There's not a penalty to harsh for PSU!

#376
#376
bamawriter said:
We don't know that there would have been a disadvantage, we can simply assume that Paterno thought there might be. I'll continue to argue that they would have gained a greater advantage by turning Sandusky in, but I can't be sure of that either.
Click to expand...

What would have been the advantage? I mean it looks good from the outside, but from a recruiting and image perspective would have hurt them.

bamawriter said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you clarify?
Click to expand...

They have known each other since at least the 70's. There were 400 people or so interviewed in the Freeh report. It's hard to think in 1998 the pedo woke up and liked young boys. There would still be a need for a cover up. I mean look how quite it was from 1998 to now. Its not impossible to think this may have been covered up much longer.
 
#377
#377
Not a Reilly fan, but thought this was telling:

What a fool I was. In 1986, I spent a week in State College, Pa., researching a 10-page Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year piece on Joe Paterno. It was supposed to be a secret, but one night the phone in my hotel room rang. It was a Penn State professor, calling out of the blue.
"Are you here to take part in hagiography?" he said.
"What's hagiography?" I asked.
"The study of saints," he said. "You're going to be just like the rest, aren't you? You're going to make Paterno out to be a saint. You don't know him. He'll do anything to win. What you media are doing is dangerous."
Jealous egghead, I figured. What an idiot I was.
Click to expand...
 
#378
#378
And another Reilly quote:

I hope Penn State loses civil suits until the walls of the accounting office cave in. I hope that Spanier, Schultz and Curley go to prison for perjury. I hope the NCAA gives Penn State the death penalty it most richly deserves. The worst scandal in college football history deserves the worst penalty the NCAA can give. They gave it to SMU for winning without regard for morals. They should give it to Penn State for the same thing. The only difference is, at Penn State they didn't pay for it with Corvettes. They paid for it with lives.
Click to expand...
 
#379
#379
bamawriter said:
A chamber of commerce doesn't fall under the second piece I listed before. They do not have anti-trust exemptions, so they don't have to publish their agreements with the State, they simply have to provide them if they are requested.

The NCAA must publish the details of their agreements. If it turned out that the NCAA had secret agreements, it would be one of the largest anti-trust cluster****s in the history of the American judicial system.
Click to expand...

Really? We're talking about member conduct here not a contract to build a damned stadium. I'd like to see the DOJ go after the NCAA. That would be histerical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#380
#380
bamawriter said:
Actually, the letter was sent 8 months before the Freeh report was published, and there is nothing in the Freeh report that could be considered an NCAA violation. So the Freeh report is not the issue.

The NCAA could take the opportunity to start looking for violations based on what was clearly a toxic environment at PSU, and they probably ought to. But what if they find nothing more than what is already known?
Click to expand...

apologies, i went a little liberal there...the grand jury was the tip...anyhoo...you could be right they might not find anything new and I guess what you'd follow that with, now what? The football coach was unethical. The AD was unethical. The president was unethical. The janitors were more worried about themselves than the child, so that makes them...that's right... unethical. The fact that from the top of the University(include the BOT) to the bottom and let's include all the people who knew but are acting like they didn't...they are all unethical, at what point should they lose their NCAA membership?

I'm all for the Dept. of Education bounding in and stealing Emmert's thunder. They could pull the federal funding and ruin the university in a far more effective way(and it probably wouldn't cost as much).
 
#381
#381
knucklehead_vol said:
What would have been the advantage? I mean it looks good from the outside, but from a recruiting and image perspective would have hurt them.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I'd be glad to let my son play for a man who turned one of his oldest friends into the authorities in order to protect children.

But like I said, it's hypothetical. There is no way to know whether or not it would have helped or hurt. I imagine some journalist will ultimately ask former players if they would have still gone to PSU if Paterno and co. had turned in Sandusky back in '01. But hindsight doesn't really mean much 11 years later.

They have known each other since at least the 70's. There were 400 people or so interviewed in the Freeh report. It's hard to think in 1998 the pedo woke up and liked young boys. There would still be a need for a cover up. I mean look how quite it was from 1998 to now. Its not impossible to think this may have been covered up much longer.
Click to expand...

I think it's likely that Sandusky was probably abusing children at least as long as he was running the Second Mile. I'm confident that there are many more children out there who were destroyed by Sandusky. For all I know, '98 might not have been the first time it came to Paterno's attention, or anyone else's at that school. If that's the case, it's all the more tragic and shameful.
 
#384
#384
vol66 said:
apologies, i went a little liberal there...the grand jury was the tip...anyhoo...you could be right they might not find anything new and I guess what you'd follow that with, now what? The football coach was unethical. The AD was unethical. The president was unethical. The janitors were more worried about themselves than the child, so that makes them...that's right... unethical. The fact that from the top of the University(include the BOT) to the bottom and let's include all the people who knew but are acting like they didn't...they are all unethical, at what point should they lose their NCAA membership?
Click to expand...

The NCAA does not have a monopoly on punishing unethical behavior amongst its membership. But you're right in that the other members could say "we aren't associating with you anymore." It's the difference between abiding by a contract and revoking a contract.
 
#387
#387
bamawriter said:
Rick Reilly is a columnist for ESPN. He wrote a pretty stellar piece on this issue. I'd advise heading over the espn.com to check it out.
Click to expand...

Reilly and Mark May have both gone up in my eyes. Both havbe been on the right side of this. However, I hope Matt Millen falls down a flight of stairs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#389
#389
VolBeef88 said:
Reilly and Mark May have both gone up in my eyes. Both havbe been on the right side of this. However, I hope Matt Millen falls down a flight of stairs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Millen has completely embarrassed himself in the wake of this.
 
#390
#390
bamawriter said:
Millen has completely embarrassed himself in the wake of this.
Click to expand...


Bomani Jones made him look very foolish. Millen said "I guarantee you that if Joe was alive right now he'd stand up and say this thing was wrong and accept responsibility and do the right thing" Jones said "I don't believe he would, after all we know he had at least 14 years to do the right thing and never did".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#391
#391
VolBeef88 said:
Bomani Jones made him look very foolish. Millen said "I guarantee you that if Joe was alive right now he'd stand up and say this thing was wrong and accept responsibility and do the right thing" Jones said "I don't believe he would, after all we know he had at least 14 years to do the right thing and never did".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yea and how he said if paterno was alive he would be completely honest with him. Some people are thinking paterno may have committed suicide. Doubt it but there are some thinking that.
 
#394
#394
95 Vol Alum said:
ESPN should not continue allowing Millen to comment on something where he has too much personal bias.
Click to expand...

ESPN is full of Big 10 alumni. They all have bias. I was really surprised what Buster Oleny said, make it shrine like the WWII shrine in New Orleans. If they do this they should put it in that shower.
 
#395
#395
bamawriter said:
No one knows better than a Bama fan that the NCAA is often unreasonable and inconsistent. But you are trying to argue that differing punishments for similar violations is tantamount to making rules up out of thin air, and I disagree.
Click to expand...

So here is another issue that may be allow the NCAA room to under their rules to come down on PSU. What if McQueary comes out and says he was offered a position and raise to keep quiet? Would that fall under more clear NCAA violations?
 
#396
#396
knucklehead_vol said:
So here is another issue that may be allow the NCAA room to under their rules to come down on PSU. What if McQueary comes out and says he was offered a position and raise to keep quiet? Would that fall under more clear NCAA violations?
Click to expand...

It might. Seems a little unlikely though. It took 3 years from the time he witnessed Sandusky in the shower and when he actually got a position on the staff. Of course, he could have received hush money that entire time.

Again, there are numerous things that could come to light in the weeks, months, and years to come that might merit NCAA intervention.
 
#397
#397
bamawriter said:
It might. Seems a little unlikely though. It took 3 years from the time he witnessed Sandusky in the shower and when he actually got a position on the staff. Of course, he could have received hush money that entire time.

Again, there are numerous things that could come to light in the weeks, months, and years to come that might merit NCAA intervention.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that he wasn't promised anything, such as a job once it became available. And I thought he was a GA at the time, that is why he was there.

But I hear ya.
 
#398
#398
I wish every discussion was handled as well as this one. Kudos gentlemen on stating your points with restraint and class.

Obviously the subject matter is something that all of us feel a great deal of emotion about. You've done a good job discussing it. And you have this Vols fan's thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#399
#399
knucklehead_vol said:
That doesn't mean that he wasn't promised anything, such as a job once it became available. And I thought he was a GA at the time, that is why he was there.

But I hear ya.
Click to expand...

He was a GA. But he went three more years before getting a full time gig. If you want to keep someone quiet, you can't leave someone in a menial position until something "becomes available." You want someone to stay quiet, you get someone a gig right now. Or you pay someone a ton of money under the table, and then get him a job when something comes open. Unfortunately, it wouldn't shock me if the latter occurred.
 
#400
#400
bamawriter said:
It might. Seems a little unlikely though. It took 3 years from the time he witnessed Sandusky in the shower and when he actually got a position on the staff. Of course, he could have received hush money that entire time.

Again, there are numerous things that could come to light in the weeks, months, and years to come that might merit NCAA intervention.
Click to expand...

Here it is...

Tim Curley, who temporarily stepped down as athletic director, and now-retired vice president Gary Schultz are charged with lying to a grand jury about what they knew of the 2001 assault that then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary said he witnessed.



Kinda odd that Freeh did not interview him, but they may have had all they need to know in the emails.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top