Say it ain't so, Joe

[bosrs1]

Really? The school actually let their ignorant little punk students create something like that?

Yeah. Have you ever set foot in a student bookstore at a major state school before?

Yeah, never seen anything that asinine before even at Cal.

[dfwabel]

I kind of want to say something, but it would venture into the "dfwabel has become more of a downer than BBTV" and stray from the "Paterno/PSU is a creepy, horrible thing."

Just say it, I really do not care.

If this Penn State case concerning 'state action' destroys the NCAA, I would appreciate what those at Penn State did. Most of us would agree that the NCAA system is broken. Any cause which could impact the NCAA's oversight I am in favor of, especially if it involves 'state action'.

Then you have a seriously messed up sense of priorities.

Some school needs to stand up to the NCAA, It could be Penn State or Montana, but when WVU just throws a six year/$20M contract out on a coach who has public issues, then the system is still a sham since a player can take a trip to Bristol, yet as they when are a freshman and get a meal from their roommate's parents is a possible violation.

[BBTV]

If Joe Paterno is like Craster, who is Sandusky? Ramsay Bolton?

Maybe Gregor Clegane, since he has a history of hurting children (and then raping their moms with their brains still on his hands.) In terms of just being a bad guy, I dunno - maybe Vargo Hoat?

Paterno might be Jeor Mormont, who looked the other way while Craster gave baby boys to the Others, and also looked the other way whenever the crows would sneak out to the brothels in Mole Town. Maybe Craster would be a better Sandusky.

[Sport]

That shirt is from a company called Smack Apparel. It's right up there alley.

http://www.smackapparel.com/Default.aspx

[IceCap]

I kind of want to say something, but it would venture into the "dfwabel has become more of a downer than BBTV" and stray from the "Paterno/PSU is a creepy, horrible thing."

Just say it, I really do not care.

If this Penn State case concerning 'state action' destroys the NCAA, I would appreciate what those at Penn State did. Most of us would agree that the NCAA system is broken. Any cause which could impact the NCAA's oversight I am in favor of, especially if it involves 'state action'.

Then you have a seriously messed up sense of priorities.

Some school needs to stand up to the NCAA....

You missed my point entirely.

Penn State has no room to complain about the sanctions levied against them. They essentially aided and abetted a rapist for a decade. At the very least. The NCAA, as flawed as it may be, is in the right here. So no, I don't want to see Penn State appeal this and win, thus "destroying the NCAA" because it would only validate a group of delusional morons who placed winning football games ahead of the safety of children. Whatever you may think of the NCAA, they're not the ones who turned a blind eye to rape. Penn State did.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, this isn't exactly the poster child against the NCAA you're looking for.

[Lights Out]

If this Penn State case concerning 'state action' destroys the NCAA, I would appreciate what those at Penn State did.

Never mind those kids, as long as the NCAA gets destroyed... solid logic.

[bosrs1]

Looks like the board of trustees as a full group are about to put a crimp in the rogue board members appeals and potential lawsuits. The full board is meeting Sunday and is expected to formally ratify the sanctions including the clause that they are not appealable and binding.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8251823/penn-state-nittany-lions-sources-penn-state-expected-ratify-sanctions

Nice to see sensibility is finally taking hold in Happy Valley.

[B-Rich]

Looks like the board of trustees as a full group are about to put a crimp in the rouge board members appeals and potential lawsuits.

Are those the communist board members? Or are they the ones who wear a lot of make-up?

[bosrs1]

Looks like the board of trustees as a full group are about to put a crimp in the rogue board members appeals and potential lawsuits.

Are those the communist board members? Or are they the ones who wear a lot of make-up?

I'm sure you've never typed something too fast before

[BBTV]

If this Penn State case concerning 'state action' destroys the NCAA, I would appreciate what those at Penn State did.

Never mind those kids, as long as the NCAA gets destroyed... solid logic.

I know people have fun bashing dfwabel, but I'm not sure that backing a school's potential decision to challenge a corrupt governing body equals not caring about abuse victims or being insensitive towards them. Accepting the sanctions does nothing for the kids (with the possible exception of the $60 M), and only really buys the school some much needed good PR. I believe he's simply stating that he would appreciate the challenge, not appreciate the cover up that lead to this.

If it's me, I probably don't challenge just because they really don't need even the slightest bit of negative PR piled on to what they've already earned, however I can understand the rationale of feeling the need to challenge a body that might be overstepping it's boundaries, and doing what's best for the current students (and believe it or not, they still do have an obligation to the people who attend there and even to those who donate there) and try whatever they can to keep generating revenue to fund things (though I'll admit to having no idea how football money gets used for anything.) Again, not what I would probably do, but still a reasonable course of action. Boards of publicly-traded companies have an obligation to their shareholders first and foremost, which often times leads to un-PR-friendly decisions (drug companies deciding to fight lawsuits instead of pulling a drug because it's less expensive to kill people and pay off families than it would be to eliminate the revenue all together, etc.) I'm not sure that the board of a school is all that different (with the clear distinction being that the board of a school also has more of an obligation to demonstrate the values that it supposedly holds their students up to, which in a case like this creates an obvious conflict.)

Really - people read an opinion that's anything other than "should have been death penalty for program and then death penalty for 100 students" and just go into flame mode.

[rams80]

If this Penn State case concerning 'state action' destroys the NCAA, I would appreciate what those at Penn State did.

Never mind those kids, as long as the NCAA gets destroyed... solid logic.

I know people have fun bashing dfwabel, but I'm not sure that backing a school's potential decision to challenge a corrupt governing body equals not caring about abuse victims or being insensitive towards them. Accepting the sanctions does nothing for the kids (with the possible exception of the $60 M), and only really buys the school some much needed good PR. I believe he's simply stating that he would appreciate the challenge, not appreciate the cover up that lead to this.

If it's me, I probably don't challenge just because they really don't need even the slightest bit of negative PR piled on to what they've already earned, however I can understand the rationale of feeling the need to challenge a body that might be overstepping it's boundaries, and doing what's best for the current students (and believe it or not, they still do have an obligation to the people who attend there and even to those who donate there) and try whatever they can to keep generating revenue to fund things (though I'll admit to having no idea how football money gets used for anything.) Again, not what I would probably do, but still a reasonable course of action. Boards of publicly-traded companies have an obligation to their shareholders first and foremost, which often times leads to un-PR-friendly decisions (drug companies deciding to fight lawsuits instead of pulling a drug because it's less expensive to kill people and pay off families than it would be to eliminate the revenue all together, etc.) I'm not sure that the board of a school is all that different (with the clear distinction being that the board of a school also has more of an obligation to demonstrate the values that it supposedly holds their students up to, which in a case like this creates an obvious conflict.)

Really - people read an opinion that's anything other than "should have been death penalty for program and then death penalty for 100 students" and just go into flame mode.

Additionally Penn State may have a modest bone to pick with the NCAA as in the few weeks since Mark Emmert went all "New Sheriff in Town" on them the NCAA's made a couple of rulings that are...inconsistent...with that notion.

Namely Central Florida only got a year's postseason ban in football and basketball plus comparatively trifling scholarship reductions despite having their Athletic Director himself (that's right...no middlemen, no rogue boosters, the AD himself) pay a street agent to steer recruits to the school (somewhat successfully at that). (There's also the whole "George O'Leary: Player Killer and Heartless Arsehole" Issue.)

Meanwhile North Carolina, in addition to their other impermissible benefits issues that netted them sanctions including a one year postseason vacation in football, it has been revealed that football and basketball players weren't so much steered to comparatively easy courses as they were steered to classes that might as well have been fictitious except for the part where the players get "A's" and course credit on their transcripts. The NCAA announced there would be no additional penalties.

In both of these cases there is no dispute at all about the NCAA's jurisdiction and both of these represent fairly serious assaults on what the NCAA has historically considered to be its core mandate. UCF pretty much shoots the notion of amateurism in the head and UNC represents a fairly egregious case of academic fraud. Annnnd...slaps on the wrist get handed out for them.

Meanwhile the NCAA abandons its typical due process for punishing members in a case where they have debatable jurisdiction and hands out a punishment that, if the death penalty = Hiroshima, is the Tokyo fire bombing raid of penalties. Yes, what Penn State did was very criminally bad from a moral and ethical standpoint, but what UCF and UNC did is pretty bad from the perspective of the NCAA's core mandate and they didn't get anywhere close to what Penn State got.

So, yes, Penn State has a very real, if modest, reason to complain about the sanctions.

[dfwabel]

Additionally Penn State may have a modest bone to pick with the NCAA as in the few weeks since Mark Emmert went all "New Sheriff in Town" on them the NCAA's made a couple of rulings that are...inconsistent...with that notion.

Namely Central Florida only got a year's postseason ban in football and basketball plus comparatively trifling scholarship reductions despite having their Athletic Director himself (that's right...no middlemen, no rogue boosters, the AD himself) pay a street agent to steer recruits to the school (somewhat successfully at that). (There's also the whole "George O'Leary: Player Killer and Heartless Arsehole" Issue.)

Meanwhile North Carolina, in addition to their other impermissible benefits issues that netted them sanctions including a one year postseason vacation in football, it has been revealed that football and basketball players weren't so much steered to comparatively easy courses as they were steered to classes that might as well have been fictitious except for the part where the players get "A's" and course credit on their transcripts. The NCAA announced there would be no additional penalties.

In both of these cases there is no dispute at all about the NCAA's jurisdiction and both of these represent fairly serious assaults on what the NCAA has historically considered to be its core mandate. UCF pretty much shoots the notion of amateurism in the head and UNC represents a fairly egregious case of academic fraud. Annnnd...slaps on the wrist get handed out for them.

Meanwhile the NCAA abandons its typical due process for punishing members in a case where they have debatable jurisdiction and hands out a punishment that, if the death penalty = Hiroshima, is the Tokyo fire bombing raid of penalties. Yes, what Penn State did was very criminally bad from a moral and ethical standpoint, but what UCF and UNC did is pretty bad from the perspective of the NCAA's core mandate and they didn't get anywhere close to what Penn State got.

So, yes, Penn State has a very real, if modest, reason to complain about the sanctions.

That has been my point ever since the sanctions were announced. There are other avenues for "justice" and the civil and criminal courts are the major ones. Accreditation could also be another route, but that still does not call on the NCAA.

'rams80' and I have been mentioning the issues at UNC and Montana numerous times, but they sadly get overshadowed by those who want Penn State and Miami shut down.

Most of you do not realize it but those who are currently HS freshmen and younger, the NCAA will strengthen the academic requirements for the incoming class of 2016. Some of the logic is just, but when you hear the NCAA staff talk about the measures and their impact, they sound as if they are wanting to create/establish/dictate what secondary schools teach and when as well as trying to reign in other "amateur" federations like the AAU.

[RyanB06]

Remember those rumors about Sandusky and Second Mile pawning off kids to wealthy Penn State donors?

They may not be rumors after all.

[bosrs1]

Remember those rumors about Sandusky and Second Mile pawning off kids to wealthy Penn State donors?

They may not be rumors after all.

God I hope this ends up not being true. It's bad enough what PSU has done so far. This is just getting absurd if this ends up being true.

[BBTV]

Remember those rumors about Sandusky and Second Mile pawning off kids to wealthy Penn State donors?

They may not be rumors after all.

New explosive child sexual abuse charges against Jerry Sandusky and Penn State

I never realized Penn State was being charged with child sexual abuse. I'm not one to argue with Radar online.com though.

[RyanB06]

Remember those rumors about Sandusky and Second Mile pawning off kids to wealthy Penn State donors?

They may not be rumors after all.

New explosive child sexual abuse charges against Jerry Sandusky and Penn State

I never realized Penn State was being charged with child sexual abuse. I'm not one to argue with Radar online.com though.

"Sandusky, 68, was the defensive coordinator for Penn State and was accused of sexually abusing 10 boys during 15 years. Many of the victims were from the Second Mile charity, which Sandusky founded to help troubled youth."

Same difference. :|

[GFB]

Something still isn't right here. Ok, follow my thinking for a minute. If PSU knew about the alleged incidents involving Sandusky back in '98, why not just come out with it? Just turn the pervert in, wash your hands of it, and go back to being Penn State. Sure, your reputation would take a hit, but you could play the "shocked and appalled" card and get the media and press on your side and move along relatively quickly. (And no, I don't believe "fear of JoePa" is enough reason for starting a university-wide cover-up). It doesn't add up...

...UNLESS, PSU knew that if they came out with it then, people will start digging into the story and find that this goes much deeper than Jerry Sandusky. Or, at the very least, Sandusky had some real juicy dirt back then on some pretty important people...

There's too much smoke here for my liking... You see a DA who vanished into thin air. You read stuff like this: http://gratewire.com/topic/sandusky-scandal-tied-to-philly-pedophile-network... Unfortunately, I think this may go way, way deeper than anyone realized.

[The_Admiral]

I think it's going to be that Penn State and The Second Mile were more financially entwined than they should have been. That's what's so annoying about this "there were only four people involved" canard. You don't pull this off with just four people.

[dfwabel]

Something still isn't right here. Ok, follow my thinking for a minute. If PSU knew about the alleged incidents involving Sandusky back in '98, why not just come out with it? Just turn the pervert in, wash your hands of it, and go back to being Penn State. Sure, your reputation would take a hit, but you could play the "shocked and appalled" card and get the media and press on your side and move along relatively quickly. (And no, I don't believe "fear of JoePa" is enough reason for starting a university-wide cover-up). It doesn't add up...

...UNLESS, PSU knew that if they came out with it then, people will start digging into the story and find that this goes much deeper than Jerry Sandusky. Or, at the very least, Sandusky had some real juicy dirt back then on some pretty important people...

There's too much smoke here for my liking... You see a DA who vanished into thin air. You read stuff like this: http://gratewire.com...hile-network... Unfortunately, I think this may go way, way deeper than anyone realized.

Well to add to the Penn Conspiracy, you could look at how:

1- Spanier asked the state open records law not to include Penn State.

2- Sara Ganim (a PSU graduate) went on CBS's "Face The Nation" and called Penn State, "the Kremlin" in terms of getting information.

However, the McMartin Trial turned out to not be what it was called out to be and there also was a story. And there was a much bigger headline in 1989 which became to be false.