shmenguin wrote:the players who are leaving (aka the "innocent victims") want them there anyways.
Sounds that way to me too.We have chosen to stay at Penn State and opposing coaches are outside our apartment, was that the intention of the NCAA?
shmenguin wrote:the players who are leaving (aka the "innocent victims") want them there anyways.
Sounds that way to me too.We have chosen to stay at Penn State and opposing coaches are outside our apartment, was that the intention of the NCAA?
Aren't you blaming a previously sick man, for still being sick?DontToewsMeBro wrote:shmenguin wrote:the players who are leaving (aka the "innocent victims") want them there anyways.Sounds that way to me too.We have chosen to stay at Penn State and opposing coaches are outside our apartment, was that the intention of the NCAA?
fair point.columbia wrote:No.
like i said, the players who are leaving want to be recruitedDontToewsMeBro wrote:shmenguin wrote:the players who are leaving (aka the "innocent victims") want them there anyways.Sounds that way to me too.We have chosen to stay at Penn State and opposing coaches are outside our apartment, was that the intention of the NCAA?
i haven't heard about this rock throwing business. doesn't sound goodDontToewsMeBro wrote: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 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.shafnutz05 wrote: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 lovedDudeMan2766 wrote:Reminds me of the crying about hurting the innocent players then being disgusted by the coaches offering to get them away from this mess.
A lot of the players didn't even want to leave the building because the vultures were circling in the parking lot outside.
John Infante also suggested they could increase sanctions of additional misdeeds were brought out later.DontToewsMeBro wrote: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.
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.MWB wrote:John Infante also suggested they could increase sanctions of additional misdeeds were brought out later.DontToewsMeBro wrote: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.
"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."
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.malkinshair wrote: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?
Honestly, how badly do you just want to burn state college to the ground?Pavel Bure wrote: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.
Oh of course because I have no problem with whats happening to PSU I want to burn it to the ground.count2infinity wrote:Honestly, how badly do you just want to burn state college to the ground?Pavel Bure wrote: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.
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).Rocco wrote: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."
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 wrote: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.
The Freeh report was not supposed to be used by the NCAA to punish PSU.MWB wrote: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).Rocco wrote: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."
yeah i dont get that eitherMWB wrote: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).Rocco wrote: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."
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.Rylan wrote:The Freeh report was not supposed to be used by the NCAA to punish PSU.MWB wrote: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).Rocco wrote: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."
You seriously couldn't have made my point better for me if you tried.DudeMan2766 wrote: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.Spoiler:
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.MWB wrote: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).Rocco wrote: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."