[LEFT]from charles robinson ~

Penn State penalty: multiple bowls, crippling scholarship losses & NCAA Prez is levying it w/ no in-house investigationtinyurl.com/btmywbn[/LEFT]

Whatever the penalty is, it has to be strong enough that no other school will EVER be willing to cover up criminal activity in their athletic department for the sake of a sterling marketing reputation.

Just saw on pennlive.com that psu won't appeal any punishment.

ts1227;1231016 wrote:Joe Schad was making the comment that it may just be that they ruled without going thru the committee on infractions that makes it "unprecedented", and the punishments themselves may be par for the course. I doubt this is the case, but there's no telling.

CBS Sports 'source' said "I've never seen anything like it."

It's going to be pretty bad IMO.

dazedconfused;1231027 wrote:[LEFT]from charles robinson ~

Penn State penalty: multiple bowls, crippling scholarship losses & NCAA Prez is levying it w/ no in-house investigationtinyurl.com/btmywbn[/LEFT]

what did they need on for, they had the freeh report commissioned by psu.

isadore;1231034 wrote:what did they need on for, they had the freeh report commissioned by psu.

im guessing that's just ncaa legalese for covering up numerous criminal acts in house for over a decade

They're defending JoePa because there's still a very real possibility that he was simply negligent (still unfortunate), but not guilty of a coverup. These people are reasonable and are looking at both sides of the spectrum. People really need to stop acting as if the Freeh Report is pure fact. It's not.

Let people make their own decisions as to what they think really happened. Because it's all speculation at this point anyway. Hopefully the upcoming trials of Curely and Shultz will reveal more information about the two emails presented in the Freeh Report.

ccrunner609;1231163 wrote:Dude was raping kids in JoPa locker room. He knew it and helped cover it up.

You must just now be noticing that he's been on PSU's side the entire time.

ccrunner609;1231163 wrote:Dude was raping kids in JoPa locker room. He knew it and helped cover it up.

This is the USA and there is still reasonable doubt that Paterno ordered a coverup. While you are entitled to your belief, so am I and the others who want to wait and find out for sure before rushing to judgement and throwing a great man into the coals.

reclegend22;1231167 wrote:throwing a great man into the coals.

That "great man" has been accused by a grand jury as well as an independent investigator of covering up child rape.

I would expect a Duke fan to be a moron, but get your head out of their asses.

dlazz;1231173 wrote:That "great man" has been accused by a grand jury as well as an independent investigator of covering up child rape.

I would expect a Duke fan to be a moron, but get your head out of their asses.

Paterno hasn't been charged by anyone, let alone a grand jury, for anything. Return when you have something factual.

reclegend22;1231174 wrote:Paterno hasn't been charged by anyone

Being dead helps to fight charges. Return when you have a valid point.

dlazz;1231182 wrote:Being dead helps to fight charges. Return when you have a valid point.

Could I be wrong? Could Paterno have been directly involved in a coverup? Yes. Could you also be wrong (however a distant possibility you may think it to be) and the emails not actually be in reference to what Louis Freeh assumed them to be in his report, making Paterno not guilty of a coverup? Yes. But you can't admit that possibility.

The fact is, the report is not definitive. That cannot be debated.

gosh a ruddies it was definitive for ncaa and it seem like its pretty definitive for psu itself.

isadore;1231190 wrote:gosh a ruddies it was definitive for ncaa and it seem like its pretty definitive for psu itself.

From a perception standpoint, I absolutely understand why the NCAA did what they did (or are going to do tomorrow morning). The same for PSU with regarding to removing the statue. It ultimately had do be done, simply to restore order and move on.

a perception created by the overwhelming evidence produced by the freeh report.

Yes, there is what I would call a great deal of evidence that would seem to be against Paterno. But it is not conclusive. There is still a chance that Paterno was telling the truth, and that is why I am taking the position I am. I understand that you can't understand that, and that's fine.

he has been weighed in the balance and found wanting
he has been convicted by PSU the institution previously most committed to the legend.
no more paternoville
statue removed
have to see how long his name stays on the library

isadore;1231199 wrote:he has been weighed in the balance and found wanting
he has been convicted by PSU the institution previously most committed to the legend.
no more paternoville
statue removed
have to see how long his name stays on the library

Prez said it's staying because that represents his emphasis on academics. Doubt he changes his mind there.

Isadore, so you only believe opinions when they help your case? i.e. the freeh report?

gosh a ruddies
report commissioned by psu that indicts psu
done by seemingly very qualified investigators with no particular commitment for or against those being investigated'
took over 400 witnesses
check millions of document

isadore;1231211 wrote: gosh a ruddies
report commissioned by psu that indicts psu
done by seemingly very qualified investigators with no particular commitment for or against those being investigated'
took over 400 witnesses
check millions of document

retarded
report commissioned by psu, which wanted to deflect responsibility from the board and administration and onto Paterno for a coverup
Freeh was paid by above people who commissioned the report they wanted
took over 400 witnesses, none of which were actually involved in the alleged coverup or responsible for the emails that the entire report is based off of
checked millions of documents, but the only information that is of any real relevance is the two emails and they are entirely inconclusive and offer no real facts

Got it.

You got it, good since the Freeh report libeled Paterno I'm sure his family will sue them.

I'm not sure what is worse, that this "legend" was complicit in Sandusky's actions or he's the biggest moron in the history of all of sports. Did Paterno have an IQ of 15? I mean seriously, what is the alternative?

reclegend22;1231217 wrote:retarded
report commissioned by psu, which wanted to deflect responsibility from the board and administration and onto Paterno for a coverup
Freeh was paid by above people who commissioned the report they wanted
took over 400 witnesses, none of which were actually involved in the alleged coverup or responsible for the emails that the entire report is based off of
checked millions of documents, but the only information that is of any real relevance is the two emails and they are entirely inconclusive and offer no real facts

Got it.

jay, the world knows the truth. they accept the Freeh report, the statue is down, the sanctions begin. Of all the stupid claims is the one that they did not question any of those involved. of course joe took the ultimate dodge, you can not subpoena someone from hell. and duh in fact the others could not be forced to incriminate themselves. Hell when they come to trial they can not be forced to testify either.
The investigator have shown with the emails and testimony how paterno and the gang took no action in 98, paterno lead coverup in 2001. then stood by as Sandusky continued to rape boys. as the world knows now because of the Freeh report.

Manhattan Buckeye;1231224 wrote:You got it, good since the Freeh report libeled Paterno I'm sure his family will sue them.

I'm not sure what is worse, that this "legend" was complicit in Sandusky's actions or he's the biggest moron in the history of all of sports. Did Paterno have an IQ of 15? I mean seriously, what is the alternative?

The alternative is that Paterno was simply too old to hold the position of what basically amounted to CEO of Penn State football. By 1998 he was already in his early 70s. I just don't think he was on top of the big picture at that point and was pretty much limited to staying on top of football-specific matters. I've already stated that I think Paterno should have retired well over a decade ago. He just wasn't capable of handling it all and being the all-encompassing presence that Penn State needed him to be. Perhaps there was some senility there.

As for what happened in 2001, I think that Paterno, since it is my believe that he wasn't aware of any previous investigation, simply couldn't come to grips with the fact that Jerry Sandusky could have been raping children. Despite not believing -- or wanting to believe -- that Sandusky was capable of such crimes, Paterno did what was required of him and reported the incident reported to him by Mike McQueary to Mr. Shultz and Mr. Curley. Trusting them, Paterno would then naturally have believed that his superiors had taken care of the situation. They probably even alerted Paterno that they had contacted campus police and also talked with Sandusky and that all checked out. It was a misunderstanding. Paterno moves on. Remember, Shultz and Curley, who knew of the '98 investigation, were already informed the first time by state police that Sandusky was not guilty of anything and that the alleged '98 incident was not factual. My belief is that they rested on this and just wanted it to all go away.

What I believe Paterno and the rest were all guilty of is believing that ignorance is bliss and hoping that McQueary had been mistaken. It's sad it happened, but people make terrible mistakes sometimes. This is one of those terrible, terrible mistakes. And, in one way or another, all of them are paying for it.