I think that would be a good start to a confession bear.
"Rodrick Williams Jr.'s 10-month old, 2-foot-long savannah monitor named "Kill" gets the RB some strange looks when they go for walks together."
I think that would be a good start to a confession bear.
Or have children
So you are going to punish people who had absolutely nothing to do with this scandal just because they wanted to go to a top university? What the hell is wrong with you?
If anything else comes up that is really bad, is it not out of the question to vote them out of the B1G?
Is this the kind of school that the B1G wants to associate with? That puts football before the safety of children and now medical care of football players?
I still think the B1G made a huge ass mistake not taking louisville before the ACC grabbed them. Too late now. Now all they're left to do is pick the dead carcass of the AAC.
Louisville's academics are shit, you would be contradicting yourself if you wanted Louisville added. Adding them would completely be based off of football. The Big Ten is only interested in adding AAU schools because academics is a big priority.
Louisville? Vomit. Awful choice. Vanderbilt's a better candidate than Rutgers or Maryland ever was. Or if we're going to pick up more punching bags for football, why not Virginia?
B1G got maryland and rutgers, who nobody cares about. Delany thinks it is the NY market cares about rutgers when they really don't care at all.
And the ACC got louisville. Who just destroyed an SEC team in a bowl game and won the national title in basketball and has a top-10 baseball team.
What exactly is maryland and rutgers good at again?
When did I defend the Maryland and Rutgers decisions? Those were horrible decisions as well.
Louisville was good at football last year, but are not historically great and once Charlie Strong gets hired away somewhere, they'll probably be mediocre. In addition, Louisville won't expand the market, either...as there's just not much market where Louisville fans reside.
Good job avoiding the academic issues entirely, which is likely the very first filter applied to candidate expansion schools.
Maybe it's just me but I think this is all about the money. If the chance was there, Alabama or Vanderbilt, who do you they'd take?
I'm thinking bama or I want out of this sinking ship.
other than I don't think you understand how the Big Ten works.
Yeah, obviously academics where the big reason we added Nebraska first. The Harvard of the Corn, as thy say.
They were an AAU member and lost membership for a stupid reason. Look up...I said academics were a FILTER, not the be-all, end-all criteria. I do enjoy the straw man arguments tossed my direction thus far, though.
Louisville isn't even close to being an AAU member.
Are you kidding? You'd take a damn commuter school into our ranks for the sake of a football and basketball team? Louisville academics are garbage, and they shouldn't be allowed in the Big Ten.
More trouble for Penn State.
Yet they will inexplicably still be able to recruit 4-stars who will never be able to play in a bowl game.
You have to give them credit, they're selling tickets for a sunk ship and people are still lining up for the cruise.
I would like to remove them from the B1G.
I haven't seen that the SI story is out yet, but the Times-Tribune (Scranton's paper, I think) provides some information about what might possibly be in there (LINK). There is some discussion apparently of Tim Bream's actions:
"But the allegations against head athletic trainer Tim Bream were perhaps the most damning in the article. Several unnamed sources told SI that Bream administered several drugs to players -- the anti-inflammatory Voltaren -- without physician approval. Bream does not have a medical degree, according to the report. In addition, former walk-on receiver Garrett Lerner told SI that he suffered to burns on his right leg when Bream misused an electrical stimulation machine while treating him."
It also mentions that there have been investigations into the allegations against Bream for some time, but the conclusion of those interviews and inquiries reportedly did not find evidence or reports of overstepping the bounds of care.
But really the rest just seems like employer-employee issues and office politics. Maybe not something you want to go public but not really anything bad. No one would care if it wasn't at Penn State that GASP guys who didn't like each other parted ways when one of them became the other's boss.
The overstepping medical care bounds is maybe the (smaller) headline, but it's buried among all the other silly stuff.
The Sandusky issue was obviously a PSU-specific one, but based on the limited info available this feels like an issue with a particular doctor or medical staff which, I'm guessing, happens at other schools. I mean, sometimes people change positions and that can lead to changes in procedures or protocols that may appear, at least to outsiders, as a drop or degradation in quality. I have a hard time believing, though, that PSU's suddenly treating its athletes worse in terms of medical care. This might be a bunch of secondary and anonymous sources, but I'll withhold judgment until the report comes out.
This seems pretty much like a non-story. The only part that makes it potentially story-worthy is that they are doing this to save money, which is how every AD operates.
I was expecting him to have been fired because he wouldn't agree to put athletes back in games when they had concussions or something. MSM gets us again with sensational headlines.
Did PSU give a reason for replacing the doctor? It sounded like there was a conflict between the trainer and the doctor that O'Brien and Joyner decided by replacing the doctor.
Before reading the summary, I thought that the doctor was fired for refusing to allow players with concussions play or something along those lines. The headline talks about athletes having too much power and all of the power exertion seems to have come from the AD and HC.
It asks whether "athletics" have too much power at PSU, not "athletes".
In other news, the sun came up in the East.
There is absolutely no reason for a surgeon to be at practice--they don't practice emergency medicine, and the family practice guy is just as capable. For safety, I imagine an EMT is actually better qualified to stabilize a spinal injury or handle a concussion.
People's insurance companies do this kind of thing to them all the time, and SI doesn't get its knickers in a knot about that.
We shouldn't either.
I feel bad for the Penn State students and alums who all realize there's a problem with the leadership and feel sick to their stomachs about it. I know a lot of morons were out defending everyone but Sandusky, but there's probably a heck of a lot more people who are like you and me and are humiliated by how poorly their school has been run. I know I'd feel miserable if Michigan had this much crap going on
Via PSU: "Contrary to the reporter's assertions, Dr. Sebastianelli remains the doctor in charge of the University's entire medical program for intercollegiate athletics, including football. Further, there has been no change in the support provided by State College-based Penn State orthopedic surgeons, including Dr. Sebastianelli."
Just sayin it's all about do we feel bad for them. I'm torn how to approach the story. It would never make the newstand nationally if it wasn't about PSU. However, I know high schools who have Orthapedic surgeons on the sideline at all events, so I think PSU seems to be slighting something. It isn't like the school is broke, so why would they not be able to hire a new OS if the old one and AD were fighting.
Heck I'm sure you could get one OS a week to volunteer at the games at the minimum. Seems like the idea about sports ruling the budget is winning, but I think the personal battle amongst egos is the largest issue here.
But I'm biased
Hail to the Victors (and Pitt)
ESPN could learn a thing or two from this investigative reporting stufff