ou seems to have been correct

[snap infraction]

check out exhibit 74 - 76 on the following link which was just uploaded to the court dockets yesterday.  it's a cross motion from the ncaa's motion for a partial summary judgement (which i think means the ncaa is trying to get a decision without having to go to trial).  


www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-4002/file-4059.pdf?cb=93c281

 psu leaders were angry that the ncaa kept upping the punishment, not giving psu an opportunity to be heard and giving strict deadlines to respond for no reason.  they thought emmert was manipulating other president and fueling the fire.  emmert was pushing the death penalty option to others. some presidents were also angry at penn state b/c spanier was preachy with how clean the athletic program was.  but they worried that the outcome would be worse if they went on to fight and public perception was so badly against them at the time.  

[snap infraction]

here's a better link to the e-mail i'm talking about www.pennstatesunshinefund.org/results/download/28/2012.07.20.2216.erickson-response-to-marsh-comments.pdf

i guess i evolved a bit on my view of rodney erickson. i thought he was spineless for not fighting back against the ncaa's cram down. but if erickson fought back, the ncaa would have conducted a year long investigation w/ the media speculating non stop about the death penalty. coaches, recruits, players and athletic administrators would have spent the year figuring out a way out of state college. psu would have won in the courts not to have sanctions imposed, but it but it would have been a pyrrhic victory. so i guess he made the best decision for the university given the circumstances at the time.

however,

i do think emmert manipulated penn state lawyers and rodney erickson, knowing full well that he could b/c he held all the cards.

i do believe that he manipulated other university presidents in order to be given the authority to act in a way that he wanted.

i do believe that emmert influenced the freeh report in order to have it written in a way that would make the ncaa's case for lack on institutional control.

i do believe that emmert was leveraging the moment in order to improve public perception of the ncaa and himself as a leader.

i do believe all this will be proven in the court of law and the consent decree will be invalidated.


i know no one cares. but when you get labeled as an pedophile enabler b/c some jackass wants to improve his image, you take it personally.

[oujour76]

Dec 4, 2014 8:54:49 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

here's a better link to the e-mail i'm talking about www.pennstatesunshinefund.org/results/download/28/2012.07.20.2216.erickson-response-to-marsh-comments.pdf

i guess i evolved a bit on my view of rodney erickson. i thought he was spineless for not fighting back against the ncaa's cram down. but if erickson fought back, the ncaa would have conducted a year long investigation w/ the media speculating non stop about the death penalty. coaches, recruits, players and athletic administrators would have spent the year figuring out a way out of state college. psu would have won in the courts not to have sanctions imposed, but it but it would have been a pyrrhic victory. so i guess he made the best decision for the university given the circumstances at the time.

however,

i do think emmert manipulated penn state lawyers and rodney erickson, knowing full well that he could b/c he held all the cards.

i do believe that he manipulated other university presidents in order to be given the authority to act in a way that he wanted.

i do believe that emmert influenced the freeh report in order to have it written in a way that would make the ncaa's case for lack on institutional control.

i do believe that emmert was leveraging the moment in order to improve public perception of the ncaa and himself as a leader.

i do believe all this will be proven in the court of law and the consent decree will be invalidated.


i know no one cares. but when you get labeled as an pedophile enabler b/c some jackass wants to improve his image, you take it personally.

Of course you are going to take it personally. Pretty sure that everybody here understands that. I know that I do. As for Emmert, imo he is a fairly typical self serving corporate wienie. But, that in and of itself probably won't be enough to get the consent decree invalidated. Can't say for sure because (a) I'm not a lawyer and (b) I haven't followed this thing down into the weeds like you have.

My feelings about Penn State and Sandusky are the same as they have always been....the higher ups let him run loose. They didn't want to know what he was doing......hell, when given the chance they did everything they could to find nothing. At no point did anybody look up from their desk and wonder about the kids involved. They were an afterthought. They had no power or standing and they were treated as such.

You view Penn State as a victim in all of this and frankly, I don't. It is a big, powerful institution that shit on the heads of vulnerable children. And then looked the other way. When I read that nobody even bothered to find out the name(s) of these kids, that spoke volumes to me about their intent.

For me, the lawsuit is still just one group of self-serving corporate hacks vs. another.

[snap infraction]

Dec 4, 2014 10:15:08 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Dec 4, 2014 8:54:49 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

here's a better link to the e-mail i'm talking about www.pennstatesunshinefund.org/results/download/28/2012.07.20.2216.erickson-response-to-marsh-comments.pdf

i guess i evolved a bit on my view of rodney erickson. i thought he was spineless for not fighting back against the ncaa's cram down. but if erickson fought back, the ncaa would have conducted a year long investigation w/ the media speculating non stop about the death penalty. coaches, recruits, players and athletic administrators would have spent the year figuring out a way out of state college. psu would have won in the courts not to have sanctions imposed, but it but it would have been a pyrrhic victory. so i guess he made the best decision for the university given the circumstances at the time.

however,

i do think emmert manipulated penn state lawyers and rodney erickson, knowing full well that he could b/c he held all the cards.

i do believe that he manipulated other university presidents in order to be given the authority to act in a way that he wanted.

i do believe that emmert influenced the freeh report in order to have it written in a way that would make the ncaa's case for lack on institutional control.

i do believe that emmert was leveraging the moment in order to improve public perception of the ncaa and himself as a leader.

i do believe all this will be proven in the court of law and the consent decree will be invalidated.


i know no one cares. but when you get labeled as an pedophile enabler b/c some jackass wants to improve his image, you take it personally.

Of course you are going to take it personally. Pretty sure that everybody here understands that. I know that I do. As for Emmert, imo he is a fairly typical self serving corporate wienie. But, that in and of itself probably won't be enough to get the consent decree invalidated. Can't say for sure because (a) I'm not a lawyer and (b) I haven't followed this thing down into the weeds like you have.

My feelings about Penn State and Sandusky are the same as they have always been....the higher ups let him run loose. They didn't want to know what he was doing......hell, when given the chance they did everything they could to find nothing. At no point did anybody look up from their desk and wonder about the kids involved. They were an afterthought. They had no power or standing and they were treated as such.

You view Penn State as a victim in all of this and frankly, I don't. It is a big, powerful institution that shit on the heads of vulnerable children. And then looked the other way. When I read that nobody even bothered to find out the name(s) of these kids, that spoke volumes to me about their intent.

For me, the lawsuit is still just one group of self-serving corporate hacks vs. another.

 well first of all, i never mean to imply that psu is a victim.  but it was unfair for the entire psu community was painted as enablers by ncaa.  and it was very shitty of the psu leaders to give freeh/the ncaa the ammo to do such.  

your view on this is based on mcqueary's grand jury testimony which has not been cross examined yet. secondly, it is also a fact that curley and schultz went to the 2nd mile about what mcqueary saw and i think the conversation would shine a lot of light onto why psu acted the way it did.  if the ceo of the 2nd mile, a licensed psychologist and mandated reporter gave assurances to curley/schultz about sandusky, i don't know if the administrators should be held as accountable. that's just my opinion.  

and this lawsuit was initiated by the PA state treasurer...a politician.  self serving? maybe.  but the intent of the lawsuit was to challenge the ncaa's attempt to spend the 60 million dollar fine outside the state.  a law passed that stated stated that the fine money had to be spent in state, not nationally.    and as treasurer, it was his job to see this through.  hence the lawsuit.  it was a commonwealth judges who proactively decided that she wanted to further examine the consent decree after the ncaa refused to yield on where the money was to be spent.  

 

[oujour76]

Dec 4, 2014 11:12:33 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

well first of all, i never mean to imply that psu is a victim.  but it was unfair for the entire psu community was painted as enablers by ncaa.  and it was very shitty of the psu leaders to give freeh/the ncaa the ammo to do such.  

your view on this is based on mcqueary's grand jury testimony which has not been cross examined yet. secondly, it is also a fact that curley and schultz went to the 2nd mile about what mcqueary saw and i think the conversation would shine a lot of light onto why psu acted the way it did.  if the ceo of the 2nd mile, a licensed psychologist and mandated reporter gave assurances to curley/schultz about sandusky, i don't know if the administrators should be held as accountable. that's just my opinion.  

and this lawsuit was initiated by the PA state treasurer...a politician.  self serving? maybe.  but the intent of the lawsuit was to challenge the ncaa's attempt to spend the 60 million dollar fine outside the state.  a law passed that stated stated that the fine money had to be spent in state, not nationally.    and as treasurer, it was his job to see this through.  hence the lawsuit.  it was a commonwealth judges who proactively decided that she wanted to further examine the consent decree after the ncaa refused to yield on where the money was to be spent.  

 

I understand. You don't want your school painted with Sandusky's brush. But, no matter how much anyone tries to separate Jerry Sandusky from Penn State, it can't be done. He was there for 40 years.....highly visible and presented for years as representing what was good about Penn State.

So, whether it's fair or not, Penn State is in the mud as well. That is how it works. I mean, how would you like to have been an accountant looking for a job after working at Enron? Or an athlete at North Carolina that didn't take any of the scam classes we have heard so much about? Same is true there. Fair? No. Reality? Absolutely.

[snap infraction]

Dec 4, 2014 12:41:51 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Dec 4, 2014 11:12:33 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

well first of all, i never mean to imply that psu is a victim.  but it was unfair for the entire psu community was painted as enablers by ncaa.  and it was very shitty of the psu leaders to give freeh/the ncaa the ammo to do such.  

your view on this is based on mcqueary's grand jury testimony which has not been cross examined yet. secondly, it is also a fact that curley and schultz went to the 2nd mile about what mcqueary saw and i think the conversation would shine a lot of light onto why psu acted the way it did.  if the ceo of the 2nd mile, a licensed psychologist and mandated reporter gave assurances to curley/schultz about sandusky, i don't know if the administrators should be held as accountable. that's just my opinion.  

and this lawsuit was initiated by the PA state treasurer...a politician.  self serving? maybe.  but the intent of the lawsuit was to challenge the ncaa's attempt to spend the 60 million dollar fine outside the state.  a law passed that stated stated that the fine money had to be spent in state, not nationally.    and as treasurer, it was his job to see this through.  hence the lawsuit.  it was a commonwealth judges who proactively decided that she wanted to further examine the consent decree after the ncaa refused to yield on where the money was to be spent.  

 

I understand. You don't want your school painted with Sandusky's brush. But, no matter how much anyone tries to separate Jerry Sandusky from Penn State, it can't be done. He was there for 40 years.....highly visible and presented for years as representing what was good about Penn State.

So, whether it's fair or not, Penn State is in the mud as well. That is how it works. I mean, how would you like to have been an accountant looking for a job after working at Enron? Or an athlete at North Carolina that didn't take any of the scam classes we have heard so much about? Same is true there. Fair? No. Reality? Absolutely.

not sure i agree with the analogy.  if the ncaa were to take away wins from players on unc who weren't taking scam classes and mark emmert when on every tv network and radio station that would have him to discuss unc's toxic culture, then it might be a better analogy.  

as far as enron is concerned...i don't think many people linked what the top executives were doing with all the other employees.  if they did, that's unforunate.  

an apt analogy would be the hillsborough disaster imo. rowdy fans were initially blamed for the death of close to 100 people b/c people didn't want to take accountability for being negligent and creating a dangerous situation.  

[AlaCowboy]

PSU either was guilty of LOIC or they weren't. If PSU administraters heard stories about Sandusky and failed to thoroughly investigate, then they were guilty of LOIC. But if they knew of the abuses and concealed the facts, and/or ignored the facts and failed to take steps to inform authorities and protect the children, then PSU had institutional control and failed to act correctly. That would be much worse than merely looking the other way.

[snap infraction]

Dec 4, 2014 17:57:25 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

PSU either was guilty of LOIC or they weren't. If PSU administraters heard stories about Sandusky and failed to thoroughly investigate, then they were guilty of LOIC. But if they knew of the abuses and concealed the facts, and/or ignored the facts and failed to take steps to inform authorities and protect the children, then PSU had institutional control and failed to act correctly. That would be much worse than merely looking the other way.

so it's ok for the ncaa to be the judge, jury and executioner in deciding how complicit psu was with enabling sandusky? 

[mscott59]

Dec 5, 2014 8:55:09 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Dec 4, 2014 17:57:25 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

PSU either was guilty of LOIC or they weren't. If PSU administraters heard stories about Sandusky and failed to thoroughly investigate, then they were guilty of LOIC. But if they knew of the abuses and concealed the facts, and/or ignored the facts and failed to take steps to inform authorities and protect the children, then PSU had institutional control and failed to act correctly. That would be much worse than merely looking the other way.

so it's ok for the ncaa to be the judge, jury and executioner in deciding how complicit psu was with enabling sandusky? 

you are aware that psu, per their agreement to be a part of the ncaa, agrees to its rules and processes, right? which includes giving the ncaa the right to be judge, jury and executioner? the murky water that emmert entered in terms of this everyone knows, the way the ncaa operates everyone knows. but it CONTINUES to amaze me how you constantly want to shift blame to everyone but psu, for decisions that psu agreed to themselves. they had other options-going the legal route immediately certainty had a good chance to gaining a stay on any ncaa death penalty should it have come to that point-but psu execs chose this path.

[oujour76]

Dec 5, 2014 10:44:17 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Dec 5, 2014 8:55:09 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

so it's ok for the ncaa to be the judge, jury and executioner in deciding how complicit psu was with enabling sandusky? 

you are aware that psu, per their agreement to be a part of the ncaa, agrees to its rules and processes, right? which includes giving the ncaa the right to be judge, jury and executioner? the murky water that emmert entered in terms of this everyone knows, the way the ncaa operates everyone knows. but it CONTINUES to amaze me how you constantly want to shift blame to everyone but psu, for decisions that psu agreed to themselves. they had other options-going the legal route immediately certainty had a good chance to gaining a stay on any ncaa death penalty should it have come to that point-but psu execs chose this path.

Yep. It really does come down to that, doesn't it? Penn State is a huge institution and was more than capable of defending themselves. For their own reasons, they chose not to do so.

Looks like they felt powerless at the time....gee, I wonder how those kids felt while Sandusky was corn holing them and the school didn't even bother to find out their names?

[snap infraction]

Dec 5, 2014 10:44:17 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Dec 5, 2014 8:55:09 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

so it's ok for the ncaa to be the judge, jury and executioner in deciding how complicit psu was with enabling sandusky? 

you are aware that psu, per their agreement to be a part of the ncaa, agrees to its rules and processes, right? which includes giving the ncaa the right to be judge, jury and executioner? the murky water that emmert entered in terms of this everyone knows, the way the ncaa operates everyone knows. but it CONTINUES to amaze me how you constantly want to shift blame to everyone but psu, for decisions that psu agreed to themselves. they had other options-going the legal route immediately certainty had a good chance to gaining a stay on any ncaa death penalty should it have come to that point-but psu execs chose this path.

did you read my 2nd post on this thread?  they had to choose this path.  going the legal course to fight back against the death penalty would have been a pyrrhic victory. it's like the last batman movie....gary oldman was told death or exile.  he chose exile so the judge said death by exile. that's what this lawsuit is all about.  if the consent decree should be valid under those conditions.  

fwiw, i did blame psu.  i said psu gave the ncaa the ammo to do what they did.  

[mscott59]

Dec 5, 2014 11:29:20 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Dec 5, 2014 10:44:17 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

you are aware that psu, per their agreement to be a part of the ncaa, agrees to its rules and processes, right? which includes giving the ncaa the right to be judge, jury and executioner? the murky water that emmert entered in terms of this everyone knows, the way the ncaa operates everyone knows. but it CONTINUES to amaze me how you constantly want to shift blame to everyone but psu, for decisions that psu agreed to themselves. they had other options-going the legal route immediately certainty had a good chance to gaining a stay on any ncaa death penalty should it have come to that point-but psu execs chose this path.

did you read my 2nd post on this thread?  they had to choose this path.  going the legal course to fight back against the death penalty would have been a pyrrhic victory. it's like the last batman movie....gary oldman was told death or exile.  he chose exile so the judge said death by exile. that's what this lawsuit is all about.  if the consent decree should be valid under those conditions.  

fwiw, i did blame psu.  i said psu gave the ncaa the ammo to do what they did.  

no, they didn't. the legal avenue was still there. it would have been tough. it would have hardened emmert as an enemy immediately. but if psu execs truly believed they were right, that the ncaa was overstepping their bounds and leveraging that to unfairly punish psu, that would have been worth it, even with the additional pr negatives. they didn't. they took the easier path, the one of contrition. it was a choice. it was their choice. now they want to take it back. that's all this is. it's not a fictional movie. it's real life. real lives were permanently affected. and now psu is doing what kids say to their parents when they do something wrong-'they made me do it'-and saying that's a legitimate reason to absolve themselves.

you want to know why many still see psu in a negative light? this is why.

[snap infraction]

Dec 5, 2014 12:20:04 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Dec 5, 2014 11:29:20 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

did you read my 2nd post on this thread?  they had to choose this path.  going the legal course to fight back against the death penalty would have been a pyrrhic victory. it's like the last batman movie....gary oldman was told death or exile.  he chose exile so the judge said death by exile. that's what this lawsuit is all about.  if the consent decree should be valid under those conditions.  

fwiw, i did blame psu.  i said psu gave the ncaa the ammo to do what they did.  

no, they didn't. the legal avenue was still there. it would have been tough. it would have hardened emmert as an enemy immediately. but if psu execs truly believed they were right, that the ncaa was overstepping their bounds and leveraging that to unfairly punish psu, that would have been worth it, even with the additional pr negatives. they didn't. they took the easier path, the one of contrition. it was a choice. it was their choice. now they want to take it back. that's all this is. it's not a fictional movie. it's real life. real lives were permanently affected. and now psu is doing what kids say to their parents when they do something wrong-'they made me do it'-and saying that's a legitimate reason to absolve themselves.

you want to know why many still see psu in a negative light? this is why.

first of all, psu is a defendant along with the ncaa.  psu wants nothing to do with any of the legal proceedings currently ongoing.  if it were up to psu, they would just move on and not discuss any of this ever again.  it is the PA treasurer (an elected official FWIW) along with the Paterno estate that initiated the two separate lawsuits. 

most of what you say will be debated via trial next month so there is no point to speculating at this point.  if the NCAA, as you claim, gave PSU a choice, the NCAA should have no problem proving it.  if the consent decree was a cram down as PA believes, then PA will have to prove it.  we will soon find out if a choice was given.  and i don't think that's a bad thing.  

[oujour76]

Dec 5, 2014 12:20:04 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

no, they didn't. the legal avenue was still there. it would have been tough. it would have hardened emmert as an enemy immediately. but if psu execs truly believed they were right, that the ncaa was overstepping their bounds and leveraging that to unfairly punish psu, that would have been worth it, even with the additional pr negatives. they didn't. they took the easier path, the one of contrition. it was a choice. it was their choice. now they want to take it back. that's all this is. it's not a fictional movie. it's real life. real lives were permanently affected. and now psu is doing what kids say to their parents when they do something wrong-'they made me do it'-and saying that's a legitimate reason to absolve themselves.

you want to know why many still see psu in a negative light? this is why.
[/quote]

The 2014 Grand Douche Champion has another winner.

[beuycek]

Mark, who are the "PSU execs" you are referring to? IIRC, Erickson cut the deal without the BOT agreeing to it. Hell, they hadn't even read Freeh's report when Corbett orchestrated a quick acceptance outside of an official meeting. Hopefully the reasons why it all went down like that will come out in trial but when two people in power (three if you count Emmert) overstep their bounds, the whole administration shouldn't necessarily be held accountable for the mistakes of a few.

Not saying they were entirely innocent either (the trials will hopefully answer a lot of questions with regard to that topic) but I think you are painting with too broad of a brush when you reference PSU accepting the punishment.