Name change?

[mscott59]

Feb 3, 2015 16:49:02 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Feb 3, 2015 15:57:15 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

yes if the ncaa gave psu the death penalty, it would have made a ton more sense.   if the ncaa truly believes that psu was concealing these hideous crimes against children and they truly thought they had jurisdiction to act...then how do they not give penn state the death penalty?  how do you compare protecting a child molestor with receiving free tattoos or a free house?  and all of a sudden, are we suppose to believe that b/c of a few vacated bowl games and a thin offensive line, psu learned their lesson and will never shield a child molester again?

hackenberg committed to penn state after bill o'brien was hired, which was after the fall out in nov 2011.  

that psu rb who transfered?  i forget his name?  was he any good? :-)  

yea psu is not as good.  of course they aren't.  and they have a lot less scholarship players than everyone.  a team witih 50 highly recruited players < a team with 85 highly recruited players.   it's common sense. 

yea psu attendance has been down.  but i believe lower attendance has been a trend across the country.  and i think psu was still ranked 5th in the country for avg attendance this year.  not bad for a stadium that's in a college only town that's not easy to get to.  state college PA has a population around 45k.  columbus ohio has a population of 800k plus.  






  

hackenberg actually did give a verbal commit to psu prior to 11/11, then stuck w/it after all the shit hit. i'll assume you did remember the rb's name, silas redd. he was good enough to land w/the redskins this year, i know that.

as for your philosophical question about comparing child molestation to free tattoos? how do you compare a free house to illegally putting peanut butter on a bagel? i have no clue. maybe the ncaa didn't want to punish all the people who didn't have anything to do w/sandusky by shutting down the program, but wanted to put a dent in it. it wasn't just the ncaa, btw, who determined the penalty. another aspect you leave out to accentuate your point. psu participated in determining its own fate. btw, i'll pose a hypothetical to you; let's say the trial proves psu execs are guilty of covering up knowledge of sandusky, let's say it's determined that paterno did, indeed, have an awareness of sandusky's past but chose to let others take the lead in handling it. what would you say psu, the ncaa, et al, should do then about the football program?

re scholarships, 50 is indeed < 85, but psu's reduction was to 65, so that was misleading. and your comment about state college being only 45k population made me laugh out loud. beaver stadium has had a capacity of around 107k since it was expanded in '01 (when state college was just 37k people, btw). typically they've had no issues filling most of that place up despite the town's size. the top 10 crowds there in total attendance have all been between '02-'10 (3 of them psu-osu games). the smallest 10 crowds since the expansion? all have been since '11, 18,000-20,000 smaller than the record highs. the ncaa sanctions didn't include any forcible denial of nittany lion fans buying tickets to support their team like they've done for generations. they did that on their own.

big school attendance did drop this year... lowest overall average since 2000. part of the reason was economics. part of it was including new fbs schools like ga southern, ga state, tx-san antonio, unc-charlotte, old dominion, and appy state. 3/4's of the top 25 attendance schools increased their averages. to psu's credit, at 101k/game (5th overall), that was up 5% over '13. in '12, psu's average was around 96k, the lowest since the '01 expansion. overall college attendance is a different subject altogether, but it is a subject that is going to be increasingly important imho as the top level of cfb tries to determine its best path in terms of how it's organized, run, administered and regulated.

[Buckeye Dale]

Feb 3, 2015 8:31:26 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Feb 2, 2015 17:16:39 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

until an hour ago, i don't remember you ever using 'trivialized', 'sandusky' and 'crimes' all in the same sentence. maybe i'm not remembering correctly, but that sure would have popped out to me previously. i find it fascinating that you think one of the largest punishments in the organization's history equaled trivializing psu's role in all this. i really, truly do.

as for a possible recruiting edge? let's see. let's say it gets out that the psu execs were, indeed, knowledgeable of sandusky's activities and looked the other way. let's say paterno wishing he'd done more was a literal interpretation of him wishing he'd been more pro-active looking into, or helping authorities look into what was going on. you're saying that all those actions simply dovetail into what psu represents itself to be? what the nittany lion football programs purports itself as? that's entertaining.

the ncaa diving into all this? like i said from the outset, it's debatable. it was precedent-setting, and w/o subpoena power you could argue the odds of getting the straight scoop is next to impossible.

i don't know how to better explain that quantifying  vacated wins, bowl losses, scholarship losses, etc with protecting a child molester trivializes the situation.  the ncaa is essentially saying "protecting a child molester is x amount worse than receiving this sort of benefit."  had the ncaa suspended the penn state football program for multiple years, then yes, the ncaa's rationale for intervening would had made a lot more sense.  instead, they chose to bully the weakened and embarrassed peter principle president into some sort of compromise that would give them the image boost they sought, but not completely cripple a huge revenue generator.  

regarding recruiting... the fact is, even after shit hit the fan, elite high school players still wanted to go to penn state.  christian hackenberg was one of the top 2 or 3 qb's in the country out of high school....he chose penn state knowing they were ineligible for a bowl game for 4 seasons...he chose penn state knowing the program would be facing depth issues....he chose the program knowing what others were accused of doing.  

lets ignore the fact that those implicated have not been tried in a court of law and that none of the evidence against them have been cross examined yet and just say their guilty.  and lets also assign a motive that they acted to protect the football brand even though this is a bit of a leap that has not been proven yet.  there is no way to tangibly measure the impact of "maintaining the football brand."  penn state offers a quality education, has a beautiful campus, excellent facilities, play in front of a gigantic, loud stadium and are on tv all the time.  also,  they usually have pretty good coaching.  protecting sandusky had no impact on any of this.  

Isn't Hackenberg FROM PA?  Part of that cult mentioned before that hangs on BWI?  Like you?

[snap infraction]

Feb 3, 2015 17:37:17 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Feb 3, 2015 16:29:21 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

if mcqueary told dr. dranov that he witnessed a crime, do you believe dr. dranov would have instructed him to go to the police?  

i'm not sticking up for the head of the second mile...using him to illustrate my point that mcqueary probably didn't witness something criminal in the shower.  and yes, that complicates things.  

I think the dynamics for Dranov changed when Sandusky's name was mentioned. Had it not been Sandusky, I don't think Dranov would have put on his Columbo hat and tried to figure out in advance if a "crime" had been committed or not. I think he would have been more concerned about the kid and had gotten the cops involved on the spot.

And I think the same is true for McQueary. Had it been someone he didn't know in that shower, I think he would have intervened right then and called the cops to let them sort out what was going on.

or perhaps mcqueary, dranov, mcqueary's father recognized a grey area and didn't want to be responsible for bringing in unwanted attention.  at the time, mcqueary was an unpaid graduate assistant with the goal of being a coach on the staff.  maybe he didn't want to jeopardize this opportunity by making a false and possibly embarrassing accusation to a well known figure in the program.  

[snap infraction]

Feb 3, 2015 18:19:14 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Feb 3, 2015 16:49:02 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

yes if the ncaa gave psu the death penalty, it would have made a ton more sense.   if the ncaa truly believes that psu was concealing these hideous crimes against children and they truly thought they had jurisdiction to act...then how do they not give penn state the death penalty?  how do you compare protecting a child molestor with receiving free tattoos or a free house?  and all of a sudden, are we suppose to believe that b/c of a few vacated bowl games and a thin offensive line, psu learned their lesson and will never shield a child molester again?

hackenberg committed to penn state after bill o'brien was hired, which was after the fall out in nov 2011.  

that psu rb who transfered?  i forget his name?  was he any good? :-)  

yea psu is not as good.  of course they aren't.  and they have a lot less scholarship players than everyone.  a team witih 50 highly recruited players < a team with 85 highly recruited players.   it's common sense. 

yea psu attendance has been down.  but i believe lower attendance has been a trend across the country.  and i think psu was still ranked 5th in the country for avg attendance this year.  not bad for a stadium that's in a college only town that's not easy to get to.  state college PA has a population around 45k.  columbus ohio has a population of 800k plus.  






  

hackenberg actually did give a verbal commit to psu prior to 11/11, then stuck w/it after all the shit hit. i'll assume you did remember the rb's name, silas redd. he was good enough to land w/the redskins this year, i know that.

as for your philosophical question about comparing child molestation to free tattoos? how do you compare a free house to illegally putting peanut butter on a bagel? i have no clue. maybe the ncaa didn't want to punish all the people who didn't have anything to do w/sandusky by shutting down the program, but wanted to put a dent in it. it wasn't just the ncaa, btw, who determined the penalty. another aspect you leave out to accentuate your point. psu participated in determining its own fate. btw, i'll pose a hypothetical to you; let's say the trial proves psu execs are guilty of covering up knowledge of sandusky, let's say it's determined that paterno did, indeed, have an awareness of sandusky's past but chose to let others take the lead in handling it. what would you say psu, the ncaa, et al, should do then about the football program?

re scholarships, 50 is indeed < 85, but psu's reduction was to 65, so that was misleading. and your comment about state college being only 45k population made me laugh out loud. beaver stadium has had a capacity of around 107k since it was expanded in '01 (when state college was just 37k people, btw). typically they've had no issues filling most of that place up despite the town's size. the top 10 crowds there in total attendance have all been between '02-'10 (3 of them psu-osu games). the smallest 10 crowds since the expansion? all have been since '11, 18,000-20,000 smaller than the record highs. the ncaa sanctions didn't include any forcible denial of nittany lion fans buying tickets to support their team like they've done for generations. they did that on their own.

big school attendance did drop this year... lowest overall average since 2000. part of the reason was economics. part of it was including new fbs schools like ga southern, ga state, tx-san antonio, unc-charlotte, old dominion, and appy state. 3/4's of the top 25 attendance schools increased their averages. to psu's credit, at 101k/game (5th overall), that was up 5% over '13. in '12, psu's average was around 96k, the lowest since the '01 expansion. overall college attendance is a different subject altogether, but it is a subject that is going to be increasingly important imho as the top level of cfb tries to determine its best path in terms of how it's organized, run, administered and regulated.

do you have a link about hackenberg giving a verbal prior to 11/11?  it was my recollection that he wasn't really recruited by the paterno regime...he was heavily recruited by o'brien.  i remember reading that tom brady called hackenberg to vouch for o'brien.  here's an article of him giving a committment to o'brien in feb of 2012.  footballrecruiting.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?sid=880&script=%2Fcontent%2Easp&cid=1337486

silas redd is a backup for the redskins. good for him.  he definitely didn't live up to his hype at usc.  

penn state had 41 scholarship players against boston college in the bowl game....http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/27/hackenberg-leads-penn-state-to-overtime-win-over-boston-college-in-pinstripe-bowl/    i just made up the number 50...but with injuries, red shirts and such, psu was nowhere near 65 this year. 

i guess you ignored all the e-mails and depositions that were recently released for the public to review that showed that the ncaa crammed down punishments against penn state.   penn state didn't really have much of a choice unless you believe ending the football program was a choice. .  www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/15/penn-state-ncaa-mark-emmert-death-penalty-consent-decree-rodney-erickson/21826697/ is a great summary of everything that came to light in the last few weeks.  if you read this article, you'll see why the ncaa was interested in settling this case before trial. 

regarding your hypothetical, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a cover up and the motive for covering up sandusky was football related....then yes, i'm ok with punishing the program.  

yes, psu has a capacity of 107k.  and i know you believe that psu fans should just be so loyal that they'll make incredible financial and time consuming efforts to go and cheer for a piece of blue and white laundry every year.  but that's just now how it works.  air was definitely let out of the balloon when the sanctions hit and the energy wasn't there knowing the team would not compete at a high level.  and i made the columbus analogy to illustrate that even though psu games sold out for decades prior...it is still difficult to travel to penn state fans for a majority of the fan base and is it worth the commitments when the team at best if a middle of the road conference team?  for some, it still is.  but for others, it's not.  

my theory on dwindling attendance?  baby boomers are more financially secure than both generation x and millennials.  but baby boomers are aging and finding it not quite as easy to travel to the games.    my dad for example has season tickets.  used to go to 3 or 4 games a year.  now he goes to maybe 1 or 2, and only in september and only if the games don't end at night.  it's just too difficult for him to travel and he'd rather spend his money going on warm vacations with my mom.  could i afford to buy the season tickets he gets?  no.  definitely not.  but when he was my age, he put 4k down on a house.  now 4k is a fraction of what is needed to buy a house.  

[snap infraction]

Feb 4, 2015 5:43:38 GMT -5 Buckeye Dale said:

Feb 3, 2015 8:31:26 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

i don't know how to better explain that quantifying  vacated wins, bowl losses, scholarship losses, etc with protecting a child molester trivializes the situation.  the ncaa is essentially saying "protecting a child molester is x amount worse than receiving this sort of benefit."  had the ncaa suspended the penn state football program for multiple years, then yes, the ncaa's rationale for intervening would had made a lot more sense.  instead, they chose to bully the weakened and embarrassed peter principle president into some sort of compromise that would give them the image boost they sought, but not completely cripple a huge revenue generator.  

regarding recruiting... the fact is, even after shit hit the fan, elite high school players still wanted to go to penn state.  christian hackenberg was one of the top 2 or 3 qb's in the country out of high school....he chose penn state knowing they were ineligible for a bowl game for 4 seasons...he chose penn state knowing the program would be facing depth issues....he chose the program knowing what others were accused of doing.  

lets ignore the fact that those implicated have not been tried in a court of law and that none of the evidence against them have been cross examined yet and just say their guilty.  and lets also assign a motive that they acted to protect the football brand even though this is a bit of a leap that has not been proven yet.  there is no way to tangibly measure the impact of "maintaining the football brand."  penn state offers a quality education, has a beautiful campus, excellent facilities, play in front of a gigantic, loud stadium and are on tv all the time.  also,  they usually have pretty good coaching.  protecting sandusky had no impact on any of this.  

Isn't Hackenberg FROM PA?  Part of that cult mentioned before that hangs on BWI?  Like you?

yes.  hackenberg and i are in the same cult.  we meet on the first wednesday of each month.  if you would like to attend our next meeting, please let me kn ow.  

[oujour76]

Feb 4, 2015 7:54:55 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

or perhaps mcqueary, dranov, mcqueary's father recognized a grey area and didn't want to be responsible for bringing in unwanted attention.  at the time, mcqueary was an unpaid graduate assistant with the goal of being a coach on the staff.  maybe he didn't want to jeopardize this opportunity by making a false and possibly embarrassing accusation to a well known figure in the program.  

Of course Mike McQueary was reluctant to take on a Jerry Sandusky. I've said that all along. Glad to see that you have finally come around. And your term "unwanted attention" is very interesting. Unwanted attention to what? The football program? The first reporters seemed more concerned about Sandusky than the potential victim. That's not the way it is supposed to work. They didn't even bother to find out the kid's name. That attitude continued all the way up the line with Curley, Schultz, Spanier and yes, Paterno.

[mscott59]

Feb 4, 2015 8:26:57 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Feb 3, 2015 18:19:14 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

hackenberg actually did give a verbal commit to psu prior to 11/11, then stuck w/it after all the shit hit. i'll assume you did remember the rb's name, silas redd. he was good enough to land w/the redskins this year, i know that.

as for your philosophical question about comparing child molestation to free tattoos? how do you compare a free house to illegally putting peanut butter on a bagel? i have no clue. maybe the ncaa didn't want to punish all the people who didn't have anything to do w/sandusky by shutting down the program, but wanted to put a dent in it. it wasn't just the ncaa, btw, who determined the penalty. another aspect you leave out to accentuate your point. psu participated in determining its own fate. btw, i'll pose a hypothetical to you; let's say the trial proves psu execs are guilty of covering up knowledge of sandusky, let's say it's determined that paterno did, indeed, have an awareness of sandusky's past but chose to let others take the lead in handling it. what would you say psu, the ncaa, et al, should do then about the football program?

re scholarships, 50 is indeed < 85, but psu's reduction was to 65, so that was misleading. and your comment about state college being only 45k population made me laugh out loud. beaver stadium has had a capacity of around 107k since it was expanded in '01 (when state college was just 37k people, btw). typically they've had no issues filling most of that place up despite the town's size. the top 10 crowds there in total attendance have all been between '02-'10 (3 of them psu-osu games). the smallest 10 crowds since the expansion? all have been since '11, 18,000-20,000 smaller than the record highs. the ncaa sanctions didn't include any forcible denial of nittany lion fans buying tickets to support their team like they've done for generations. they did that on their own.

big school attendance did drop this year... lowest overall average since 2000. part of the reason was economics. part of it was including new fbs schools like ga southern, ga state, tx-san antonio, unc-charlotte, old dominion, and appy state. 3/4's of the top 25 attendance schools increased their averages. to psu's credit, at 101k/game (5th overall), that was up 5% over '13. in '12, psu's average was around 96k, the lowest since the '01 expansion. overall college attendance is a different subject altogether, but it is a subject that is going to be increasingly important imho as the top level of cfb tries to determine its best path in terms of how it's organized, run, administered and regulated.

do you have a link about hackenberg giving a verbal prior to 11/11?  it was my recollection that he wasn't really recruited by the paterno regime...he was heavily recruited by o'brien.  i remember reading that tom brady called hackenberg to vouch for o'brien.  here's an article of him giving a committment to o'brien in feb of 2012.  footballrecruiting.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?sid=880&script=%2Fcontent%2Easp&cid=1337486

silas redd is a backup for the redskins. good for him.  he definitely didn't live up to his hype at usc.  

penn state had 41 scholarship players against boston college in the bowl game....http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/27/hackenberg-leads-penn-state-to-overtime-win-over-boston-college-in-pinstripe-bowl/    i just made up the number 50...but with injuries, red shirts and such, psu was nowhere near 65 this year. 

i guess you ignored all the e-mails and depositions that were recently released for the public to review that showed that the ncaa crammed down punishments against penn state.   penn state didn't really have much of a choice unless you believe ending the football program was a choice. .  www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/15/penn-state-ncaa-mark-emmert-death-penalty-consent-decree-rodney-erickson/21826697/ is a great summary of everything that came to light in the last few weeks.  if you read this article, you'll see why the ncaa was interested in settling this case before trial. 

regarding your hypothetical, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a cover up and the motive for covering up sandusky was football related....then yes, i'm ok with punishing the program.  

yes, psu has a capacity of 107k.  and i know you believe that psu fans should just be so loyal that they'll make incredible financial and time consuming efforts to go and cheer for a piece of blue and white laundry every year.  but that's just now how it works.  air was definitely let out of the balloon when the sanctions hit and the energy wasn't there knowing the team would not compete at a high level.  and i made the columbus analogy to illustrate that even though psu games sold out for decades prior...it is still difficult to travel to penn state fans for a majority of the fan base and is it worth the commitments when the team at best if a middle of the road conference team?  for some, it still is.  but for others, it's not.  

my theory on dwindling attendance?  baby boomers are more financially secure than both generation x and millennials.  but baby boomers are aging and finding it not quite as easy to travel to the games.    my dad for example has season tickets.  used to go to 3 or 4 games a year.  now he goes to maybe 1 or 2, and only in september and only if the games don't end at night.  it's just too difficult for him to travel and he'd rather spend his money going on warm vacations with my mom.  could i afford to buy the season tickets he gets?  no.  definitely not.  but when he was my age, he put 4k down on a house.  now 4k is a fraction of what is needed to buy a house.  

my point w/65 is that psu had that many schollies available. injuries are fate/bad luck, but redshirting is a choice. big difference. i will look thru some of my stuff when i get back to the office re hackenberg. i know the wiki site on him states that he held firm on his choice of psu thru the breaking news in '11, but i'll try to find something a little more concrete. as for redd? your implication was that he fell off the map by transferring to sc. he may not have met expectations of stardom there, and he may be persona non grata in pa for his choice, but he was playing on sundays last year so you should give him credit for that.

i didn't ignore all the additional data released. that said, i don't remember a single one of then claiming the ncaa was above the u.s. constitution, bill of rights, legal system, etc. psu had alternatives. if they believed the proposed punishments were an injustice (or maybe they were demanding they be given the ncaa death penalty instead? lol) they could have fought. getting a federal judge to rule a stay on any ncaa punishment until a more thorough investigation, or court trial, could be held, would have been as precedent-setting as the ncaa sanctions were, but the execs could have gone that route. they imho would have gotten the stay, and that would have made things even more interesting. they CHOSE not to. CHOSE. everything afterward is lawyers doing what lawyers normally do; try to find common ground so you don't have to go to court.

as for attendance? i've attended osu-psu games in state college more than any other osu road site sans ann arbor ('94, '95, '97, '05, '07, '09, '12, and last year). until '12, i'd never seen an empty seat at any of those games. ever. so psu fans had never cut back on its support of the program previously, til the last couple years. as for the boomers hitting retirement thresholds? i'm at the tail end of that generation so i'm still working for a living, but that's a legit concern imho for cfb over the next decade or so, and will definitely have an economic affect on how the sport evolves. its still a surprise that a tradition-rich main stay like psu would see support erode. if you think the major reason for that is the aging fan base and not the events since '11...

[oujour76]

Feb 4, 2015 11:34:11 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

i didn't ignore all the additional data released. that said, i don't remember a single one of then claiming the ncaa was above the u.s. constitution, bill of rights, legal system, etc. psu had alternatives. if they believed the proposed punishments were an injustice (or maybe they were demanding they be given the ncaa death penalty instead? lol) they could have fought. getting a federal judge to rule a stay on any ncaa punishment until a more thorough investigation, or court trial, could be held, would have been as precedent-setting as the ncaa sanctions were, but the execs could have gone that route. they imho would have gotten the stay, and that would have made things even more interesting. they CHOSE not to. CHOSE. everything afterward is lawyers doing what lawyers normally do; try to find common ground so you don't have to go to court.

Exactly. They had the choice of fight or flight and they chose flight. They had the money and legal power to defend themselves and they chose not to. Did they have a great choice? No, but they still had a choice. A tough one, to be sure, but still a choice.

[mscott59]

Feb 4, 2015 10:26:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Feb 4, 2015 7:54:55 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

or perhaps mcqueary, dranov, mcqueary's father recognized a grey area and didn't want to be responsible for bringing in unwanted attention.  at the time, mcqueary was an unpaid graduate assistant with the goal of being a coach on the staff.  maybe he didn't want to jeopardize this opportunity by making a false and possibly embarrassing accusation to a well known figure in the program.  

Of course Mike McQueary was reluctant to take on a Jerry Sandusky. I've said that all along. Glad to see that you have finally come around. And your term "unwanted attention" is very interesting. Unwanted attention to what? The football program? The first reporters seemed more concerned about Sandusky than the potential victim. That's not the way it is supposed to work. They didn't even bother to find out the kid's name. That attitude continued all the way up the line with Curley, Schultz, Spanier and yes, Paterno.

re bold/underlined above, what does that say? i mean, forget all the legal/risk mgt aspects. from a concept of simple human decency, i find that both unbelievable and yet, considering the mindset (and i think their concern about sandusky also underlines something; that they were aware of his past, at least the inquiries into it. otherwise you'd think, hope, the child would have been the priority, or at least equal to), understandable. you wonder if those who've been critical of the ncaa recognize what that 'oversight' says...

[Buckeye Dale]

Feb 4, 2015 8:34:09 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Feb 4, 2015 5:43:38 GMT -5 Buckeye Dale said:

Isn't Hackenberg FROM PA?  Part of that cult mentioned before that hangs on BWI?  Like you?

yes.  hackenberg and i are in the same cult.  we meet on the first wednesday of each month.  if you would like to attend our next meeting, please let me kn ow.  

No thanks...I decided to pass about 10 years ago when the idiot threw a bottle of pee at my mailbox just outside of Mechanicsburg...Kinda like saying, "Urine Pennsylvania."

[snap infraction]

Feb 4, 2015 10:26:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Feb 4, 2015 7:54:55 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

or perhaps mcqueary, dranov, mcqueary's father recognized a grey area and didn't want to be responsible for bringing in unwanted attention.  at the time, mcqueary was an unpaid graduate assistant with the goal of being a coach on the staff.  maybe he didn't want to jeopardize this opportunity by making a false and possibly embarrassing accusation to a well known figure in the program.  

Of course Mike McQueary was reluctant to take on a Jerry Sandusky. I've said that all along. Glad to see that you have finally come around. And your term "unwanted attention" is very interesting. Unwanted attention to what? The football program? The first reporters seemed more concerned about Sandusky than the potential victim. That's not the way it is supposed to work. They didn't even bother to find out the kid's name. That attitude continued all the way up the line with Curley, Schultz, Spanier and yes, Paterno.

the reality is that at the time, yes, embarrassing a prominent figure in the area was a concern.  mcqueary was probably thinking "what i saw was inappropriate but if i make a big stink about it, i may not get a job on the coaching staff if sandusky gets embarrassed."  economic well being is a concern that we all have.  should this concern supersede the well being of a child?  of course not.  but when conflicted about what to do, people often make a decision that preserves self interest.  i am thankful that in my life, i've never been put in such a complicated situation.  

and as far as paterno is concerned...yes i understand that his career was already set and that he had a lot less to lose.  but i truly don't think he grasped the gravity of the situation.  and i don't think he would have risked his good name and reputation just to protect someone he didn't really like.  he should have made a better decision and instructed mcqueary to call the cops and for all we know, the end result would have been the same.  sandusky would have gotten off like 1998 and continued to prey on children.  

[mscott59]

Feb 4, 2015 13:32:36 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Feb 4, 2015 10:26:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Of course Mike McQueary was reluctant to take on a Jerry Sandusky. I've said that all along. Glad to see that you have finally come around. And your term "unwanted attention" is very interesting. Unwanted attention to what? The football program? The first reporters seemed more concerned about Sandusky than the potential victim. That's not the way it is supposed to work. They didn't even bother to find out the kid's name. That attitude continued all the way up the line with Curley, Schultz, Spanier and yes, Paterno.

the reality is that at the time, yes, embarrassing a prominent figure in the area was a concern.  mcqueary was probably thinking "what i saw was inappropriate but if i make a big stink about it, i may not get a job on the coaching staff if sandusky gets embarrassed."  economic well being is a concern that we all have.  should this concern supersede the well being of a child?  of course not.  but when conflicted about what to do, people often make a decision that preserves self interest.  i am thankful that in my life, i've never been put in such a complicated situation.  

and as far as paterno is concerned...yes i understand that his career was already set and that he had a lot less to lose.  but i truly don't think he grasped the gravity of the situation.  and i don't think he would have risked his good name and reputation just to protect someone he didn't really like.  he should have made a better decision and instructed mcqueary to call the cops and for all we know, the end result would have been the same.  sandusky would have gotten off like 1998 and continued to prey on children.  

in general i agree w/your statement highlighted above, yet you don't seem to apply that mindset equally when discussing this entire psu/sandusky mess. and to assume that alerting authorities about the '01 incident would not have had an effect? i could not possibly disagree more. a 2nd inquiry imho would have done exactly the opposite. it would have more likely broken down the idol imagery that may have insulated sandusky previously; it could have lessened the phobia enough for more boys, more families, to come forward and share what happened to them at the hands of this man. it could have saved boys from being assaulted and sexually/mentally abused by this idiot after '01.

i could not possibly disagree more.

[oujour76]

Feb 4, 2015 13:32:36 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

the reality is that at the time, yes, embarrassing a prominent figure in the area was a concern.  mcqueary was probably thinking "what i saw was inappropriate but if i make a big stink about it, i may not get a job on the coaching staff if sandusky gets embarrassed."  economic well being is a concern that we all have.  should this concern supersede the well being of a child?  of course not.  but when conflicted about what to do, people often make a decision that preserves self interest.  i am thankful that in my life, i've never been put in such a complicated situation.  

and as far as paterno is concerned...yes i understand that his career was already set and that he had a lot less to lose.  but i truly don't think he grasped the gravity of the situation.  and i don't think he would have risked his good name and reputation just to protect someone he didn't really like.  he should have made a better decision and instructed mcqueary to call the cops and for all we know, the end result would have been the same.  sandusky would have gotten off like 1998 and continued to prey on children.  

I understand that hindsight is always 20-20 and I agree that had the cops been called we don't know for sure how things would have shaken out. The most disturbing thing for me is the utter lack of concern for the kid involved. Protecting the football brand protected the Penn State brand and both took center stage from the get go. Everything was viewed through that prism imo. And that isn't uncommon in the corporate world, which is what PSU is at the end of the day. As for Paterno, I don't believe he was ever all that fooled by Sandusky. JMO. But, we'll never know for sure.

[snap infraction]

Feb 4, 2015 11:34:11 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Feb 4, 2015 8:26:57 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

do you have a link about hackenberg giving a verbal prior to 11/11?  it was my recollection that he wasn't really recruited by the paterno regime...he was heavily recruited by o'brien.  i remember reading that tom brady called hackenberg to vouch for o'brien.  here's an article of him giving a committment to o'brien in feb of 2012.  footballrecruiting.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?sid=880&script=%2Fcontent%2Easp&cid=1337486

silas redd is a backup for the redskins. good for him.  he definitely didn't live up to his hype at usc.  

penn state had 41 scholarship players against boston college in the bowl game....http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/27/hackenberg-leads-penn-state-to-overtime-win-over-boston-college-in-pinstripe-bowl/    i just made up the number 50...but with injuries, red shirts and such, psu was nowhere near 65 this year. 

i guess you ignored all the e-mails and depositions that were recently released for the public to review that showed that the ncaa crammed down punishments against penn state.   penn state didn't really have much of a choice unless you believe ending the football program was a choice. .  www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/15/penn-state-ncaa-mark-emmert-death-penalty-consent-decree-rodney-erickson/21826697/ is a great summary of everything that came to light in the last few weeks.  if you read this article, you'll see why the ncaa was interested in settling this case before trial. 

regarding your hypothetical, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a cover up and the motive for covering up sandusky was football related....then yes, i'm ok with punishing the program.  

yes, psu has a capacity of 107k.  and i know you believe that psu fans should just be so loyal that they'll make incredible financial and time consuming efforts to go and cheer for a piece of blue and white laundry every year.  but that's just now how it works.  air was definitely let out of the balloon when the sanctions hit and the energy wasn't there knowing the team would not compete at a high level.  and i made the columbus analogy to illustrate that even though psu games sold out for decades prior...it is still difficult to travel to penn state fans for a majority of the fan base and is it worth the commitments when the team at best if a middle of the road conference team?  for some, it still is.  but for others, it's not.  

my theory on dwindling attendance?  baby boomers are more financially secure than both generation x and millennials.  but baby boomers are aging and finding it not quite as easy to travel to the games.    my dad for example has season tickets.  used to go to 3 or 4 games a year.  now he goes to maybe 1 or 2, and only in september and only if the games don't end at night.  it's just too difficult for him to travel and he'd rather spend his money going on warm vacations with my mom.  could i afford to buy the season tickets he gets?  no.  definitely not.  but when he was my age, he put 4k down on a house.  now 4k is a fraction of what is needed to buy a house.  

my point w/65 is that psu had that many schollies available. injuries are fate/bad luck, but redshirting is a choice. big difference. i will look thru some of my stuff when i get back to the office re hackenberg. i know the wiki site on him states that he held firm on his choice of psu thru the breaking news in '11, but i'll try to find something a little more concrete. as for redd? your implication was that he fell off the map by transferring to sc. he may not have met expectations of stardom there, and he may be persona non grata in pa for his choice, but he was playing on sundays last year so you should give him credit for that.

i didn't ignore all the additional data released. that said, i don't remember a single one of then claiming the ncaa was above the u.s. constitution, bill of rights, legal system, etc. psu had alternatives. if they believed the proposed punishments were an injustice (or maybe they were demanding they be given the ncaa death penalty instead? lol) they could have fought. getting a federal judge to rule a stay on any ncaa punishment until a more thorough investigation, or court trial, could be held, would have been as precedent-setting as the ncaa sanctions were, but the execs could have gone that route. they imho would have gotten the stay, and that would have made things even more interesting. they CHOSE not to. CHOSE. everything afterward is lawyers doing what lawyers normally do; try to find common ground so you don't have to go to court.

as for attendance? i've attended osu-psu games in state college more than any other osu road site sans ann arbor ('94, '95, '97, '05, '07, '09, '12, and last year). until '12, i'd never seen an empty seat at any of those games. ever. so psu fans had never cut back on its support of the program previously, til the last couple years. as for the boomers hitting retirement thresholds? i'm at the tail end of that generation so i'm still working for a living, but that's a legit concern imho for cfb over the next decade or so, and will definitely have an economic affect on how the sport evolves. its still a surprise that a tradition-rich main stay like psu would see support erode. if you think the major reason for that is the aging fan base and not the events since '11...

redd did sort of fall off the map at usc due to injuries and lack of playing time.  he was supposed to be the missing piece to a team that started the season preseason #1.  good luck to him in the pro's.  as an eagles fan, i've seen him play b/c he's a division opponent.  he's always had talent.  i hope he takes advantage of his "business" opportunities.  god know i wish i was talented enough to make a ton of money playing sports.  

ok psu had a choice.  they should have rejected the sanctions.  doesn't mean the ncaa was justified in bullying them.  which they did do.  but we can't pretend that the negotiations were mutual...they were completely one sided with the ncaa (admittingly) taking advantage of penn state's weakened position. 

i think i said that the events since 11 impacted attendance...like i said, part of the excitement of attending a game is knowing your team is an elite team...psu has not been close to elite lately.  

[snap infraction]

Feb 4, 2015 12:44:42 GMT -5 Buckeye Dale said:

Feb 4, 2015 8:34:09 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

yes.  hackenberg and i are in the same cult.  we meet on the first wednesday of each month.  if you would like to attend our next meeting, please let me kn ow.  

No thanks...I decided to pass about 10 years ago when the idiot threw a bottle of pee at my mailbox just outside of Mechanicsburg...Kinda like saying, "Urine Pennsylvania."

well if hackenberg was throwing the bottle, then the bottle definitely hit your mailbox.  if zack mills was throwing it...i'm not so sure?