Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Nov 12, 2014 10:35:25 GMT -5
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Nov 12, 2014 16:21:50 GMT -5
you keep leaving something out here. what psu says about this.... quote... "It has been public knowledge for almost three years that the University had agreed that the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference would monitor the progress of the Freeh investigation. While the NCAA may have made suggestions to the Freeh Group with respect to its investigation, the scope of the Freeh investigation was established by the Penn State Board of Trustees, as set forth in the Freeh engagement letter, not by the NCAA. The University's preliminary review of the NCAA's proposed questions suggests that there are many proposed questions that are not addressed in the final July 12, 2012 report." does psu have ANY culpability in your eyes for this? any??? mark scott tosu 81 |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Nov 12, 2014 17:00:25 GMT -5
you keep leaving something out here. what psu says about this.... quote... "It has been public knowledge for almost three years that the University had agreed that the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference would monitor the progress of the Freeh investigation. While the NCAA may have made suggestions to the Freeh Group with respect to its investigation, the scope of the Freeh investigation was established by the Penn State Board of Trustees, as set forth in the Freeh engagement letter, not by the NCAA. The University's preliminary review of the NCAA's proposed questions suggests that there are many proposed questions that are not addressed in the final July 12, 2012 report." does psu have ANY culpability in your eyes for this? any??? mark scott tosu 81 yes. it was known, and i've stated here before that the ncaa was talking with freeh during his investigation. but the level in which freeh and the ncaa talked was not known until today. the ncaa was guiding the investigation, not just consulting with freeh. the e-mails released today prove that the ncaa guided freeh on how to construct the report in a way that would help the ncaa punish penn state. how the hell is that independent? freeh knew the ncaa was looking to outsource its investigative department and this was an audition and he catered the report so the ncaa could justify the sanctions b/c the ncaa wanted to hammer penn state to improve their public standing. why the hell was freeh's press conference on the slowest day of the sports year? a coincidence? this whole thing was orchestrated from the get go. psu's culpability will be known in the c/s/s trials. why comment on that now? what we know as fact is the following: joe paterno reported was he was told by mcqueary up his chain of command. you can claim that paterno was more powerful than those up the chain of command, but that is not at all the point. he reported it to those who were more qualified to deal with the situation. he didn't sit on it or instruct others to ignore it. those administrators up the chain in command reported mcqueries story to the 2nd mile CEO and mandated reporter jack raylovitz, who was also a licensed psychologist. the ceo of an organization that helps children in need was told of the shower incident and he kept silent yet the football program who reported what was told up the chain of command gets punished. it's ridiculous. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Nov 12, 2014 17:33:14 GMT -5
you keep leaving something out here. what psu says about this.... quote... "It has been public knowledge for almost three years that the University had agreed that the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference would monitor the progress of the Freeh investigation. While the NCAA may have made suggestions to the Freeh Group with respect to its investigation, the scope of the Freeh investigation was established by the Penn State Board of Trustees, as set forth in the Freeh engagement letter, not by the NCAA. The University's preliminary review of the NCAA's proposed questions suggests that there are many proposed questions that are not addressed in the final July 12, 2012 report." does psu have ANY culpability in your eyes for this? any??? mark scott tosu 81 yes. it was known, and i've stated here before that the ncaa was talking with freeh during his investigation. but the level in which freeh and the ncaa talked was not known until today. the ncaa was guiding the investigation, not just consulting with freeh. the e-mails released today prove that the ncaa guided freeh on how to construct the report in a way that would help the ncaa punish penn state. how the hell is that independent? freeh knew the ncaa was looking to outsource its investigative department and this was an audition and he catered the report so the ncaa could justify the sanctions b/c the ncaa wanted to hammer penn state to improve their public standing. why the hell was freeh's press conference on the slowest day of the sports year? a coincidence? this whole thing was orchestrated from the get go. psu's culpability will be known in the c/s/s trials. why comment on that now? what we know as fact is the following: joe paterno reported was he was told by mcqueary up his chain of command. you can claim that paterno was more powerful than those up the chain of command, but that is not at all the point. he reported it to those who were more qualified to deal with the situation. he didn't sit on it or instruct others to ignore it. those administrators up the chain in command reported mcqueries story to the 2nd mile CEO and mandated reporter jack raylovitz, who was also a licensed psychologist. the ceo of an organization that helps children in need was told of the shower incident and he kept silent yet the football program who reported what was told up the chain of command gets punished. it's ridiculous. per usual, you're leaving a lot out. you're saying that, since psu execs reported the suspicions involving sandusky to 2nd mile, that that absolved them of any responsibility? so as a psu athletic exec or academic exec, you saw no problem w/sandusky continuing to have not just a presence, but an office on campus inside the football facility after making such a report?? do you not see any connection w/the football program? you're blaming 2nd mile for sitting on this while psu allowed sandusky continued access on its property?? i'm not going to sit here and say what's been revealed in the ncaa communications to freeh aren't damaging. they are. but to say that, yet ignore the email from the athletic director when, involving the initial sandusky suspicions in the 90s, telling the president that (paraphrasing) joe has some different ideas on this, it sure does seem to be you're being pretty selective about what emails are damaging (ncaa) and which ones you claimed way back when were vague (psu). mark scott tosu 81 |
|
|
mark scott
tosu 81
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Nov 12, 2014 17:49:17 GMT -5
you keep leaving something out here. what psu says about this.... quote... "It has been public knowledge for almost three years that the University had agreed that the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference would monitor the progress of the Freeh investigation. While the NCAA may have made suggestions to the Freeh Group with respect to its investigation, the scope of the Freeh investigation was established by the Penn State Board of Trustees, as set forth in the Freeh engagement letter, not by the NCAA. The University's preliminary review of the NCAA's proposed questions suggests that there are many proposed questions that are not addressed in the final July 12, 2012 report." does psu have ANY culpability in your eyes for this? any??? mark scott tosu 81 yes. it was known, and i've stated here before that the ncaa was talking with freeh during his investigation. but the level in which freeh and the ncaa talked was not known until today. the ncaa was guiding the investigation, not just consulting with freeh. the e-mails released today prove that the ncaa guided freeh on how to construct the report in a way that would help the ncaa punish penn state. how the hell is that independent? freeh knew the ncaa was looking to outsource its investigative department and this was an audition and he catered the report so the ncaa could justify the sanctions b/c the ncaa wanted to hammer penn state to improve their public standing. why the hell was freeh's press conference on the slowest day of the sports year? a coincidence? this whole thing was orchestrated from the get go. psu's culpability will be known in the c/s/s trials. why comment on that now? what we know as fact is the following: joe paterno reported was he was told by mcqueary up his chain of command. you can claim that paterno was more powerful than those up the chain of command, but that is not at all the point. he reported it to those who were more qualified to deal with the situation. he didn't sit on it or instruct others to ignore it. those administrators up the chain in command reported mcqueries story to the 2nd mile CEO and mandated reporter jack raylovitz, who was also a licensed psychologist. the ceo of an organization that helps children in need was told of the shower incident and he kept silent yet the football program who reported what was told up the chain of command gets punished. it's ridiculous.
"Why comment on it now?" Because this is the same strategy PSU is using. Slow steps of mis-information, amplifying a lot of maybes. PR at it's best. You want to lose sight of what happened, who caused it and who was complicit. Independent or not Freeh got it right. |
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Nov 13, 2014 8:53:34 GMT -5
yes. it was known, and i've stated here before that the ncaa was talking with freeh during his investigation. but the level in which freeh and the ncaa talked was not known until today. the ncaa was guiding the investigation, not just consulting with freeh. the e-mails released today prove that the ncaa guided freeh on how to construct the report in a way that would help the ncaa punish penn state. how the hell is that independent? freeh knew the ncaa was looking to outsource its investigative department and this was an audition and he catered the report so the ncaa could justify the sanctions b/c the ncaa wanted to hammer penn state to improve their public standing. why the hell was freeh's press conference on the slowest day of the sports year? a coincidence? this whole thing was orchestrated from the get go. psu's culpability will be known in the c/s/s trials. why comment on that now? what we know as fact is the following: joe paterno reported was he was told by mcqueary up his chain of command. you can claim that paterno was more powerful than those up the chain of command, but that is not at all the point. he reported it to those who were more qualified to deal with the situation. he didn't sit on it or instruct others to ignore it. those administrators up the chain in command reported mcqueries story to the 2nd mile CEO and mandated reporter jack raylovitz, who was also a licensed psychologist. the ceo of an organization that helps children in need was told of the shower incident and he kept silent yet the football program who reported what was told up the chain of command gets punished. it's ridiculous. per usual, you're leaving a lot out. you're saying that, since psu execs reported the suspicions involving sandusky to 2nd mile, that that absolved them of any responsibility?<< No...It resolves them from the accusation that they covered up Sandusky. Rule #1 in a cover up....don't inform outsiders of the crime you are attempting to cover up. so as a psu athletic exec or academic exec, you saw no problem w/sandusky continuing to have not just a presence, but an office on campus inside the football facility after making such a report?? do you not see any connection w/the football program? you're blaming 2nd mile for sitting on this while psu allowed sandusky continued access on its property?? His office on campus was given to him when he retired in 1999, two years before McQueary witnessed whatever he witnessed. It was part of a retirement package negotiated by school administrators. And FWIW, McQueary, the only eye witness to Sandusky...said and did nothing regarding Sandusky being around the football facilities. McQueary, the only eye witness, even testified he was Ok with how everything was handled. i'm not going to sit here and say what's been revealed in the ncaa communications to freeh aren't damaging. they are. but to say that, yet ignore the email from the athletic director when, involving the initial sandusky suspicions in the 90s, telling the president that (paraphrasing) joe has some different ideas on this, it sure does seem to be you're being pretty selective about what emails are damaging (ncaa) and which ones you claimed way back when were vague (psu). it has not been proven that paterno understood what was going on in 2001, especially since mcqueary's account has changed over the years. mcqueary testified under oath how uncomfortable it was to tell paterno something sexual.
mark scott tosu 81 |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Nov 13, 2014 8:59:59 GMT -5
yes. it was known, and i've stated here before that the ncaa was talking with freeh during his investigation. but the level in which freeh and the ncaa talked was not known until today. the ncaa was guiding the investigation, not just consulting with freeh. the e-mails released today prove that the ncaa guided freeh on how to construct the report in a way that would help the ncaa punish penn state. how the hell is that independent? freeh knew the ncaa was looking to outsource its investigative department and this was an audition and he catered the report so the ncaa could justify the sanctions b/c the ncaa wanted to hammer penn state to improve their public standing. why the hell was freeh's press conference on the slowest day of the sports year? a coincidence? this whole thing was orchestrated from the get go. psu's culpability will be known in the c/s/s trials. why comment on that now? what we know as fact is the following: joe paterno reported was he was told by mcqueary up his chain of command. you can claim that paterno was more powerful than those up the chain of command, but that is not at all the point. he reported it to those who were more qualified to deal with the situation. he didn't sit on it or instruct others to ignore it. those administrators up the chain in command reported mcqueries story to the 2nd mile CEO and mandated reporter jack raylovitz, who was also a licensed psychologist. the ceo of an organization that helps children in need was told of the shower incident and he kept silent yet the football program who reported what was told up the chain of command gets punished. it's ridiculous. |
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Nov 13, 2014 11:44:50 GMT -5
Every post you make is selective. <<I guess I am like the Freeh report. Agree. Xcpt Freeh is on the right side. ------------------------- You say it was wrong to judge Paterno et al w/o absolute proof and yet when you read the ESPN article you posted it implies a lot and you accept itI never said it was wrong to judge Paterno...I just think it was wrong to conclude he knew that Sandusky was a pedophile and subsequently covered his crimes up so he could win football games.
We'll again have to agree to disagree. He suspected, the school suspected, other people suspected. No one wanted to deal with it and PSU paid the price. --------------------------------------------------- as fact, instead of an opinion. You may see black, understandable given your PSU lineage, but others see white and off course, iyo, they are wrong. While the reality is neither black or white. Paterno, for whatever reason, looked the other way. He could have made a difference and he didn't. and when everything went down a few years ago, you, the media and everyone else didn't do the same exact thing? you lost me there. But when this thing first broke, we were still on AOL and you took a beating and many correctly projected where this would end up. And I'll say again karma met justice. ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why comment on it now?" Because this is the same strategy PSU is using. Slow steps of mis-information, amplifying a lot of maybes. PR at it's best. You want to lose sight of what happened, who caused it and who was complicit. Independent or not Freeh got it right. So do you think it is ok for Mark Emmert to disregard all of the NCAA's bylaws to extort 60 million dollars from a public institution b/c he wanted to improve his public image?You're a young finance major with a Masters, if I remember correctly, 60MM, while not chump change, certainly didn't bankrupt the U or impact the FB program (and that's all you really care about). They probably got it all back and then some. Oh you probably got a few snickers and rolling eye brows, even in Philly, if you admitted you are a PSU NL. But beyond that no one cares what happened to PSU. xx |
|
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Bowl Season Champion - 2023
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by snap infraction on Nov 13, 2014 13:22:51 GMT -5
#1. It's ridiculous to claim Freeh is on the right side. The e-mails released yesterday prove that the NCAA guided the Freeh investigation. The NCAA directed Freeh on who should be interviewed, what questions should be asked and what search terms to use to search e-mails. The NCAA also trained Freeh's investigators on NCAA infractions. There was a three hour power point presentation given to Freehs team about how to build a case for lack of institutional control. This is despite the Freeh report clearly stating that it's report was completely independent. Freeh then submits this report that is hyper focused on Paterno and the football program in which he makes up a motive out of thin air that puts the blame for everything on Paterno and the football program, which was essentially building a case for lack of institutional control. And further e-mails released prove that the NCAA was very image conscious therefore had every motive to hammer Penn State. Emmert called Louis Freeh withing 9 days of Penn State hiring Freeh. I think it is more than reasonable to conclude that the outcome of the Freeh report was predetermined. Emmert wanted to hammer Penn State. Emmert used Freeh to build a case for him. Freeh obliged b/c he is a hired gun who will take money to write whatever people tell him b/c of his credentials. The only curious aspect now is why the PSU bot executive allowed the NCAA to guide the investigation. We'll know that soon enough though. #2. I wasn't posting here when the scandal went down. I was off these boards for like 8 months before I came back. #3. 60 million dollars is not chump change and even to a university the size of Penn State, it is still significant. Per PSU's operating budget, the state of PA taxpayers give the university about 214 million dollars a year. that's about 28% of the annual payment from taxpayers. to dismiss the impact of this arbitrary fine b/c of the size of the university is ridiculous. #4. i don't know if people care or not. but any fan of college athletics should care that their governing body could extort a member simply b/c they like the positive publicity that could come for doing so. |
|
