emmert is still a dick

[ihs82]

nice article below of emmert throwing the executive committee under the bus. no mark, louis freeh did not have subpoena power. you are lying when you say that.

www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2014/01/ncaa_president_mark_emmert_on_1.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

NCAA president Mark Emmert this week used familiar language and themes to defend penalties the organization handed down to Penn State before the 2012 season. In an interview on The Seth Davis Show on CampusInsiders.com, Emmert said heavy sanctions were decided upon by the NCAA's executive committee, and he used the word "experiment" to describe the one-time nature of the penalties.

Emmert announced crippling sanctions against the Penn State football program in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal. They included a four-year bowl ban, scholarship reductions, probation and a $60 million fine, not to mention a one-year transfer window that nearly gutted Penn State's roster.

"It was a group decision by a group of university presidents, with my support, to both put in place this extraordinary decision-making approach to this issue and to deal with a university in a way that had never been done before, predominantly because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances," Emmert said.

The sanctions were unprecedented in their magnitude, but also in that they were issued in the absence of an independent NCAA investigation. Emmert defended that approach, citing the subpoena power former FBI director Louis Freeh had within the university and the school's acceptance of Freeh's findings.


"Along came Penn State with this huge report," Emmert said. "They say, 'Yep, those are the facts, we buy into that.' There really wasn't any utility in dragging out for another year or two. Think about how long that case would have lasted, an investigation that would have yielded no more information than what was already in front of the executive committee."

And so the executive committee, comprised mostly of university presidents and officials, accepted the findings of the investigation and decided upon the sanctions. Emmert said his role was to support the committee -- not make any decisions -- and announce the findings, in the process absorbing criticisms and cries of hypocrisy from the state of Pennsylvania and beyond.

A primary criticism from those in the Penn State community centered around Freeh's report and the conclusions he drew without talking to Paterno, Curley, Sandusky or key witness Mike McQueary. If flawed, the university's acceptance of Freeh's findings as fact led to the NCAA's swift action, Emmert said.

"What the executive committee was worried about was that the behavior around all this, as outlined by that report and agreed to by the university, was clearly so antagonistic to all the values of intercollegiate athletics and the values codified in the NCAA institution, they couldn't sit back and not act," Emmert said.

"Now we can sit and say, 'It would be better if this or that happened,' but the truth is, you can't go back and run the experiment again."

The experiment can't be run again, but it can be altered, as we found out last September. Based on the university's compliance with the NCAA and a recommendation from athletics integrity monitor George Mitchell, sanctions were reduced to ease Penn State back to its full scholarship limit.

Emmert has stood by the fact that sanction reductions weren't an admission of error by the NCAA. On the contrary, he has stood behind the organization's decision.


"Ask yourself, what would have been the outcome if the NCAA would have said, 'Well, we don't care about this. This is irrelevant to us.' What would that have done to people's faith in intercollegiate athletics? What would that have done to people's belief that the NCAA has high values that they expect people to live by? What would that have looked like a year and a half later?

"We don't know. We don't get to do those experiments. We have to make the best judgment at the time the issue is in front of us, with the information in front of us, and the executive committee, I think, did that well."

[daleko]

Jan 16, 2014 12:09:08 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

nice article below of emmert throwing the executive committee under the bus. no mark, louis freeh did not have subpoena power. you are lying when you say that.

www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2014/01/ncaa_president_mark_emmert_on_1.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

NCAA president Mark Emmert this week used familiar language and themes to defend penalties the organization handed down to Penn State before the 2012 season. In an interview on The Seth Davis Show on CampusInsiders.com, Emmert said heavy sanctions were decided upon by the NCAA's executive committee, and he used the word "experiment" to describe the one-time nature of the penalties.

Emmert announced crippling sanctions against the Penn State football program in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal. They included a four-year bowl ban, scholarship reductions, probation and a $60 million fine, not to mention a one-year transfer window that nearly gutted Penn State's roster.

"It was a group decision by a group of university presidents, with my support, to both put in place this extraordinary decision-making approach to this issue and to deal with a university in a way that had never been done before, predominantly because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances," Emmert said.

The sanctions were unprecedented in their magnitude, but also in that they were issued in the absence of an independent NCAA investigation. Emmert defended that approach, citing the subpoena power former FBI director Louis Freeh had within the university and the school's acceptance of Freeh's findings.


"Along came Penn State with this huge report," Emmert said. "They say, 'Yep, those are the facts, we buy into that.' There really wasn't any utility in dragging out for another year or two. Think about how long that case would have lasted, an investigation that would have yielded no more information than what was already in front of the executive committee."

And so the executive committee, comprised mostly of university presidents and officials, accepted the findings of the investigation and decided upon the sanctions. Emmert said his role was to support the committee -- not make any decisions -- and announce the findings, in the process absorbing criticisms and cries of hypocrisy from the state of Pennsylvania and beyond.

A primary criticism from those in the Penn State community centered around Freeh's report and the conclusions he drew without talking to Paterno, Curley, Sandusky or key witness Mike McQueary. If flawed, the university's acceptance of Freeh's findings as fact led to the NCAA's swift action, Emmert said.

"What the executive committee was worried about was that the behavior around all this, as outlined by that report and agreed to by the university, was clearly so antagonistic to all the values of intercollegiate athletics and the values codified in the NCAA institution, they couldn't sit back and not act," Emmert said.

"Now we can sit and say, 'It would be better if this or that happened,' but the truth is, you can't go back and run the experiment again."

The experiment can't be run again, but it can be altered, as we found out last September. Based on the university's compliance with the NCAA and a recommendation from athletics integrity monitor George Mitchell, sanctions were reduced to ease Penn State back to its full scholarship limit.

Emmert has stood by the fact that sanction reductions weren't an admission of error by the NCAA. On the contrary, he has stood behind the organization's decision.


"Ask yourself, what would have been the outcome if the NCAA would have said, 'Well, we don't care about this. This is irrelevant to us.' What would that have done to people's faith in intercollegiate athletics? What would that have done to people's belief that the NCAA has high values that they expect people to live by? What would that have looked like a year and a half later?

"We don't know. We don't get to do those experiments. We have to make the best judgment at the time the issue is in front of us, with the information in front of us, and the executive committee, I think, did that well."

This whole thing is still alive only because the Pat family won't let it die along with a hardcore group of fans. And I get why both won't, sort of. The U took the path after the fact of keeping quiet. In doing so they got the sanctions reduced, significantly. Now that the fans sense a weakness, they are circling. This will turn out like A Rod who's trying to get in a PR war with MLB. He's going to lose. Had he just cut his loses, he would have played again in '14. He can't beat MLB in a match of PR and money.

PSu could have got the Death Penalty and almost did. Most, not involved with PSU, will care not going forward because they'll believe PSU was treated OK when all is said and done. Now that'll be subject to review if additional information comes out in the various trials but for now, imo, they, today, can look forward again to a nice future and it's become old news.

[ihs82]

Jan 16, 2014 18:22:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 16, 2014 12:09:08 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

nice article below of emmert throwing the executive committee under the bus. no mark, louis freeh did not have subpoena power. you are lying when you say that.

www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2014/01/ncaa_president_mark_emmert_on_1.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

NCAA president Mark Emmert this week used familiar language and themes to defend penalties the organization handed down to Penn State before the 2012 season. In an interview on The Seth Davis Show on CampusInsiders.com, Emmert said heavy sanctions were decided upon by the NCAA's executive committee, and he used the word "experiment" to describe the one-time nature of the penalties.

Emmert announced crippling sanctions against the Penn State football program in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal. They included a four-year bowl ban, scholarship reductions, probation and a $60 million fine, not to mention a one-year transfer window that nearly gutted Penn State's roster.

"It was a group decision by a group of university presidents, with my support, to both put in place this extraordinary decision-making approach to this issue and to deal with a university in a way that had never been done before, predominantly because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances," Emmert said.

The sanctions were unprecedented in their magnitude, but also in that they were issued in the absence of an independent NCAA investigation. Emmert defended that approach, citing the subpoena power former FBI director Louis Freeh had within the university and the school's acceptance of Freeh's findings.


"Along came Penn State with this huge report," Emmert said. "They say, 'Yep, those are the facts, we buy into that.' There really wasn't any utility in dragging out for another year or two. Think about how long that case would have lasted, an investigation that would have yielded no more information than what was already in front of the executive committee."

And so the executive committee, comprised mostly of university presidents and officials, accepted the findings of the investigation and decided upon the sanctions. Emmert said his role was to support the committee -- not make any decisions -- and announce the findings, in the process absorbing criticisms and cries of hypocrisy from the state of Pennsylvania and beyond.

A primary criticism from those in the Penn State community centered around Freeh's report and the conclusions he drew without talking to Paterno, Curley, Sandusky or key witness Mike McQueary. If flawed, the university's acceptance of Freeh's findings as fact led to the NCAA's swift action, Emmert said.

"What the executive committee was worried about was that the behavior around all this, as outlined by that report and agreed to by the university, was clearly so antagonistic to all the values of intercollegiate athletics and the values codified in the NCAA institution, they couldn't sit back and not act," Emmert said.

"Now we can sit and say, 'It would be better if this or that happened,' but the truth is, you can't go back and run the experiment again."

The experiment can't be run again, but it can be altered, as we found out last September. Based on the university's compliance with the NCAA and a recommendation from athletics integrity monitor George Mitchell, sanctions were reduced to ease Penn State back to its full scholarship limit.

Emmert has stood by the fact that sanction reductions weren't an admission of error by the NCAA. On the contrary, he has stood behind the organization's decision.


"Ask yourself, what would have been the outcome if the NCAA would have said, 'Well, we don't care about this. This is irrelevant to us.' What would that have done to people's faith in intercollegiate athletics? What would that have done to people's belief that the NCAA has high values that they expect people to live by? What would that have looked like a year and a half later?

"We don't know. We don't get to do those experiments. We have to make the best judgment at the time the issue is in front of us, with the information in front of us, and the executive committee, I think, did that well."

This whole thing is still alive only because the Pat family won't let it die along with a hardcore group of fans. And I get why both won't, sort of. The U took the path after the fact of keeping quiet. In doing so they got the sanctions reduced, significantly. Now that the fans sense a weakness, they are circling. This will turn out like A Rod who's trying to get in a PR war with MLB. He's going to lose. Had he just cut his loses, he would have played again in '14. He can't beat MLB in a match of PR and money.

PSu could have got the Death Penalty and almost did. Most, not involved with PSU, will care not going forward because they'll believe PSU was treated OK when all is said and done. Now that'll be subject to review if additional information comes out in the various trials but for now, imo, they, today, can look forward again to a nice future and it's become old news.

#1. you missed the point of the article. in the immediate aftermath after the punishment was handed down, emmert went on a gloating media tour to tout the decisions he made. he was on every radio and sports show in the country discussing the decision to hammer penn state. now, after a little bit of time, instead of taking credit, he is pushing the blame onto others b/c more and more people have criticized the ncaa for how the handled the penn state situation. he wanted all the credit when the decision was praised and he wants none of the blame now that it is criticized. that's leadership right there.

#2. the sanctions were reduced b/c the ncaa recognized they went overboard. they will tell you it is b/c penn state is cooperating but that is just an excuse.

[daleko]

Jan 17, 2014 9:08:51 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

#1. you missed the point of the article. in the immediate aftermath after the punishment was handed down, emmert went on a gloating media tour to tout the decisions he made. he was on every radio and sports show in the country discussing the decision to hammer penn state. now, after a little bit of time, instead of taking credit, he is pushing the blame onto others b/c more and more people have criticized the ncaa for how the handled the penn state situation. he wanted all the credit when the decision was praised and he wants none of the blame now that it is criticized. that's leadership right there.

#2. the sanctions were reduced b/c the ncaa recognized they went overboard. they will tell you it is b/c penn state is cooperating but that is just an excuse.

OMG, you've lost all touch with reality. See a Dr. for some pharma recommendations.

[ihs82]

Jan 17, 2014 10:37:21 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 17, 2014 9:08:51 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

#1. you missed the point of the article. in the immediate aftermath after the punishment was handed down, emmert went on a gloating media tour to tout the decisions he made. he was on every radio and sports show in the country discussing the decision to hammer penn state. now, after a little bit of time, instead of taking credit, he is pushing the blame onto others b/c more and more people have criticized the ncaa for how the handled the penn state situation. he wanted all the credit when the decision was praised and he wants none of the blame now that it is criticized. that's leadership right there.

#2. the sanctions were reduced b/c the ncaa recognized they went overboard. they will tell you it is b/c penn state is cooperating but that is just an excuse.

OMG, you've lost all touch with reality. See a Dr. for some pharma recommendations.

tell me where I am wrong.

from a dan Wetzel article written a day after BEFORE the sanctions were publically announced. here is a link to the article sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mark-emmert-ncaa-penn-state-sanctions-joe-paterno-graham-spanier-.html

regarding the sanctions, it says:

"The decision came almost solely from Emmert, sources say. He used the significance of the scandal to allow the NCAA Board of Directors to provide him with powers not seen since the iron-fisted Walter Byers ran the organization from 1951-1988."

after his well publicized press conference, emmert went on a publicity tour talking about the decision to hammer penn state.

and now, in an interview a few days ago with seth davis, emmert said "It was a group decision by a group of university presidents, with my support, to both put in place this extraordinary decision-making approach to this issue and to deal with a university in a way that had never been done before, predominantly because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances."

tell me why emmert led the public to believe he was the sole decision maker in punishing penn state when it was wildly popular to want penn state punished if it was a decision made by a group of university presidents? was he lying then or is he lying now?

[daleko]

Jan 17, 2014 11:07:41 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Jan 17, 2014 10:37:21 GMT -5 daleko said:

OMG, you've lost all touch with reality. See a Dr. for some pharma recommendations.

tell me where I am wrong.

from a dan Wetzel article written a day after BEFORE the sanctions were publically announced. here is a link to the article sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mark-emmert-ncaa-penn-state-sanctions-joe-paterno-graham-spanier-.html

regarding the sanctions, it says:

"The decision came almost solely from Emmert, sources say. He used the significance of the scandal to allow the NCAA Board of Directors to provide him with powers not seen since the iron-fisted Walter Byers ran the organization from 1951-1988."

after his well publicized press conference, emmert went on a publicity tour talking about the decision to hammer righteously discipline penn state.

and now, in an interview a few days ago with seth davis, emmert said "It was a group decision by a group of university presidents, with my support, to both put in place this extraordinary decision-making approach to this issue and to deal with a university in a way that had never been done before, predominantly because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances."

tell me why emmert led the public to believe he was the sole decision maker in punishing penn state when it was wildly popular to want penn state punished if it was a decision made by a group of university presidents? was he lying then or is he lying now?

Interesting and yet you dismiss this same author who believed Paterno knew, in his first article on this subject. Emmert's original persona of being the point man is what leaders do. Now he is clarifying the process because of the beating he is taking from the passionate, biased few. Human nature, I guess. Even CEO's sometimes believe that the comp isn't worth the BS. Traveling around, doing interviews is SOP. Busher did it. Obama does it.

Let's see if something comes out of the trials to change what, to me, is obvious. For me this is like the guy sent to jail for X. He righteously suffers and unfortunately so does his family. So do we give a pass to the individual so his family doesn't?

[ihs82]

Jan 17, 2014 13:44:11 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 17, 2014 11:07:41 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

tell me where I am wrong.

from a dan Wetzel article written a day after BEFORE the sanctions were publically announced. here is a link to the article sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mark-emmert-ncaa-penn-state-sanctions-joe-paterno-graham-spanier-.html

regarding the sanctions, it says:

"The decision came almost solely from Emmert, sources say. He used the significance of the scandal to allow the NCAA Board of Directors to provide him with powers not seen since the iron-fisted Walter Byers ran the organization from 1951-1988."

after his well publicized press conference, emmert went on a publicity tour talking about the decision to hammer righteously discipline penn state.

and now, in an interview a few days ago with seth davis, emmert said "It was a group decision by a group of university presidents, with my support, to both put in place this extraordinary decision-making approach to this issue and to deal with a university in a way that had never been done before, predominantly because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances."

tell me why emmert led the public to believe he was the sole decision maker in punishing penn state when it was wildly popular to want penn state punished if it was a decision made by a group of university presidents? was he lying then or is he lying now?

Interesting and yet you dismiss this same author who believed Paterno knew, in his first article on this subject. Emmert's original persona of being the point man is what leaders do. Now he is clarifying the process because of the beating he is taking from the passionate, biased few. Human nature, I guess. Even CEO's sometimes believe that the comp isn't worth the BS. Traveling around, doing interviews is SOP. Busher did it. Obama does it.

Let's see if something comes out of the trials to change what, to me, is obvious. For me this is like the guy sent to jail for X. He righteously suffers and unfortunately so does his family. So do we give a pass to the individual so his family doesn't?

the ncaa's decision against penn state was in not the biggest, then one of the biggest enforcement actions in the history of the ncaa. the leader of the ncaa is going around taking in all the adulation when it's popular and then he's throwing others under the bus when it's not. and the paternos believe their fathers legacy was negatively impacted due to the capricious actions of the ncaa and its leader. and yes, they were capricious. everything emmert has done and said has been based on the mood of the people. when there was hysteria against penn state, he hammered them. when there was criticism for hammering them, sanctions were reduced and others (executive committee) are being thrown under a bus. and the paternos simply believe their fathers legacy was damaged b/c the leader of the ncaa makes things up as he goes along based on what people are saying about him. it's b.s.