"It's not about last year or who's here or who's isn't here," says your head coach. "It's about getting out here and competing and seeing who is here, and that's where we're gonna go."
The story which never seems to end is back in the news. The Paterno family and certain other trustees are suing the NCAA over the Freeh report, etc. What is interesting is that Penn State itself is not part of the suit. Bob Costas was to have had a segment on the suit last night, but I didn't see it.
The suit is designed "to redress the NCAA's 100 percent adoption of the Freeh Report and imposition of a binding consent decree against Penn State University. The reality is that consent decree was imposed through coercion and threats behind the scenes and there was no ability for anyone to get redress," Sollers told Costas.
Note: I assume this is not OT as it is B1G-related.
Paterno family has released their own investigation today (in coordination with ESPN as it seems since they did such a great job with Te'o).
You can read about it here
And surprise, surprise, they find Paterno completely innocent of all allegation, scouts honor.
The "report" basically is a what a defense attorney would argue if this was tried as a criminal case in a court of law. They are arguing that none of the evidence the Freeh Report is beyond reasonable doubt. Which is correct since Freeh Report was never meant to be beyond a reasonable doubt. It was more like a Civil Case conclusion where you just need more than likely as the basis. Shift the goalpost and it is easier to score, go figure.
Here are parts of the new report pretty much says all you need to know
There is another troublesome email implicating Coach Paterno that the Paterno family experts challenge. In February 2001, Spanier, Schultz and Curley met to figure out an action plan about the McQueary allegation that he saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the shower. The options, according to Schultz's notes: report it to the Pennsylvania Department of Child Welfare, tell the chairman of the board of Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile, and tell Sandusky "to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg."
Two days later, Curley reported he had changed his mind about the action plan "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday." Curley decided to talk with Sandusky: If Sandusky was cooperative, they would inform The Second Mile, and not alert authorities. And if he was not cooperative, Curley said then, "We don't have a choice and will inform the authorities."
Spanier agreed to this approach, saying, "The only downside for us if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
All three of the Paterno family's experts say this single email is insufficient grounds for Freeh to have concluded that Paterno conspired to cover up the 2001 incident. "The report falls glaringly short of suggesting, let alone proving, any concealment by Mr. Paterno," Thornburgh writes in the report.
Insufficient? By whose standard? Seems pretty damning to most people who read it. If I say it is a cold day today, I think these people would also argue that that statement is insufficient to conclude that today is cold
I am sure the folks at Black Shoe Diaries are celebrating this "report" like a Fourth of July today.
Is it still too late to kick them out of our conference?
Not much to see here, I think we all knew that he was going to get an effective life-sentence, him being 68, and he did, but thought it was worth mentioning since it is pretty major, if totally sordid, CFB news.
He repeated his claims of innocence, FWIW.
I know we just want this to be over, but I thought this should be covered, because it's new PSU stupidity. If you don't want to hear anymore about it, stop reading now. At this point, you have to wonder how much more PSU's athletic department can take.
I'm not sure if these are two independent suits, or flipsides of the same suit, but it reads like they are independent, which I think would make sense. They can be filed independently, and then that gives him two shots to win. Can an MGoLawyer confirm if that makes sense? Filing two separate lawsuits that each have the same final aim if there is a separate legal tennent for filing each one?
Evidently, McQueary was shocked to find out he was the ONLY member of the football coaching staff A: not offered a chance to interview for his old job under the new head coach, and B: to not have his legal fees covered by the university.
Now, the legal fees thing might not have merrit, because as I recall, McQueary electeed to get his own laywer rather than be represented by the university, because he feared the legal association (I could be wrong on that. I can't find a source that confirms it). However, if the univeristy paid for anybody else's independent lawyers, then that ones got legs.
The other issue, not being interviewed for his old job under a new coach, leaves them with no legal recourse, I think. If they had made a clean break, and told everybody from the old staff, "We're cleaning house, 100%", they might be okay. But to only leave him out? Do they not have a legal staff in their HR department over there?
Seeking: $4 Million, Legal Fees
In this case, McQueary states that the Three Stooges - Spanier, Curley and Shulltz, worked together in public and behind university closed doors to discredit McQueary and make him a scapegoat and clearly indicated on several occasions that McQueary was a liar. He claims that this has ruined his reputation for honesty and dedication in the local and higher-education communities.
Seeking: $4 Million, Reinstatement, Lost Bowl Bonus, Legal Fees, Back Pay and Benefits
Well folks, we hadn't heard from the Paterno family for a few days, but fear not, they are back at it. This time, they are requesting a review of the NCAA sanctions. Where this could lead is somewhat interesting in that they seem to be able, depending upon how the NCAA responds, to take them to court.
I believe this isthe pertinent portion of their position and where it might lead:
"Sollers argues in the letter that the NCAA was wrong to suspend its usual infractions committee procedures and accept the findings of the Penn State-commissioned Freeh Report. The report by former FBI director Louis B. Freeh found that Paterno, former Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz concealed the activities of Sandusky, who was convicted by a jury on June 22 of 45 counts of child sexual abuse.
NCAA spokesman Bob Williams did not immediately respond to a request for a comment. But if the NCAA rejects the request for an appeal hearing, the Paterno family could use the request as the basis for legal action against the NCAA."
/Edit I also came across a very interesting piece on the negotiations between Penn State and the NCAA - long but worth the read: