mella;1224924 wrote:The difference here is the PSU situation falls under criminal and moral violations with no NCAA violations. Paying players, tattoos,...these are NCAA violations and it is clear that the NCAA will have a say. A coach/former coach raping children and then the top administrators and the head coach turning a blind eye, covering it up, enabling the situation for years (drag them outside and put a bullet in their heads) this is not an NCAA violation.

I think the NCAA habit of punishing everyone except for the violators is and always has been rediculous. The NCAA has no business giving a punishment because this situation goes beyond their scope of powers. Right now the entire PSU campus wishes every football player was driving around in free cars,showing off their free tattoos, a hooker in the passenger seat, and a kilo of coke in the trunk. That situation is easy NCAA violations.

The Sandusky raping children and being covered up situation...... take all the guilty coaches, grad assistants, administrators out back and put a bullet in their heads.

Lack of institutional control is an NCAA violation. The coverup was done to benefit the football program and the reputation of the university. The deserve a severe punishment.

Al Bundy;1224997 wrote:Lack of institutional control is an NCAA violation. The coverup was done to benefit the football program and the reputation of the university. The deserve a severe punishment.

LOIC is only applicable when NCAA violations are involved though. There are no NCAA violations here in accordance with their 1000 page rulebook. And honestly, it shouldn't matter because they're answering to an even higher authority, the legal system.

The legal system is not done with PSU. Now that there was an investigation and proof of a cover-up, they will most definitely face charges.

I also imagine there will be a law suit for pain and suffering, and everything else that goes with this type of institutional cover-up of criminal activity.

Odds on whether PSU has the decency to take down the Paterno statue?

Also, Vegas odds that the PSU student base is idiotic enough to protest/riot if they do? That one might be off the board actually.

2kool4skool;1225101 wrote:Also, Vegas odds that the PSU student base is idiotic enough to protest/riot if they do? That one might be off the board actually.

I'll say no. It's one thing to support a legend when people are trashing him. It's another to support someone who let children be molested when all the facts are in.

lhslep134;1225058 wrote:LOIC is only applicable when NCAA violations are involved though. There are no NCAA violations here in accordance with their 1000 page rulebook. And honestly, it shouldn't matter because they're answering to an even higher authority, the legal system.

The legal system is not done with PSU. Now that there was an investigation and proof of a cover-up, they will most definitely face charges.

The thing about LOIC is that if they were covering this up, what other things were they sweeping under the rug? Including things done 'off email' so as to not leave a paper trail.

There's a reason why 'masking agents' are banned substances for sports competitions, because the presence of them indicates that, more than likely, other things are being taken. The fact that PSU was willing to cover this up--THIS--indicates to me that they'd have no problem covering up more minor transgressions that would put PSU in a negative light.

I mean, if you're going to argue that PSU was an honorable institution and they only reneged on their morals for this one thing only, I just couldn't believe you.

FatHobbit;1225131 wrote:I'll say no. It's one thing to support a legend when people are trashing him. It's another to support someone who let children be molested when all the facts are in.

good post :thumbup:

Here's an interesting conversation between baseball sabermetrics guru Bill James and ESPN's Doug Gottlieb on the Doug Gottlieb Radio Show. James thinks that the Freeh Report, while thorough and for the most part well done, is lacking when it comes to linking any definitive coverup culpability to Joe Paterno. While I'm not sure where I stand, James makes some fascinating points. I do agree with him that the report really offers nothing new with respect to Paterno.

Most here will probably disagree, but, honestly, the parts within the report concerning Paterno are pretty vague. For example, as James questions in the Gottlieb interview, when Gary Shultz said through email in 1998 that "Coach is anxious about the results" of the Sandusky situation, was Paterno in fact pointing reference to the '98 sexual abuse investigation or was he actually talking about an update as to where Sandusky stood with regard to accepting the retirement package that season? James seems to think that Paterno wanted Sandusky out, due to Sandusky's inability to properly negotiate his time between coaching and running the Second Mile organization, and that Paterno was referencing that situation in that email.

The media has obviously decided to fledge ahead full force with the sensationalization of Paterno's "evil" downfall, but I want to hold out until the trials of Tim Curley and Gary Shultz to see if certain aspects of the report can be further clarified.

reclegend22;1226206 wrote:Here's an interesting conversation between baseball sabermetrics guru Bill James and ESPN's Doug Gottlieb on the Doug Gottlieb Radio Show. James thinks that the Freeh Report, while thorough and for the most part well done, is lacking when it comes to linking any definitive coverup culpability to Joe Paterno. While I'm not sure where I stand, James makes some fascinating points. I do agree with him that the report really offers nothing new with respect to Paterno.

Most here will probably disagree, but, honestly, the parts within the report concerning Paterno are pretty vague. For example, as James questions in the Gottlieb interview, when Gary Shultz said through email in 1998 that "Coach is anxious about the results" of the Sandusky situation, was Paterno in fact pointing reference to the '98 sexual abuse investigation or was he actually talking about an update as to where Sandusky stood with regard to accepting the retirement package that season? James seems to think that Paterno wanted Sandusky out, due to Sandusky's inability to properly negotiate his time between coaching and running the Second Mile organization, and that Paterno was referencing that situation in that email.

The media has obviously decided to fledge ahead full force with the sensationalization of Paterno's "evil" downfall, but I want to hold out until the trials of Tim Curley and Gary Shultz to see if certain aspects of the report can be further clarified.

What would you say is the main thing wrong with you?

2kool4skool;1226211 wrote:What would you say is the main thing wrong with you?

I would say my relatively short stature. I really wanted to play in the NBA. I'm only 6 feet tall.

As I added in my post above in which I linked the Bill James interview, I don't really know if I fully believe what James has to say or not, but I do find his way of looking at the report intriguing. What if the Paterno family is right, and that things are being taken severely out of context? There are definitely no definitives in the report regarding Paterno, but things certainly don't seem to fall in his favor either.

Maybe I just want to believe that Paterno wasn't a monster.

reclegend22;1226216 wrote:Maybe I just want to believe that Paterno wasn't a monster.

Despite common sense, and now the growing evidence to the contrary, I have yet to see you relinquish his balls from your mouth. So yeah, I'd say that's a safe statement.

2kool4skool;1226236 wrote:Despite common sense, and now the growing evidence to the contrary, I have yet to see you relinquish his balls from your mouth. So yeah, I'd say that's a safe statement.

Nice chatting with you.

reclegend22;1226216 wrote:As I added in my post above in which I linked the Bill James interview, I don't really know if I fully believe what James has to say or not, but I do find his way of looking at the report intriguing. What if the Paterno family is right, and that things are being taken severely out of context? There are definitely no definitives in the report regarding Paterno, but things certainly don't seem to fall in his favor either.

Maybe I just want to believe that Paterno wasn't a monster.

Huh? Smh

jordo212000;1226247 wrote:Huh? Smh

Just listen to the Bill James interview that I linked. Again, I'm not saying his opinion on the report is the correct one, but it is an interesting take. I thought it would be a different point of view to share. Do I fully agree with it, I don't know. I want to gather more information from the probable upcoming trials of Tim Curley and Gary Shultz.

reclegend22;1226216 wrote:As I added in my post above in which I linked the Bill James interview, I don't really know if I fully believe what James has to say or not, but I do find his way of looking at the report intriguing. What if the Paterno family is right, and that things are being taken severely out of context? There are definitely no definitives in the report regarding Paterno, but things certainly don't seem to fall in his favor either.

Maybe I just want to believe that Paterno wasn't a monster.

Maybe I just want to believe I have the IQ of Einstein, the athletic prowess of LeBron James, and the good looks of Brad Pitt. That doesn't make my belief a non-fantasy. As the stories unfold, it all becomes worse and worse. Why believe a family that's been incorrect this whole time and as it turns out has a pecuniary stake in JoePa's legend being preserved? The gig is up. We all knew (or should have known) that JoePa had too much control over the university's governing body when it came to disciplining players. Before this broke he could rely on his players' graduation rate (whoopdedoo if it was a sports studies major) and lack of violations - but if the lack of violations were a result of control over the athletic department and overall university governance that means little if not nothing.

The only acceptable excuse for Paterno was that he was senile and/or stupid. I'm not sure I buy into either. This is the worst scandal in amateur sports history...to the point it is too big for the NCAA to handle. I feel very bad for PSU fans and graduates who had nothing to do with this, they were led down a road of deceit and an overbearing presence that became too powerful for its own good. This should have ended in 1998, not only did it not end the people in charge not only turned their backs but made it worse.

Manhattan Buckeye;1226274 wrote:The only acceptable excuse for Paterno was that he was senile and/or stupid. I'm not sure I buy into either. This is the worst scandal in amateur sports history...to the point it is too big for the NCAA to handle. I feel very bad for PSU fans and graduates who had nothing to do with this, they were led down a road of deceit and an overbearing presence that became too powerful for its own good. This should have ended in 1998, not only did it not end the people in charge not only turned their backs but made it worse.

I agree wholeheartedly that what happened at Penn State is the worst crime in the history of college athletics, if not all U.S. athletics. It's a complete tragedy.

Did you happen to listen to the Bill James interview? While all the evidence certainly seems to be piling up against Paterno and things do not look good at all for the once revered Penn State coach, the Freeh Report, while incredibly damning to the university and its leadership, does not irrefutably pinpoint Paterno as an accomplice in a coverup. There is still at least room for doubt. I agree with you, though, Paterno, if he didn't completely know about the investigation in '98, failed miserably as the leader of that program and should have been fired based on that fact alone.

I can't get the flash player to work (it is a big problem here), I did read the NYPost article. I trust the Freeh report more than James' baseless assertions.

One of the more damning parts of the Freeh report was how the administrators went out of their way to not talk about the accusations or even name names directly, from your post:

"For example, as James questions in the Gottlieb interview, when Gary Shultz said through email in 1998 that "Coach is anxious about the results" of the Sandusky situation, was Paterno in fact pointing reference to the '98 sexual abuse investigation or was he actually talking about an update as to where Sandusky stood with regard to accepting the retirement package that season? "

In the real world (where apparently James doesn't live) this would never happen. In employment matters companies go out of their way to be meticulous with every detail and conversation regarding a termination, failure to continue employment, retirement negotiations, etc. to be diligent to avoid any type of lawsuit for wrongful termination. If this was actually about Sandusky's retirement package (which I find laughable), they would actually describe the reasons why it may or may not be sufficient. There isn't any room for vagueness since that could be potentially be litigable. Its the secrecy of the e-mails and comments that lend itself to a cover-up.

My wife had to deal with something like this last week regarding a firing - you build a case to avoid possible lawsuits, you can't do that with vagueness. You hide criminal activity with vagueness.

BTW, it appears in the view of some Bill James has gone, to paraphrase "Tropic Thunder", F.R. on this:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/14/bill-james-doubles-down-on-the-joe-paterno-defense/

Manhattan Buckeye;1226323 wrote:I can't get the flash player to work (it is a big problem here), I did read the NYPost article. I trust the Freeh report more than James' baseless assertions.

One of the more damning parts of the Freeh report was how the administrators went out of their way to not talk about the accusations or even name names directly, from your post:

"For example, as James questions in the Gottlieb interview, when Gary Shultz said through email in 1998 that "Coach is anxious about the results" of the Sandusky situation, was Paterno in fact pointing reference to the '98 sexual abuse investigation or was he actually talking about an update as to where Sandusky stood with regard to accepting the retirement package that season? "

In the real world (where apparently James doesn't live) this would never happen. In employment matters companies go out of their way to be meticulous with every detail and conversation regarding a termination, failure to continue employment, retirement negotiations, etc. to be diligent to avoid any type of lawsuit for wrongful termination. If this was actually about Sandusky's retirement package (which I find laughable), they would actually describe the reasons why it may or may not be sufficient. There isn't any room for vagueness since that could be potentially be litigable. Its the secrecy of the e-mails and comments that lend itself to a cover-up.

My wife had to deal with something like this last week regarding a firing - you build a case to avoid possible lawsuits, you can't do that with vagueness. You hide criminal activity with vagueness.

I can admit that you make a great argument there.

Could it be possible, though, that the email from Shultz that states "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know" was just Paterno wanting a quick update to see if they had a chance yet to sit down and discuss things further with Sandusky regarding retirement or taking the assistant AD job Sandusky had been offered? However unlikely that scenario may be -- and maybe that's not even possible, as maybe I am misremembering the complete context of what was said in that email in the report -- if that's all Paterno was asking, I'm not sure how that could get anyone into trouble. Sandusky had already been informed of the proposed package.

Look, I can admit that I am reaching for straws. I find Paterno's fall from grace extremely troubling and I am just trying to make sense of it. It is just so hard for me to believe Paterno willingly turned his head to the rape of children. He had nothing to gain by covering it up when compared to everything that he had to lose. If he truly believed it was happening and would have just reported it to the police in 2001, he would have been lauded for turning in his former long-time defensive coordinator and stopping a monster. Would uncovering this information have been extremely embarrassing for the program? Yes, extremely. But, as they say, one bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch. Paterno and PSU would have ultimately been viewed as heroes to the families of the victims and the future kids that were saved from Sandusky's terror.

reclegend22;1226271 wrote:Just listen to the Bill James interview that I linked. Again, I'm not saying his opinion on the report is the correct one, but it is an interesting take. I thought it would be a different point of view to share. Do I fully agree with it, I don't know. I want to gather more information from the probable upcoming trials of Tim Curley and Gary Shultz.

reclegend22;1226316 wrote:I agree wholeheartedly that what happened at Penn State is the worst crime in the history of college athletics, if not all U.S. athletics. It's a complete tragedy.

Did you happen to listen to the Bill James interview? While all the evidence certainly seems to be piling up against Paterno and things do not look good at all for the once revered Penn State coach, the Freeh Report, while incredibly damning to the university and its leadership, does not irrefutably pinpoint Paterno as an accomplice in a coverup. There is still at least room for doubt. I agree with you, though, Paterno, if he didn't completely know about the investigation in '98, failed miserably as the leader of that program and should have been fired based on that fact alone.

reclegend22;1226333 wrote:I can admit that you make a great argument there.

Could it be possible, though, that the email from Shultz that states "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know" was just Paterno wanting a quick update to see if they had a chance yet to sit down and discuss things further with Sandusky regarding retirement or taking the assistant AD job Sandusky had been offered? However unlikely that scenario may be -- and maybe that's not even possible, as maybe I am misremembering the complete context of what was said in that email in the report -- if that's all Paterno was asking, I'm not sure how that could get anyone into trouble. Sandusky had already been informed of the proposed package.

Look, I can admit that I am reaching for straws. I find Paterno's fall from grace extremely troubling and I am just trying to make sense of it. It is just so hard for me to believe Paterno willingly turned his head to the rape of children. He had nothing to gain by covering it up when compared to everything that he had to lose. If he truly believed it was happening and would have just reported it to the police in 2001, he would have been lauded for turning in his former long-time defensive coordinator and stopping a monster. Would uncovering this information have been extremely embarrassing for the program? Yes, extremely. But, as they say, one bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch. Paterno and PSU would have ultimately been viewed as heroes to the families of the victims and the future kids that were saved from Sandusky's terror.

I think you are putting way too much stock into the James interview simply for the fact that you don't want to admit to yourself that JoePa wasn't the loveable grandfather figure he presented himself to be. As you said in your own words, you're grasping for straws.

I'll take Freeh's months and months of thorough investigation over James' opinion on the investigation.

In the report, they went to Paterno after initially deciding to go to the authorities, only to change their mind after talking to him.


That's all I need to know.

dwccrew;1226353 wrote:I think you are putting way too much stock into the James interview simply for the fact that you don't want to admit to yourself that JoePa wasn't the loveable grandfather figure he presented himself to be. As you said in your own words, you're grasping for straws.

I'll take Freeh's months and months of thorough investigation over James' opinion on the investigation.

I see where rec is coming from. I didn't want to believe it either. I thought Joe Pa was part of what was great about college football. It's still hard for me to believe. Paying players and extra benefits is a problem with college sports, and it doesn't really surprise me anymore when that comes out. Letting someone get away with molesting kids is on a whole different level of terrible.

I also can't understand how anyone else who had knowledge of this can sleep at night. They took it to their "superiors" and then let it go? They should have called the police when nothing happened.

What chance is there that the B1G will kick out Penn State because of this? Maybe replace them with Pitt, who stands to benefit most from any downfall of Penn State athletics...

After reading more and doing some thinking I think PSU deserves a 1 or 2 year death penalty. The NCAA should grant all the football players immediate release and allow them to transfer anywhere and not have to lose a year. I would go as far to say that some of the players should get an extra year of eligibility because they might not get to transfer so late in the summer.