Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jul 3, 2017 8:08:11 GMT -5
|
|
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 Jul 3, 2017 9:12:39 GMT -5
there were always 2 parts to this scandal. paterno/spanier/schultz/curley's culpability and the sanctions levied against penn state. - it's obvious from the spanier trial that paterno knew about the 1998 incident based on curley's testimony. it's also obvious that they all should have known in 2001 that sandusky should not be showering alone with a boy. all involved were convicted in the court of law, albeit the charges were much less than the original charges. paterno rightfully has a tarnished legacy for failing to do more. - nearly every major pundit agrees they the ncaa did not handle punishments correctly. the ncaa all but acknowledged they handled the punishments wrong when they rescinded every single sanction within only two years. - it is possible to be wrong, but not civilly liable. my guess is that the judge deeply hinted that he was going to dismiss the case without awarding any damages. and that the paternos decided it was best to dismiss on their own rather than spend more to convince the judge otherwise. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jul 3, 2017 9:50:20 GMT -5
there were always 2 parts to this scandal. paterno/spanier/schultz/curley's culpability and the sanctions levied against penn state. - it's obvious from the spanier trial that paterno knew about the 1998 incident based on curley's testimony. it's also obvious that they all should have known in 2001 that sandusky should not be showering alone with a boy. all involved were convicted in the court of law, albeit the charges were much less than the original charges. paterno rightfully has a tarnished legacy for failing to do more. - nearly every major pundit agrees they the ncaa did not handle punishments correctly. the ncaa all but acknowledged they handled the punishments wrong when they rescinded every single sanction within only two years. - it is possible to be wrong, but not civilly liable. my guess is that the judge deeply hinted that he was going to dismiss the case without awarding any damages. and that the paternos decided it was best to dismiss on their own rather than spend more to convince the judge otherwise. re punishments... when someone is sentenced to, say, 10 years in prison for conviction of a crime, then released after 5 years on parole, does that mean the punishment term was originally wrong? imho the answer is no. whether it's good behavior, which is normally the case, or overcrowding of the prison, etc, there are many reasons for a sentence to end early. and yes, that can also include that the conviction was incorrect. in this case, that wasn't the case. so now, you know, as most of us thought from the beginning, that paterno knew of the prior investigation, that he and the athletic dept (on up to the president of the school) made a conscious effort to either downplay or ignore the dangers to the children sandusky was interacting with (again, the children. the real victims of this entire sad saga) not just during his time as coach but after he left the position and psu continued to allow him to have a consistent presence, including an office, on campus. did covering that up give psu a competitive advantage when it came to recruiting? protecting their image? and if paterno was truly aware of sandusky's inclinations as far back as the mid 70s? what was most out of whack in the aftermath of sandusky's arrest/conviction imho was not the ncaa punishment but the reaction to it by paterno's family/supporters. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Jul 3, 2017 13:31:12 GMT -5
there were always 2 parts to this scandal. paterno/spanier/schultz/curley's culpability and the sanctions levied against penn state. - it's obvious from the spanier trial that paterno knew about the 1998 incident based on curley's testimony. it's also obvious that they all should have known in 2001 that sandusky should not be showering alone with a boy. all involved were convicted in the court of law, albeit the charges were much less than the original charges. paterno rightfully has a tarnished legacy for failing to do more. - nearly every major pundit agrees they the ncaa did not handle punishments correctly. the ncaa all but acknowledged they handled the punishments wrong when they rescinded every single sanction within only two years. - it is possible to be wrong, but not civilly liable. my guess is that the judge deeply hinted that he was going to dismiss the case without awarding any damages. and that the paternos decided it was best to dismiss on their own rather than spend more to convince the judge otherwise. re punishments... when someone is sentenced to, say, 10 years in prison for conviction of a crime, then released after 5 years on parole, does that mean the punishment term was originally wrong? imho the answer is no. whether it's good behavior, which is normally the case, or overcrowding of the prison, etc, there are many reasons for a sentence to end early. and yes, that can also include that the conviction was incorrect. in this case, that wasn't the case. so now, you know, as most of us thought from the beginning, that paterno knew of the prior investigation, that he and the athletic dept (on up to the president of the school) made a conscious effort to either downplay or ignore the dangers to the children sandusky was interacting with (again, the children. the real victims of this entire sad saga) not just during his time as coach but after he left the position and psu continued to allow him to have a consistent presence, including an office, on campus. did covering that up give psu a competitive advantage when it came to recruiting? protecting their image? and if paterno was truly aware of sandusky's inclinations as far back as the mid 70s? what was most out of whack in the aftermath of sandusky's arrest/conviction imho was not the ncaa punishment but the reaction to it by paterno's family/supporters. |
|
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 Jul 5, 2017 7:44:34 GMT -5
there were always 2 parts to this scandal. paterno/spanier/schultz/curley's culpability and the sanctions levied against penn state. - it's obvious from the spanier trial that paterno knew about the 1998 incident based on curley's testimony. it's also obvious that they all should have known in 2001 that sandusky should not be showering alone with a boy. all involved were convicted in the court of law, albeit the charges were much less than the original charges. paterno rightfully has a tarnished legacy for failing to do more. - nearly every major pundit agrees they the ncaa did not handle punishments correctly. the ncaa all but acknowledged they handled the punishments wrong when they rescinded every single sanction within only two years. - it is possible to be wrong, but not civilly liable. my guess is that the judge deeply hinted that he was going to dismiss the case without awarding any damages. and that the paternos decided it was best to dismiss on their own rather than spend more to convince the judge otherwise. re punishments... when someone is sentenced to, say, 10 years in prison for conviction of a crime, then released after 5 years on parole, does that mean the punishment term was originally wrong? imho the answer is no. whether it's good behavior, which is normally the case, or overcrowding of the prison, etc, there are many reasons for a sentence to end early. and yes, that can also include that the conviction was incorrect. in this case, that wasn't the case. so now, you know, as most of us thought from the beginning, that paterno knew of the prior investigation, that he and the athletic dept (on up to the president of the school) made a conscious effort to either downplay or ignore the dangers to the children sandusky was interacting with (again, the children. the real victims of this entire sad saga) not just during his time as coach but after he left the position and psu continued to allow him to have a consistent presence, including an office, on campus. did covering that up give psu a competitive advantage when it came to recruiting? protecting their image? and if paterno was truly aware of sandusky's inclinations as far back as the mid 70s? what was most out of whack in the aftermath of sandusky's arrest/conviction imho was not the ncaa punishment but the reaction to it by paterno's family/supporters. imo, the ncaa overturned the remaining sanctions b/c they were tired of the scrutiny and just didn't want to defend it anymore especially in a court of law in front a judge. the narrative shifted a bit once the hysteria died down and many came to the conclusion that the ncaa should not have been involved in a criminal matter. i think they were tired of hearing that they overstepped. their own internal e-mails indicated that they had to bluff to get psu to agree in the first place which didn't make them look good. in the history of the ncaa, i'm not sure they ever considered good behavior in any other case. did psu gain a competitive advantage in recruiting by downplaying sandusky? you really create a slippery slope if you make that argument as justification for hammering psu w/ sanctions. image is such a vague, abstract thing. and even after the freeh report when psu was being lambasted by every media outlet for being the shittiest people ever...bill o'brien was still able to recruit well so there is no way to say how the image would have been impacted and if it would have had any effects on recruiting. while looking back i can certainly see why the actions and dialogue of the paterno family/supporters annoy people b/c they have their priorities messed up. but it happens all through the sports and political landscape. art briles daughter defends her dad. there are trump supports that will defend him no matter what he says or does (just go over to the politics board). there's sort of a tribal solidarity among sports fans and people sort of lose their ability to be rationale and logical and sort of enter this "Us vs them" mentality. that's the best way i can explain it. i mean i've witnessed several fights in parking lots and in the bleachers of games. why do people get so angry b/c someone is wearing another teams colors? |
|
Jan 13, 2020 17:38:49 GMT -5
Jan 13, 2020 17:38:49 GMT -5
May 1, 2022 14:04:40 GMT -5
May 1, 2022 14:04:40 GMT -5
