ncaa accuses paterno estate of trying to "rewrite history"

[daleko]

May 8, 2014 16:01:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 8, 2014 12:22:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

In hindsight, both parties might have handled things differently. Fair enough. But, the time to handle things differently started a long time ago.....in hindsight do you think that Penn State would have handled things differently with Sandusky as well? IOW, treat him like any other employee caught in his situation? With the school cooperating with the investigation every step of the way? Hell, they might have even tried to find out the name of the kid in the shower.

aren't you sort of proving my point? the psu execs are accused by the state of mishandling the sandusky situation so they are being charged and will have to prove their case in court. both the ncaa and the psu bot have not been held accountable yet. why should the ncaa and the psu bot elude accountability if they erred? the psu execs certainly aren't. the ncaa handled the psu case in such a unique, unprecedented way. it has created a ton of controversy. why not disclose what actually happened? why is the truth a bad thing?

Let's see what the trials bring out. With the passage of time, perhaps the emotion of Sandusky's atrocity and PSU's/Paterno's lack of diligence will lead to an objective conclusion. But, as I suggested B4, you may not like what you find Taylor. And you, personally, imo, will just go on another tangent. Absent a recovery of Paterno's wins, I don't think you will ever be satisfied. For you, imo, it's not about the money, the loss of a win or two a yr or a bowl game or two, which is in the past, it's about Paterno's wins.

[oujour76]

May 8, 2014 16:01:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 8, 2014 12:22:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

In hindsight, both parties might have handled things differently. Fair enough. But, the time to handle things differently started a long time ago.....in hindsight do you think that Penn State would have handled things differently with Sandusky as well? IOW, treat him like any other employee caught in his situation? With the school cooperating with the investigation every step of the way? Hell, they might have even tried to find out the name of the kid in the shower.

aren't you sort of proving my point? the psu execs are accused by the state of mishandling the sandusky situation so they are being charged and will have to prove their case in court. both the ncaa and the psu bot have not been held accountable yet. why should the ncaa and the psu bot elude accountability if they erred? the psu execs certainly aren't. the ncaa handled the psu case in such a unique, unprecedented way. it has created a ton of controversy. why not disclose what actually happened? why is the truth a bad thing?

I'm talking about treating Sandusky like anybody else 20+ years ago, instead of whitewashing things. Had Jerry Sandusky the Janitor done anything remotely close to what Sandusky the coach had done....the janitor would have felt the full weight of PSU on his shoulders. Instead, PSU enabled Sandusky. You know it and I know it. Your concern here has almost exclusively been Joe Paterno and restoring his wins. You pay lip service to the real victims....."yes, yes, it's terrible what happened to those kids, but let's not go overboard and have this reflect badly on the football program."

[AlaCowboy]

May 8, 2014 16:01:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 8, 2014 12:22:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

In hindsight, both parties might have handled things differently. Fair enough. But, the time to handle things differently started a long time ago.....in hindsight do you think that Penn State would have handled things differently with Sandusky as well? IOW, treat him like any other employee caught in his situation? With the school cooperating with the investigation every step of the way? Hell, they might have even tried to find out the name of the kid in the shower.

aren't you sort of proving my point? the psu execs are accused by the state of mishandling the sandusky situation so they are being charged and will have to prove their case in court. both the ncaa and the psu bot have not been held accountable yet. why should the ncaa and the psu bot elude accountability if they erred? the psu execs certainly aren't. the ncaa handled the psu case in such a unique, unprecedented way. it has created a ton of controversy. why not disclose what actually happened? why is the truth a bad thing?

What acountability do you hold against the PSU BOT and the NCAA for the decades of child rape the PSU administration ignored and abetted?

[ihs82]

May 8, 2014 18:07:08 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 8, 2014 16:01:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

aren't you sort of proving my point? the psu execs are accused by the state of mishandling the sandusky situation so they are being charged and will have to prove their case in court. both the ncaa and the psu bot have not been held accountable yet. why should the ncaa and the psu bot elude accountability if they erred? the psu execs certainly aren't. the ncaa handled the psu case in such a unique, unprecedented way. it has created a ton of controversy. why not disclose what actually happened? why is the truth a bad thing?

I'm talking about treating Sandusky like anybody else 20+ years ago, instead of whitewashing things. Had Jerry Sandusky the Janitor done anything remotely close to what Sandusky the coach had done....the janitor would have felt the full weight of PSU on his shoulders. Instead, PSU enabled Sandusky. You know it and I know it. Your concern here has almost exclusively been Joe Paterno and restoring his wins. You pay lip service to the real victims....."yes, yes, it's terrible what happened to those kids, but let's not go overboard and have this reflect badly on the football program."

the argument you make only exists in a black and white world. sandusky was a pillar in the community. not only did he design national title winning defenses, but he founded a charity with a mission to help disadvantaged children that was ubiquitous across the entire state. people tend to like people with that sort of background. when presented with a situation that presents some sort of conflict in your mind (liking sandusky but thinking he's weird around children), our brains tend to give the person who is liked the benefit of the doubt. it's not just at penn state. it's everywhere. sorry that a janitor is not treated the same way but it's the cruel reality.

[ihs82]

May 8, 2014 20:54:43 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

May 8, 2014 16:01:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

aren't you sort of proving my point? the psu execs are accused by the state of mishandling the sandusky situation so they are being charged and will have to prove their case in court. both the ncaa and the psu bot have not been held accountable yet. why should the ncaa and the psu bot elude accountability if they erred? the psu execs certainly aren't. the ncaa handled the psu case in such a unique, unprecedented way. it has created a ton of controversy. why not disclose what actually happened? why is the truth a bad thing?

What acountability do you hold against the PSU BOT and the NCAA for the decades of child rape the PSU administration ignored and abetted?

if you want to participate in this converstaion, at the very least, get a better understanding of what occurred.

[oujour76]

May 9, 2014 9:13:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 8, 2014 18:07:08 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I'm talking about treating Sandusky like anybody else 20+ years ago, instead of whitewashing things. Had Jerry Sandusky the Janitor done anything remotely close to what Sandusky the coach had done....the janitor would have felt the full weight of PSU on his shoulders. Instead, PSU enabled Sandusky. You know it and I know it. Your concern here has almost exclusively been Joe Paterno and restoring his wins. You pay lip service to the real victims....."yes, yes, it's terrible what happened to those kids, but let's not go overboard and have this reflect badly on the football program."

the argument you make only exists in a black and white world. sandusky was a pillar in the community. not only did he design national title winning defenses, but he founded a charity with a mission to help disadvantaged children that was ubiquitous across the entire state. people tend to like people with that sort of background. when presented with a situation that presents some sort of conflict in your mind (liking sandusky but thinking he's weird around children), our brains tend to give the person who is liked the benefit of the doubt. it's not just at penn state. it's everywhere. sorry that a janitor is not treated the same way but it's the cruel reality.

So...how did that double standard end up working out for you guys?

[ihs82]

May 9, 2014 10:38:46 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 9, 2014 9:13:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

the argument you make only exists in a black and white world. sandusky was a pillar in the community. not only did he design national title winning defenses, but he founded a charity with a mission to help disadvantaged children that was ubiquitous across the entire state. people tend to like people with that sort of background. when presented with a situation that presents some sort of conflict in your mind (liking sandusky but thinking he's weird around children), our brains tend to give the person who is liked the benefit of the doubt. it's not just at penn state. it's everywhere. sorry that a janitor is not treated the same way but it's the cruel reality.

So...how did that double standard end up working out for you guys?

quite shitty.

i'm surprised you didn't point out the obvious hypocrisy in my statement. the excuse i am giving for penn state's enabling of sandusky is exactly what i'm doing in my attempts to defend paterno.

[mscott59]

May 9, 2014 9:13:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 8, 2014 18:07:08 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I'm talking about treating Sandusky like anybody else 20+ years ago, instead of whitewashing things. Had Jerry Sandusky the Janitor done anything remotely close to what Sandusky the coach had done....the janitor would have felt the full weight of PSU on his shoulders. Instead, PSU enabled Sandusky. You know it and I know it. Your concern here has almost exclusively been Joe Paterno and restoring his wins. You pay lip service to the real victims....."yes, yes, it's terrible what happened to those kids, but let's not go overboard and have this reflect badly on the football program."

the argument you make only exists in a black and white world. sandusky was a pillar in the community. not only did he design national title winning defenses, but he founded a charity with a mission to help disadvantaged children that was ubiquitous across the entire state. people tend to like people with that sort of background. when presented with a situation that presents some sort of conflict in your mind (liking sandusky but thinking he's weird around children), our brains tend to give the person who is liked the benefit of the doubt. it's not just at penn state. it's everywhere. sorry that a janitor is not treated the same way but it's the cruel reality.

weird around children? are you saying there wasn't knowledge that he'd been investigated once already? yes, a grand jury did not return an indictment, but would executives still put him in a public position at the university, in the most prominent program the school has, keeping an office in the athletic building and turning a blind eye to a continued association w/a children's group? you don't need 20-20 hindsight to question that series of events. that's reality too.

mark scott
tosu 81

[mscott59]

May 9, 2014 11:16:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 9, 2014 10:38:46 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

So...how did that double standard end up working out for you guys?

quite shitty.

i'm surprised you didn't point out the obvious hypocrisy in my statement. the excuse i am giving for penn state's enabling of sandusky is exactly what i'm doing in my attempts to defend paterno.

then why are you doing that?

mark scott
tosu 81

[oujour76]

May 9, 2014 11:16:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 9, 2014 10:38:46 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

So...how did that double standard end up working out for you guys?

quite shitty.

i'm surprised you didn't point out the obvious hypocrisy in my statement. the excuse i am giving for penn state's enabling of sandusky is exactly what i'm doing in my attempts to defend paterno.

I'm not here to play gotcha. FWIW, my opinion of Paterno remains the same...he knew what he wanted to know about Sandusky. And in advance, yes, that is a far cry from actively participating in a cover up, as the Freeh Report said and as the BOT and NCAA allege. I totally get that, but it's impossible to arbitrarily separate Paterno from Penn State in all of this. If Penn State has wins vacated, then Paterno will as well. It can't be any other way. And that does not mean I necessarily agree with everything the NCAA and BOT did.

[ihs82]

May 9, 2014 12:07:49 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 9, 2014 11:16:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

quite shitty.

i'm surprised you didn't point out the obvious hypocrisy in my statement. the excuse i am giving for penn state's enabling of sandusky is exactly what i'm doing in my attempts to defend paterno.

I'm not here to play gotcha. FWIW, my opinion of Paterno remains the same...he knew what he wanted to know about Sandusky. And in advance, yes, that is a far cry from actively participating in a cover up, as the Freeh Report said and as the BOT and NCAA allege. I totally get that, but it's impossible to arbitrarily separate Paterno from Penn State in all of this. If Penn State has wins vacated, then Paterno will as well. It can't be any other way. And that does not mean I necessarily agree with everything the NCAA and BOT did.

i don't think we are very different in our opinions.

what you are going to see come out shortly is that the penn state bot was not informed of the deal with the ncaa. a very small group of bot members were consulted about negotiations with the ncaa. most of the bot was kept in the dark. the plaintiffs believe this is b/c mark emmert personally threatened president rodney erickson with the death penalty if the rest of the board found out. it makes sense as if the penn state board found out, details of the negotiations would have leaked to the public. but, no one knew the extent of what was going on until emmert's press conference.

can you name one other company or organization that allows one person to agree to and sign off on a 60 million dollar expenditure (ncaa fine) w/o the approval or input of others? yet, oddly enough, the full board approved the 60 million dollar settlement with sandusky's victims.

i expect the paterno's to prove that not only was the consent decree a clear overreach by the ncaa, but also a clear disregard of fiduciary duties by a few select members of the board of trustee, including the president of the university.

[oujour76]

May 12, 2014 8:45:09 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 9, 2014 12:07:49 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I'm not here to play gotcha. FWIW, my opinion of Paterno remains the same...he knew what he wanted to know about Sandusky. And in advance, yes, that is a far cry from actively participating in a cover up, as the Freeh Report said and as the BOT and NCAA allege. I totally get that, but it's impossible to arbitrarily separate Paterno from Penn State in all of this. If Penn State has wins vacated, then Paterno will as well. It can't be any other way. And that does not mean I necessarily agree with everything the NCAA and BOT did.

i don't think we are very different in our opinions.

what you are going to see come out shortly is that the penn state bot was not informed of the deal with the ncaa. a very small group of bot members were consulted about negotiations with the ncaa. most of the bot was kept in the dark. the plaintiffs believe this is b/c mark emmert personally threatened president rodney erickson with the death penalty if the rest of the board found out. it makes sense as if the penn state board found out, details of the negotiations would have leaked to the public. but, no one knew the extent of what was going on until emmert's press conference.

can you name one other company or organization that allows one person to agree to and sign off on a 60 million dollar expenditure (ncaa fine) w/o the approval or input of others? yet, oddly enough, the full board approved the 60 million dollar settlement with sandusky's victims.

i expect the paterno's to prove that not only was the consent decree a clear overreach by the ncaa, but also a clear disregard of fiduciary duties by a few select members of the board of trustee, including the president of the university.

I don't know the BOT structure, so can't say one way or the other if what happened was proper or not. But, as to your question...yes, there are organizations where one person just signs off on something. For example, when the Yankees signed Alex Rodgriguez, do you think George Steinbrenner asked for permission?

[ihs82]

May 12, 2014 11:23:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 12, 2014 8:45:09 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

i don't think we are very different in our opinions.

what you are going to see come out shortly is that the penn state bot was not informed of the deal with the ncaa. a very small group of bot members were consulted about negotiations with the ncaa. most of the bot was kept in the dark. the plaintiffs believe this is b/c mark emmert personally threatened president rodney erickson with the death penalty if the rest of the board found out. it makes sense as if the penn state board found out, details of the negotiations would have leaked to the public. but, no one knew the extent of what was going on until emmert's press conference.

can you name one other company or organization that allows one person to agree to and sign off on a 60 million dollar expenditure (ncaa fine) w/o the approval or input of others? yet, oddly enough, the full board approved the 60 million dollar settlement with sandusky's victims.

i expect the paterno's to prove that not only was the consent decree a clear overreach by the ncaa, but also a clear disregard of fiduciary duties by a few select members of the board of trustee, including the president of the university.

I don't know the BOT structure, so can't say one way or the other if what happened was proper or not. But, as to your question...yes, there are organizations where one person just signs off on something. For example, when the Yankees signed Alex Rodgriguez, do you think George Steinbrenner asked for permission?

steinbrenner controls a privately operated llc (yankee global enterprises) that owns the yankees and his authority is defined in a carefully crafted operating agreement. and the mission of the yankees is to win championships while providing fans with entertainment in order to increase revenues.

penn state has a 32 trustees that run the university based on the university charter and various by-laws. some are elected by alumni. some are appointed by the governor. some are appointed by business and agriculture leaders. all these people get together and form subcommittees that run the university. it's a clusterfuck and pa lawmakers are trying really hard to make changes to simply thing.

penn state is a non profit that receives approx 300 million annually from state appropriations www.budget.psu.edu/openbudget/primer_genfunds.aspx (notice the decrease in 2010 when a republican was elected to governor). anyway, the universities stated mission is to teach, research and provide public service. b/c so much money of penn state is subsidized via tax payers, does it make sense that one guy gets to decided how to spend 60 million dollars? especially when the item is so controversial?

when psu president rodney erickson signed the consent decree, psu legal council made the argument to the rest of the board that the bylaws were vague and found some interpretation that said he had the authority. it was never questioned again.

[oujour76]

May 12, 2014 12:41:36 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 12, 2014 11:23:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I don't know the BOT structure, so can't say one way or the other if what happened was proper or not. But, as to your question...yes, there are organizations where one person just signs off on something. For example, when the Yankees signed Alex Rodgriguez, do you think George Steinbrenner asked for permission?

steinbrenner controls a privately operated llc (yankee global enterprises) that owns the yankees and his authority is defined in a carefully crafted operating agreement. and the mission of the yankees is to win championships while providing fans with entertainment in order to increase revenues.

penn state has a 32 trustees that run the university based on the university charter and various by-laws. some are elected by alumni. some are appointed by the governor. some are appointed by business and agriculture leaders. all these people get together and form subcommittees that run the university. it's a clusterfuck and pa lawmakers are trying really hard to make changes to simply thing.

penn state is a non profit that receives approx 300 million annually from state appropriations www.budget.psu.edu/openbudget/primer_genfunds.aspx (notice the decrease in 2010 when a republican was elected to governor). anyway, the universities stated mission is to teach, research and provide public service. b/c so much money of penn state is subsidized via tax payers, does it make sense that one guy gets to decided how to spend 60 million dollars? especially when the item is so controversial?

when psu president rodney erickson signed the consent decree, psu legal council made the argument to the rest of the board that the bylaws were vague and found some interpretation that said he had the authority. it was never questioned again.

I understand the differences between the Yankees and Penn State. But, you asked for an organization, so I gave you one. And you may find it hard to believe, but at many publicly traded corporations one guy could make a $60 million decision all alone. Not saying it is done that way all that often, just saying that it does happen.

And FWIW, if PSU legal counsel said that Erickson had authority, that is going to be a tough hurdle in Paterno's lawsuit. And it blows a hole in the one guy simply signed off on $60 million narrative. Seems clear that the BOT had authority to enter into the Freeh agreement and accept the findings on behalf of the University. That's another tall hurdle for the lawsuit, I would think.

At the end of the day I think the Paterno family is tilting at windmills, but we'll see how it all unfolds.

[mscott59]

May 12, 2014 12:58:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 12, 2014 12:41:36 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

steinbrenner controls a privately operated llc (yankee global enterprises) that owns the yankees and his authority is defined in a carefully crafted operating agreement. and the mission of the yankees is to win championships while providing fans with entertainment in order to increase revenues.

penn state has a 32 trustees that run the university based on the university charter and various by-laws. some are elected by alumni. some are appointed by the governor. some are appointed by business and agriculture leaders. all these people get together and form subcommittees that run the university. it's a clusterfuck and pa lawmakers are trying really hard to make changes to simply thing.

penn state is a non profit that receives approx 300 million annually from state appropriations www.budget.psu.edu/openbudget/primer_genfunds.aspx (notice the decrease in 2010 when a republican was elected to governor). anyway, the universities stated mission is to teach, research and provide public service. b/c so much money of penn state is subsidized via tax payers, does it make sense that one guy gets to decided how to spend 60 million dollars? especially when the item is so controversial?

when psu president rodney erickson signed the consent decree, psu legal council made the argument to the rest of the board that the bylaws were vague and found some interpretation that said he had the authority. it was never questioned again.

I understand the differences between the Yankees and Penn State. But, you asked for an organization, so I gave you one. And you may find it hard to believe, but at many publicly traded corporations one guy could make a $60 million decision all alone. Not saying it is done that way all that often, just saying that it does happen.

And FWIW, if PSU legal counsel said that Erickson had authority, that is going to be a tough hurdle in Paterno's lawsuit. And it blows a hole in the one guy simply signed off on $60 million narrative. Seems clear that the BOT had authority to enter into the Freeh agreement and accept the findings on behalf of the University. That's another tall hurdle for the lawsuit, I would think.

At the end of the day I think the Paterno family is tilting at windmills, but we'll see how it all unfolds.

and harry's next to last paragraph imho states it pretty clearly that if the paterno family should be suing any entity, primarily you'd think it would be psu, not the ncaa w/psu as a necessary adjunct throw-in or sidekick.

mark scott
tosu 81