rocks at Malcolm Willis' window.

[shmenguin]

The players who are leaving have reached out to the schools they wish to speak to. That is not the same as Illinois dispatching 7 assistant coaches to sit outside the parking lot and throwing rocks at Malcolm Willis' window.

i haven't heard about this rock throwing business. doesn't sound good

but conceptually, there's still nothing wrong with other schools trying to land recruits - even if they're somewhat slimy in the process

[DontToewsMeBro]

This isn't directed toward anybody here, but it also boggles my mind when people say "This is like the CEO of a F500 company laundering billions and evading taxes!". No. Using booster money to pay players is like that. It gives you a competitive advantage among your peers. It is gaming the system to your own benefit. This is like the CEO and the CFO passively covering up the despicable pedophiliac actions of a co-worker for a dozen years. It exists outside of the institution. \rant

That being said I am resigning. Thanks for taking my mind off the least interesting NHL offseason (for the Penguins) in recent memory for a few weeks.

[Pavel Bure]

The thing is the child rape didn't exist outside of the institution. In fact many acts occurred within the institution and in the institutions buildings.

[DudeMan2766]

Reminds me of the crying about hurting the innocent players then being disgusted by the coaches offering to get them away from this mess.

lol, the chip on your shoulder is absolutely enormous. You're right, those kind, benevolent coaches just waiting outside the Lasch Building to give those broken down giants a big hug and take them to a home where they will be loved

A lot of the players didn't even want to leave the building because the vultures were circling in the parking lot outside.

I didnt have a chip on my shoulder until the sanctions were handed down and all the sudden the NCAA was the bad guy in this. All that just really struck a cord with me and this is by far the most argumentive I've been on this board ever. We spent all week debating that the sanctions were too harsh, had no right to be handed down or were handed down for the wrong reasons, and hurt players on the team that didnt do anything.

First theyre too harsh, now we're upset because the NCAA may lighten up on them down the road (much like probation)? And here I thought people were looking for anything and everything to bash the NCAA.
I'm in no means thinking these coaches are comming in on white horses to take these players under their wing, and I can certainly see how people feel a bit of slimeyness to it, but A: Perfectly legal, and B: These players most likely dont have the time or resources to travel and recruit themselves right now, so for any that want to leave, teams have come to you. NOTHING was going to come out of this silky smooth. There is no right answer, no way to punish who needs punished without affecting the innocent, and no way to not affect the innocent without letting those who need punished (the school itself as well, because I believe as a whole, it does) get off too lightly

[MWB]

Just heard that O'Brien said he was under the impression (underlined for emphasis) a strong compliance with the NCAA could lead to a reduction in sanctions down the road.

If true, I don't know how anybody could still be defending the NCAA one way or another. If you're going to come out and take a hard stance you best have the guts to stick with it.

John Infante also suggested they could increase sanctions of additional misdeeds were brought out later.

[malkinshair]

Just heard that O'Brien said he was under the impression (underlined for emphasis) a strong compliance with the NCAA could lead to a reduction in sanctions down the road.

If true, I don't know how anybody could still be defending the NCAA one way or another. If you're going to come out and take a hard stance you best have the guts to stick with it.

John Infante also suggested they could increase sanctions of additional misdeeds were brought out later.

I really can't imagine any additional sanctions being levied. I mean, they've already determined per the Freeh report that 4 men conspired to cover for a rapist so that they could keep making money. There is nooo question that Freeh, by not relying on assumptions and conjecture, was 100% accurate in his findings, so we need not worry about additional misdeeds being exposed. He could not have been more thorough.

The real question is...what happens to the Freeh report if no charges can be brought against Spanier, and Schultz and Curley are found Not Guilty of perjury? I don't expect any of that to happen, but what would the NCAA do if it would? They couldn't possibly cling to the findings of the flawed Freeh report, could they?

[Rocco]

Speaking of the Freeh report:

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Grou ... es/133213/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"That document was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA's decision making," a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle on Thursday. "It was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing."

[Rocco]

The real question is...what happens to the Freeh report if no charges can be brought against Spanier, and Schultz and Curley are found Not Guilty of perjury? I don't expect any of that to happen, but what would the NCAA do if it would? They couldn't possibly cling to the findings of the flawed Freeh report, could they?

They would say that the NCAA's standards are lower than the judicial system's standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a fair statement and a completely logical stance to take.

[count2infinity]

The thing is the child rape didn't exist outside of the institution. In fact many acts occurred within the institution and in the institutions buildings.

Honestly, how badly do you just want to burn state college to the ground?

[Pavel Bure]

The thing is the child rape didn't exist outside of the institution. In fact many acts occurred within the institution and in the institutions buildings.

Honestly, how badly do you just want to burn state college to the ground?

Oh of course because I have no problem with whats happening to PSU I want to burn it to the ground.

[Rylan]

PB as an outsider looking into this thread, it has appeared that you have major anger against PSU and nothing short of total annihilation would be a feasible punishment.

[MWB]

Speaking of the Freeh report:

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Grou ... es/133213/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"That document was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA's decision making," a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle on Thursday. "It was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing."

Not sure I get that. How does it become an "obstacle"? It seems that the person quoted is saying that the report was to be used to get PSU to change on its own (move forward).

[Troy Loney]

PB as an outsider looking into this thread, it has appeared that you have major anger against PSU and nothing short of total annihilation would be a feasible punishment.

Yep, everyone piling on PSU is just a hater and is just using this instance to jump on them and hate. What the leaders of that institution did was appalling and things shouldn't just get to go on as normal there after such a failure. Who gives a **** about the quality of football going forward, you can all still watch and love the football, but their needs to be some impact on the people who were receiving those revenue streams.

[Rylan]

Speaking of the Freeh report:

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Grou ... es/133213/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"That document was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA's decision making," a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle on Thursday. "It was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing."

Not sure I get that. How does it become an "obstacle"? It seems that the person quoted is saying that the report was to be used to get PSU to change on its own (move forward).

The Freeh report was not supposed to be used by the NCAA to punish PSU.

[shmenguin]

Speaking of the Freeh report:

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Grou ... es/133213/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"That document was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA's decision making," a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle on Thursday. "It was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing."

Not sure I get that. How does it become an "obstacle"? It seems that the person quoted is saying that the report was to be used to get PSU to change on its own (move forward).

yeah i dont get that either

[DudeMan2766]

Speaking of the Freeh report:

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Grou ... es/133213/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"That document was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA's decision making," a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle on Thursday. "It was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing."

Not sure I get that. How does it become an "obstacle"? It seems that the person quoted is saying that the report was to be used to get PSU to change on its own (move forward).

The Freeh report was not supposed to be used by the NCAA to punish PSU.

Who ******* cares? It found what it found. There was a cover up, lead by Joe Paterno, the emails prove that, so I dont care one way or another how or why the school is getting punished. Complaining they took the Freeh report into account is either A: Trying to discredit it or B: Wanting Penn State to get by on a technicalities. which ive been saying all along. And before u answer I will echo what was said before. This is NOT A COURT OF LAW WHERE U NEED EVERYTHING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. When those guys face a jury, their lawyers may find loopholes etc, and they very well may skate. Doesnt mean a damn thing regarding PSU. Everyone knows what happened by now and who was guilty.

[malkinshair]

Spoiler:

Speaking of the Freeh report:

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Grou ... es/133213/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"That document was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA's decision making," a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle on Thursday. "It was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing."

Not sure I get that. How does it become an "obstacle"? It seems that the person quoted is saying that the report was to be used to get PSU to change on its own (move forward).

The Freeh report was not supposed to be used by the NCAA to punish PSU.

Who ******* cares? It found what it found. There was a cover up, lead by Joe Paterno, the emails prove that, so I dont care one way or another how or why the school is getting punished. Complaining they took the Freeh report into account is either A: Trying to discredit it or B: Wanting Penn State to get by on a technicalities. which ive been saying all along. And before u answer I will echo what was said before. This is NOT A COURT OF LAW WHERE U NEED EVERYTHING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. When those guys face a jury, their lawyers may find loopholes etc, and they very well may skate. Doesnt mean a damn thing regarding PSU. Everyone knows what happened by now and who was guilty.

You seriously couldn't have made my point better for me if you tried.

How do you know what happened and who was guilty? How do you know what those emails were referring to exactly? How do you know the extent of what Paterno and others knew AT THE TIME? How do you know they knew Sandusky was raping children, and decided to cover it up so that they could keep making money? You don't, and neither does Freeh. His report details a version of what was, IN HIS OPINION, the most likely scenario. Read that again.

I am absolutely trying to discredit a report that assigned meaning and motive for 4 peoples' actions 11 years ago without as much as interviewing them...at least for the purpose of deciding punishment from an outside source that circumvented its own policy of 'due process'.

I'm not arguing that Freeh's conclusions are wrong...they very well could describe everything as it actually happened. I'm arguing that it is flawed and incomplete, and was never meant to be used as a smoking gun against Penn State. It became that when Freeh decided to hold a press conference claiming that his findings were fact...kind of.

To put it another way...you can take the same emails and information contained in the Freeh report and construct a 'just as plausible' scenario that doesn't involve an evil cover-up and protection for a known child rapist. The biggest and most flawed assumption in that report is that the 4 men knew the extent of Sandusky's transgressions and still decided to cover it up. Take that assumption away, and you have a horrific mistake, not an evil conspiracy.

[Rocco]

Speaking of the Freeh report:

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Grou ... es/133213/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"That document was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA's decision making," a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle on Thursday. "It was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing."

Not sure I get that. How does it become an "obstacle"? It seems that the person quoted is saying that the report was to be used to get PSU to change on its own (move forward).

Had PSU not done the report, the NCAA would not had the report to use against them and would have had to conduct their own investigation. In the future, if you know that such things will be used to punish you, why do it? It's similar to the idea of protecting whistleblowers- we want people to do the right thing, but if whistleblowers had to risk being fired to come out they'd be less likely to come clean.