I mean I understand that the NCAA isn't fair how it treats some schools as opposed to others, but usually it's the "smaller" programs getting it handed to them. This board member seems to think Penn State just didn't deserve it. I especially like the comparison to a child, it seems to just further the irony.

Penn State

Yes he is, but don't call him Shirley!

Seriously, I was reading this. And I swear I completely missed the part about Penn State accepting the penalties they did without a full investigation because they were facing a possible four year death penalty PLUS a TV ban. Completely missed that part.

Here's a quote from that idiot:

"(The NCAA) is a petulant child gone wild. The NCAA, in my view, has lost its moral compass."

Geez, I think he has that exactly backwards. Some of those people STILL don't get it.

PSU really deserves the death penality.

Yes, PennSt deserves the death penalty like no other school ever deserved it.

(08-26-2012 10:32 PM)nert Wrote:  Yes, PennSt deserves the death penalty like no other school ever deserved it.

Yet the NCAA President made the unprecedented move by "negotiating" with Penn State...which helped them avoid the 4 year death penalty that the NCAA Committee had suggested.

It's all giant ruse....Penn State was "too big to fail/punish" because with all the TV $$$$ tied up, ABC/ESPN (Disney) and the Big Ten Network "had" to have Penn State games to help maximize profits.

They really are playing up the "we're the victim" card, aren't they?

Considering no one outside of State College actually is listening...why are they still trying?

Please make it go away.......

(08-27-2012 07:04 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Yet the NCAA President made the unprecedented move by "negotiating" with Penn State...which helped them avoid the 4 year death penalty that the NCAA Committee had suggested.

Once the penalty was handed down, I made it a point to stop paying attention to this story; I have to say this because I may be the only person who did not know about this, but this article was the first I heard of the negotiated punished being in place of the recommended 4 year death penalty. Since this punishement was handed down, my only following of the case are the soundbites from the board members, or the idiotic quotes from the Paterno family I see scroll across the ESPN ticker. But when I heard the board members talk about how the NCAA acted unfairly, or that they took unprecedented action without giving Penn State a chance to defend themselves, or say that the president should have never taken that deal and there was no reason to do so, no mention is made of the NCAA's original recommendation.

Considering the recommended punishment of 4 years of no football, a bigger fine, the possible loss of revenue from the Big Ten due to being on death penalty, and more damning information that likely would have come from a full-on investigation, and add the assumption that said investigation lingers over Happy Valley for at least a year before being sentences, it would have essentially been a five year death penalty, I have to something I am not sure I would have thought when this case down: Penn State might have actually gotten off easy.

(08-27-2012 09:28 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-27-2012 07:04 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Yet the NCAA President made the unprecedented move by "negotiating" with Penn State...which helped them avoid the 4 year death penalty that the NCAA Committee had suggested.

Granted once the penalty was handed down, I made it a poitn to stop paying attention to this, but this article was the first I heard of the negotiation being in place of the recommended 4 year death penalty. I point this out, because as someoen who stopped paying attention, all I see are soundbites where the board members talk about how the NCAA acted unfairly, or that they took unprecedented action without giving them a chance to defend themselves, or that the president should have never taken that deal, no mention is made of the NCAA's original recommendation. Considering the recommended punishment, and the other information that likely would have come from a full investigation, and if you assume said investigation lasts for at least a year would assentially make it a five year death penalty, I have to say Penn State might have actually gotten off easy.

Damn right, they got off easy. It is sickening.

I've mentioned this before

Before the sanctions came out, the NCAA came out repeatedly stating that the sanctions would be "far worse" than a death penalty.

Then once the announcements came out, it was shown that the president agreed to the sanctions or else PSU would have faced the death penalty.
...Which mean that the sanctions were not worse, and it was just a marketing ploy to placate the masses and provide false information.

It shows that the NCAA was scared (and refused) to damage one of their precious golden children.

(08-27-2012 09:49 AM)dogma Wrote:  I've mentioned this before

Before the sanctions came out, the NCAA came out repeatedly stating that the sanctions would be "far worse" than a death penalty.

Then once the announcements came out, it was shown that the president agreed to the sanctions or else PSU would have faced the death penalty.
...Which mean that the sanctions were not worse, and it was just a marketing ploy to placate the masses and provide false information.

It shows that the NCAA was scared (and refused) to damage one of their precious golden children.

Yup; and if it were Memphis, USF or even WVU for that matter - death penalty it would have been.

In 1987, SMU wasn't given the choice to opt out of the death penalty.

I think it's ridiculous that PSU had a choice.

In a recent interview the former PSU President again disputed the freech report; he also maintained his innocence and plans a vigorous defense in court against his charges. If his evidence disputes the freech report claims and blows it apart... this could get a lot uglier than some nobody board member talking out loud.

I don't dispute the penalties based on what we think we know, but I just didn't like the way it all went down -- the rushing verdict, there are violations on texting recruits that the NCAA has taken longer to investigate and punish. By not investigating themselves and not waiting for legal channels to play out first, the NCAA is begging for push-back from the PSU faithful, especially if no one other than Sandusky is found guilty of any type of cover-up or enabling.

IMO the NCAA should have done their own investigation. Who knows how much more they would have found?

(08-27-2012 09:59 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  In a recent interview the former PSU President again disputed the freech report; he also maintained his innocence and plans a vigorous defense in court against his charges. If his evidence disputes the freech report claims and blows it apart... this could get a lot uglier than some nobody board member talking out loud.

I don't dispute the penalties based on what we think we know, but I just didn't like the way it all went down -- the rushing verdict, there are violations on texting recruits that the NCAA has taken longer to investigate and punish. By not investigating themselves and not waiting for legal channels to play out first, the NCAA is begging for push-back from the PSU faithful, especially if no one other than Sandusky is found guilty of any type of cover-up or enabling.

Meh. Anything is possible, but just those e-mails make it apparent that they knew what was going on with Sandusky. And Freeh probably had more resources than the NCAA could ever muster to investigate. That's one reason why everything takes so long w/ the NCAA, not b/c they are so meticulous.

I watched Spanier's TV interview the other day. It was laughable. He admitted he got those e-mails about Sandusky in 1998, but said they had just slipped his mind, and that's why he testified to the Grand Jury that he didn't know about Sandusky before 2001.

The interviewer then read from them, which included phrases like "criminal investigation," "potential child abuse," etc., and asked how he could forget something like that. He replied that he didn't get involved in criminal matters, that he was a hands off president, and let campus security take care of those matters.

Then he was asked about the 2001 McQueary incident, and he said yes, he knew about that, but it was characterized to him as "horseplay." He was asked if he knew the child was about 10, and that he and Sandusky were both in the shower naked.

He said yes, but he didn't think anything of it, b/c he figured they were just popping towels, or something like that. And the reporter said, "But, regardless, a grown man was in a shower naked with a 10-year-old boy in a Penn State locker room. That didn't concern you?"

Spanier replied, "No."

Yet, Spanier sent out an e-mail right after that incident, saying that "if this gets out, I'm concerned that we will be held criminally liable."

Yeah, right, Spanier and the others knew nothing for 14 years. That's beyond laughable. It's pitiful. And criminal.

(08-27-2012 09:59 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  In a recent interview the former PSU President again disputed the freech report; he also maintained his innocence and plans a vigorous defense in court against his charges. If his evidence disputes the freech report claims and blows it apart... this could get a lot uglier than some nobody board member talking out loud.

Sandusky also maintained that he would be abel to prove his innocence.

(08-27-2012 09:59 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I don't dispute the penalties based on what we think we know, but I just didn't like the way it all went down -- the rushing verdict, there are violations on texting recruits that the NCAA has taken longer to investigate and punish. By not investigating themselves and not waiting for legal channels to play out first, the NCAA is begging for push-back from the PSU faithful, especially if no one other than Sandusky is found guilty of any type of cover-up or enabling.

Here's the deal. There is no need for an investigation when you plead guilty, which is the equivalent here. They were faced with, if we do an investigation and find you guilty, here is what youare faced with. Or you can take this punishment now. Basically PSU feared what would happen if the NCAA did a full investigation, and opted to avoid it. That is as much an admission of guilt as there ever can be. With rare exception, innocent people do not pleade guilty and give up the chance to defend themselves like PSU did. They know they had no chance.

(08-27-2012 09:59 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  In a recent interview the former PSU President again disputed the freech report; he also maintained his innocence and plans a vigorous defense in court against his charges. If his evidence disputes the freech report claims and blows it apart... this could get a lot uglier than some nobody board member talking out loud.

I don't dispute the penalties based on what we think we know, but I just didn't like the way it all went down -- the rushing verdict, there are violations on texting recruits that the NCAA has taken longer to investigate and punish. By not investigating themselves and not waiting for legal channels to play out first, the NCAA is begging for push-back from the PSU faithful, especially if no one other than Sandusky is found guilty of any type of cover-up or enabling.

The NCAA DID investigate. They were kept abreast of everything the Freeh investigation was doing. They were getting updates constantly. Just because they didn't use their own people doesn't mean they didn't know what was being found.

To put it in perspective, if someone is arrested for murder, and are facing tghe death penalty, if they pleade guilty in court in exchange for life in prison, the prosecution does not continue to investigate and try to build a case.