I haven't used the word FUBAR since high school, but I think it's time for a one-day comeback.
I haven't used the word FUBAR since high school, but I think it's time for a one-day comeback.
have the authority to appeal the decision in the 1st place?
Is that they have the authority to issue a pissy press release, and maybe to send a pissy letter to the NCAA.
That's about it.
They could bring an action against the Board itself, if they really think the Board violated its own by-laws when they approved the consent decree.
What they or their attorneys think they're doing by going after the NCAA is a mystery.
Here's an idea: let's not kick them out of the conference because that would be doing them a favor. Instead, let them play teams they'll have a serious talent disadvantage against. Kick them while they're down instead of letting them rebuild their program by competing in the Big East or some other shitty conference.
during their appeals process.
It's the NCAA's fault.
I was and still am in the "burn it down camp", but what I don't like is that there is no way for the school to get time off "for good behavior". That's probably a bad choice of words. Let me explain...
Here in the commonwealth, when a city needs to be declared bankrupt, such as Scranton or Harrisburg, it is put into conservatorship by the state. That means that it is run by people who (allegedly) will ignore the political entanglements to get the city functioning and on the proper path financially. I think, but am not certain, that Detroit is currently operating under this arrangement as well.
I would like to see the NCAA lay out a path for PSU to get back into the good graces of the NCAA/B10. I also believe the Commonwealth should either take the school into receivership or cut ties completely to make it a private school. I think that the NCAA/B10/Commonwealth could come up with a plan that would make any punishment for CURRENT people involved with the school/program more graduated.
No matter how much bluster, they aren't getting kicked out of the B10. There's too much money involved. But, just like a family member who has taken to drugs/drinking the B10 can lead the way to make sure this never happens again at one if its institutions while rehabilitating the school.
if the timeframe was longer than four seasons. If there were a twenty year bowl ban (a really, really long bond issue) it would make more sense to have a shortcut in the punishment, but what could Penn State possibly do in the next three years to earn a bowl/ten scholarships in the fourth?
I believe that as it has been doled out now they could do nothing and at the end of 4years things would be no different than if thye were in 100% compliance. That bothers me.
My son's girlfriend played in a soccer tournament there last weekend. On the way in and while I sat there I realized that there are going to be a lot of small businesses destroyed over these next few years. The mom & pop businesses who put everything into starting their own business will lose everything.
I don't want leniency, I want to see the process and culture changed which is something I don't think can happen unless the school goes into some sort of receivership. And if it does go that route, I'd like to see some benefit for them getting their shit togetther.
Could an MGolawyer explain the whole due process argument here?
Bottom line: there IS no due process argument.
Someone cited a case on due process and the NCAA earlier in this thread. This is the link to the case. It isn't terribly difficult for non-lawyers to understand.
Procedural due process (i.e. the right to a fair hearing/trial) must be met when the government takes life, liberty or property. Since the government has not done anything to Penn State they have no right to due process.
People may be trying to actually argue that the NCAA has procedures it ignored. However, it is unlikely the ordinary procedures used (notice of infranctons etc.) are mandatory for the NCAA to take action. Furthermore, what happened to Penn State was a settlement. They could have gone through the process at their own risk.
This is what i dont understand. If PSU truly feels they have been wronged cant they simply say we no longer wish to be part off the NCAA and stop playing sports? As I understand it the NCAA is a "club" for lack of a better term, and the "club" said if you want to still part of our club you've got to pay a shit-ton of money to us, stop being good at football for quite a while and lay low in the post season for about half a decade or more.
Don't like it? Leave the club! But if you still want to play sports with others in the club either pay up or shut up.
Jesus I hate PSU. I dislike MSU. I really dislike Notre Dame and I really REALLY dislike OSU but I HATE, HATE, HATE PSU now and probably always will.
IMO is kind of shameful for Penn State to appeal the sanctions. A loose translation..."We are sorry for what happened to those young boys, just not THAT sorry". They should just suck it up and take their lumps.
Also, the Paterno family needs to quit making dumbass statements and just let it go.
then drop the banhammer. Good riddance.
has Penn State always been like this?
Just since 1966.
as the Mayor vs. the City Council in Detroit politics..... Mayor looks out out for the best interest of the city and acccepts the Governors consent agreement.. then members of the council run around trying to sabotage the hell out of everything...... The President was looking out for the best interest of PSU by saying we accept the NCAA's version of a consent decree... now board of trustee members are saying... oh no..... (Clay Davis style... sheeeeeeeettttt)
Fair comparison, but no politics please...
Eh... I think reasonable minds can differ on whether there was any politics at all in that post. I sure didn't read it that way (ie just because it involves politicians does not make it politics).
Well The select minority of PSU BOT has thrown a hot flaming potato into the ongoing controversy. These diehard supporters of the football team, and presumably Joe Paterno, just don't know when to quit or leave well enough alone.
Since the governor sits on the BOT ex officio, he must not be happy about this, since he may receive collateral damage.
As for the rest of Penn State, the longer anyone resists, the more likely that NCAA may choose to revisit the disciplinary actions and increase them, including the death penalty!
It's like the four are saying, please sir, can I have some more!
Be careful for what you say, because you may get the attention you deserve.
Even before this latest development, the governor was already being blamed for somehow orchestrating the BoT's actions in firing Paterno, et al as part of a political vendetta:
Why did Tom Corbett herd the PSU Board of Trustees into rash firings of top administration and athletic department people? PA Governor Tom Corbett was a political enemy of PSU President Graham Spanier. Spanier publicly campaigned for Corbett's opponent, Dan Onorato, in the gubernatorial campaign. Corbett, upon being elected, immediately tried to cut PSU appropriations by 57%. His fellow-Republicans joined Democrats in overturning this blatant display of prejudice and injustice in the PA budget. But Corbett, as governor, had another shot with the Sandusky deal. He had an automatic PSU Trusteeship, and in that capacity was a ringleader in blaming and then causing the firing of both Spanier and Paterno. PSU Diehards could point to clear circumstantial evidence that Corbett conspired with his cronies to deliberately lie, and then take a bully pulpit, to extract revenge on a political enemy. There is much more evidence that this occurred compared with the contents of the Freeh Report convicting PSU, which we get to next.
The above is from a fan post on BSD (aka Black Shoe Diaries, but if they keep this shit up should probably be known as Bat Shit Delusions) from nine days ago. It has been recommended by 43 other posters, and in the 90 comments, nobody challenges the sanity of making the above claim, but some posters do point out factual errors in the "manifesto."As other posters here have noted, many PSU fans are looking everywhere to find conspiracies to protect their sacred JoePa. In their view it seems they are being persecuted by a villianous governor, an incompetent report author (Freeh), a power hungry NCAA president, and other universities who are jealous of Penn State's football and academic success. The only thing missing is tinfoil hats.
Black Shoe Diaries is a cesspool.
The fact that he states the PA was "deliberately lying," rather than, you know, doing his job and trying to get a conviction, speaks volumes. McQueary stated that he believed that he saw the child was being raped, and the prosecuting attorney is trying to argue that Sandusky was guilty of raping children, ergo, he used said testimony. You'd have to either be delusional, or an idiot to not understand this. Sadly, PSU's fanbase have proven themselves to be a toxic mixture of both.
The part they are missing in their conspiracy rant is that it is equally plausible that Corbett was NOT acting politically, but rather exactly the opposite. In other words, that an argument (with just as much factual background as the BSD post - ie none, it's an opinion and an inference based upon the facts that we now know) could be made that the prior Governor (a political ally of Spanier) prevented Corbett from acting on this while Corbett was Attorney General. It's easy to try to make the "it's political" argument against Corbett, as BSD does, but it's just as easy to make the argument that the previous governor (from the opposite party and a friend of Spanier) tied his hands, and that only after becoming Governor he had the authority to act on what he learned as AG.
That's it, enough fucking around. I say the NCAA should give them the 4 year death penalty. It's pretty clear that their fans have learned nothing from this ordeal, and now that extends all the way to the PSU board of trustees. The NCAA tried to be reasonable, but Penn State is just asking to get axed in the face at this point.
Please forgive this, my second post on the topic.
I can only imagine what the other B1G presidents and Delany must be thinking about this latest grandstanding by PSU board members.
Michigan set the example for transparency and the correct way to handle an NCAA issue.
OSU showed the wrong way to do it.
But PSU is showing the way circus clowns handle an NCAA sanction. I almost expect them to pile out of a tiny car honking bicycle horns and wearing floppy shoes.
The term, "not in our league," really makes sense here.
I suspect every high-level administrator at a B1G school has had his or her issues with rogue trustees.
While this doesn't make Penn State look good (IMO) to the general public, I doubt other Big Ten presidents think this reflects on PSU in particular. It reflects on board governance that they all face, which sometimes is a bit ugly.
Hypothetical question here. If, during the upcoming perjury trials, evidence is produced that shows without a shadow of a doubt that Joe knew about Sandusky and was an active part of the the cover-up, how do you think the boys and girls at BSD will react? Today they hang their denial hat upon the premise that the report was somehow flawed and because people werent under oath they were free to lie. But if it comes out in court, under oath, that their Lord and Savior Joe Paterno WAS protecting a pedophile to keep his blessed football program from looking bad - what then?
Then Governor Corbett set up a show trial. It wouldn't be the first time people have lied under oath.
Have you considered the alternate side of your argument? What if it came out the Freeh Report was absolutely incorrect? What would MGoBlog do then?
Then I would do the same thing I did when faced with a similar situation in regards to our coaching staff. I supported RR to the death and HATED the Hoke hire. That is until I saw the change in results on the field (evidence) and have changed my mind completely on the two coaches.
So, if it turned out that Freeh Report was absolutely incorrect then I would change my mind about the entire situation.
But I'd be real surprised if it turned out that the ex-FBI chief, with ZERO vested in the outcome of his investigation, was that wrong.
Nice try Jay.
it's very hard to successfully prosecute a perjury charge, and if the jury finds the defendents innocent, or even hangs, it's going to be taken in some circles as an exoneration of Paterno no matter what evidence is brought forth in the trial.
as an opinion site, doesn't have to do anything. That said, I think the $65M was well spent and the report accurate. PSU doesn't like it because it shows their athletic dept, football program and senior leadership were at fault.
It sounds to me like a guy with a huge ego wants to make even more of a stink in the stench filled Unhappy Valley. Maybe the agreement did need board approval. But, it's obvious that settlement was the way to go. It's almost always the way to go.
Now, I bet this guy is privately getting his ego stroked, in an attempt to get him to drop the complaint. If that does not work, the majority will crush the minority, and excommunicate them from the PSU family.
Just what they did not need: acrimonious divisiveness.
They are a disgrace to the Big Ten..Kick them out.
Does anyone recall the football stadium renovation and the uproar by that nut case about it? There was a vocal minority of people who were against the renovation and many petitioned the Regents about the issue. You know what each Regent whom was up for reelection that fall said about the issue? Absolutely fucking nothing. They posted on their FAQs that they did not want an athletics issue to be used as a litmus test, and thus intentionally did not post their individual opinion.
Michigan, it seems, has grown-ups in charge, while Penn St has a number of meat heads runnign the show.
I hope this appeal progresses because it is going to bring to light only more bad facts for JoePa and the PSU administration who conspired to cover up Sandusky's crimes. I'd love to be the prosecutor handling this case.
JoePa’s handwritten notes on Sandusky's retirement contract are probably the most damning piece of evidence in the Report. They show that as early as 1999, Paterno was sufficiently aware of Sandusky’s status as a likely pedophile to jot down a note to this effect while reviewing Sandusky’s retirement contract. Think about this scenario for a minute—JoePa is reading a longtime colleague’s retirement contract and the salient fact that occupies his mind when reading the clause about ongoing facility access is: “Hey, this guy may try to abuse Second Mile kids in our facilities, so we better not let him bring the kids here.” This concern is so significant to JoePa that he actually writes it down in the margin of the contract. This is a remarkable fact that would have been the centerpiece of any criminal prosecution of, or civil trial against, JoePa.
Anyone who doesn’t recognize the damning import of JoePa’s note is delusional. When you combine this fact with McQueary’s eyewitness report to JoePa in February 2001, no rational person could conclude that JoePa did not have a reasonable basis to report Sandusky as a possible pedophile in 2001. Despite the apparently commonly held belief among PSU fans that the evidence against JoePa was miniscule, rest assured that the evidence Freeh found would have been sufficient to uphold a criminal conviction of Paterno for failure to report likely child abuse. It's a shame JoePa didn't live long enough to be cross-examined under oath about his notations and the other undisputed facts in the record.
I think it would suck.
You know the bastards are guilty and you've got a paper trail a mile long that will let you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt...except that the ringleader died before charges could be brought against him, PA's mandatory reporting law is as weak as can be and there's a chance it might be determined not even to apply to university presidents or athletic directors or football coaches, and even if it did the statute of limitations has run out, and now all you've got to charge them with is a single puny perjury count for lying to the Sandusky grand jury thirteen years after they started the coverup, a count you probably can't even make stick because you have to prove "specific intent to deceive" and they'll say they sure as hell didn't intend to deceive anyone but they didn't remember any of these e-mails or other evidence you've presented and it's a shame nobody came out with it before the grand jury proceedings because that would have jogged their memories and they would have been better able to respond to the questions....