ou seems to have been correct

[mscott59]

Dec 5, 2014 15:28:23 GMT -5 beuycek said:

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.

hm. i'd have to look this back up, but i thought that erickson, after discussions w/emmert, took what the ncaa was proposing back to psu attorneys or outside counsel tapped to represent the school, and that erickson claimed he'd talked w/some select board members before he agreed to the sanctions. i also seem to remember that erickson, emmert and some other ncaa officials seemed to differ about whether the death penalty was dangled or not. to think that erickson alone made this decision w/o consulting/discussing it with others within psu seems to defy common sense to me. so yes, i use execs plural w/purpose. i don't remember corbett orchestrating anything in terms of signing off on the punishment terms; if he did, the fact that as governor he then wanted to sue the ncaa over the psu sanctions is absolutely hilarious.

i'm not sure if the trial of spanier, curley and the other guy (can't remember the vp who campus police reported up to) would reveal much about the (schultz... that's the guy. lol) ncaa sanction talks, since all got the boot pretty quickly along w/paterno once the sandusky arrest happened in nov 2011 right around the time psu was headed for columbus to play osu (week of or week before).

[beuycek]

Dec 5, 2014 16:45:17 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Dec 5, 2014 15:28:23 GMT -5 beuycek said:

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.

hm. i'd have to look this back up, but i thought that erickson, after discussions w/emmert, took what the ncaa was proposing back to psu attorneys or outside counsel tapped to represent the school, and that erickson claimed he'd talked w/some select board members before he agreed to the sanctions. i also seem to remember that erickson, emmert and some other ncaa officials seemed to differ about whether the death penalty was dangled or not. to think that erickson alone made this decision w/o consulting/discussing it with others within psu seems to defy common sense to me. so yes, i use execs plural w/purpose. i don't remember corbett orchestrating anything in terms of signing off on the punishment terms; if he did, the fact that as governor he then wanted to sue the ncaa over the psu sanctions is absolutely hilarious.

i'm not sure if the trial of spanier, curley and the other guy (can't remember the vp who campus police reported up to) would reveal much about the (schultz... that's the guy. lol) ncaa sanction talks, since all got the boot pretty quickly along w/paterno once the sandusky arrest happened in nov 2011 right around the time psu was headed for columbus to play osu (week of or week before).

I may have misremembered (quick shout out to Roger Clemens lol) how the sanctions were accepted and who actually approved the acceptance. Very possible as it has been some time so if I am msitaken, my apologies.

As for Corbett, he certainly was instrumental in getting the report commissioned and trying to move past this as quickly as possible. Why? Because he let Sandusky off the hook while he was AG and finding PSU guilty would take any focus off of his mistakes. For him to then act innocent and file a lawsuit on behalf of the state was strictly a re-election move, plain and simple. Absolutely hilarious and one situation that has never gotten enough attention paid to it, IMO. The conflict of interest his slot on the BOT presented was obvious yet it got passed over time and time again.

[mscott59]

Dec 5, 2014 18:09:20 GMT -5 beuycek said:

Dec 5, 2014 16:45:17 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

hm. i'd have to look this back up, but i thought that erickson, after discussions w/emmert, took what the ncaa was proposing back to psu attorneys or outside counsel tapped to represent the school, and that erickson claimed he'd talked w/some select board members before he agreed to the sanctions. i also seem to remember that erickson, emmert and some other ncaa officials seemed to differ about whether the death penalty was dangled or not. to think that erickson alone made this decision w/o consulting/discussing it with others within psu seems to defy common sense to me. so yes, i use execs plural w/purpose. i don't remember corbett orchestrating anything in terms of signing off on the punishment terms; if he did, the fact that as governor he then wanted to sue the ncaa over the psu sanctions is absolutely hilarious.

i'm not sure if the trial of spanier, curley and the other guy (can't remember the vp who campus police reported up to) would reveal much about the (schultz... that's the guy. lol) ncaa sanction talks, since all got the boot pretty quickly along w/paterno once the sandusky arrest happened in nov 2011 right around the time psu was headed for columbus to play osu (week of or week before).

I may have misremembered (quick shout out to Roger Clemens lol) how the sanctions were accepted and who actually approved the acceptance. Very possible as it has been some time so if I am msitaken, my apologies.

As for Corbett, he certainly was instrumental in getting the report commissioned and trying to move past this as quickly as possible. Why? Because he let Sandusky off the hook while he was AG and finding PSU guilty would take any focus off of his mistakes. For him to then act innocent and file a lawsuit on behalf of the state was strictly a re-election move, plain and simple. Absolutely hilarious and one situation that has never gotten enough attention paid to it, IMO. The conflict of interest his slot on the BOT presented was obvious yet it got passed over time and time again.

Agreed re Corbett. I think it was Harry who said, when someone commented why it seemed lots of people acted so quickly w/the sanctions, that you might not like what is discovered if the digging goes any deeper. Lot of dirty hands, no pun intended, on this.