Jump to content

Say it ain't so, Joe


Viper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well there you go. Penn State knew the report would air on CNN and they changed the channel.

But the channel they changed to was also supposed to run the news conference live, unless Penn State knew something that wasn't otherwise announced.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_state_university_jerry_sa.html

That's irrelevant. They always keep CNN on, and they knew CNN was showing the press conference. Why change the channel if you're ok with the airing of the press conference?

The "we changed it to another channel that was going to air it also but they didn't oops" story reads like a bad excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. Penn State knew the report would air on CNN and they changed the channel.

But the channel they changed to was also supposed to run the news conference live, unless Penn State knew something that wasn't otherwise announced.

http://www.lehighval...y_jerry_sa.html

That's irrelevant. They always keep CNN on, and they knew CNN was showing the press conference. Why change the channel if you're ok with the airing of the press conference?

The "we changed it to another channel that was going to air it also but they didn't oops" story reads like a bad excuse.

Well you cut out half of my post.

Still doesn't explain the need to change from one broadcast of it to another when it's not usually your policy to change channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. Penn State knew the report would air on CNN and they changed the channel.

But the channel they changed to was also supposed to run the news conference live, unless Penn State knew something that wasn't otherwise announced.

http://www.lehighval...y_jerry_sa.html

That's irrelevant. They always keep CNN on, and they knew CNN was showing the press conference. Why change the channel if you're ok with the airing of the press conference?

The "we changed it to another channel that was going to air it also but they didn't oops" story reads like a bad excuse.

Well you cut out half of my post.

Still doesn't explain the need to change from one broadcast of it to another when it's not usually your policy to change channels.

I was only addressing the part that delt with the "changed the channel" excuse because, well, it reads like that. A terrible excuse. Treating it as a viable version of events is giving it, and the university, more credit then it or they deserve.

The other part of your post was right on the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you have the Big Ten Network saying they didn't show it because they're not a news network. Or because they're a promotional arm of the Big Ten and this isn't a good way to promote it.

Well yeah, the Big Pravda Network routinely takes this stance whenever some scandal or another erupts.

For the record, that doesn't really bother me on any level beyond "the Big Ten Network is kind of annoying." I wouldn't expect them to provide comprehensive coverage of their own shortcomings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. Penn State knew the report would air on CNN and they changed the channel.

But the channel they changed to was also supposed to run the news conference live, unless Penn State knew something that wasn't otherwise announced.

http://www.lehighval...y_jerry_sa.html

That's irrelevant. They always keep CNN on, and they knew CNN was showing the press conference. Why change the channel if you're ok with the airing of the press conference?

The "we changed it to another channel that was going to air it also but they didn't oops" story reads like a bad excuse.

Well you cut out half of my post.

Still doesn't explain the need to change from one broadcast of it to another when it's not usually your policy to change channels.

I was only addressing the part that delt with the "changed the channel" excuse because, well, it reads like that. A terrible excuse. Treating it as a viable version of events is giving it, and the university, more credit then it or they deserve.

The other part of your post was right on the money.

This whole channel changing thing just has me baffled, because they really can't be that dumb. I can't believe that the conspiracy to hide and deflect blame would go all the way down from new administrators to a lowly television operator.

http://onwardstate.c...ing-the-hub-tv/

I arrived at the first floor of the HUB around 8:30 and went to the helpdesk. I asked the clerk if someone could change the channel to PCN when Louis Freeh's press conference would start at 10:00. He nodded and said someone would do it. For the next half-hour, I listened to the banter from bottom-of-the-barrel anchors of the CNN morning program. They chatted about sharks, movies, and Romney's appearance at the NAACP. At 8:59, a blue screen of death emerged on the screen, and it changed to PCN in anticipation for the press conference an hour later. For the visiting reporters and freshmen, it must have been a shock for them to learn that one does not simply change the HUB TV. While they were running around like headless chickens, I took the time to read the Freeh Report.

There was no plot afoot. Whomever was in charge of the television at the time knew that s/he would be in a meeting, and left the TV on a channel that was guaranteed to have the press conference. CNN never assured its viewers it would air Freeh's presentation or the question-and-answer portion. If the supervisor had left on news' worldwide leader (currently ranked third), the audience would have been delighted to an hour of jumped conclusions from the same network that informed us that Healthcare Reform had been fully repealed.

According to this, it sounds like some student took it upon his or her self to get the channel changed. They claim that CNN never guaranteed that the press conference would air (according to posters here, they did), while PCN did guarantee it. It sounds like this student really had a bone to pick with CNN, and may have had an agenda. Maybe he or she felt that the guaranteed criticism of the school would have been easier to handle from PCN vs CNN. Either way, even if this account is accurate, whoever was at the desk should have declined the request for a channel change, especially if they weren't going to be there to manage the TV at the single most important (TV) moment concerning the school in recent memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I've been thinking about off and on throughout this entire mess...

If Penn State moves on Sandusky at the first sign of trouble, they're heroes. If someone, anyone, had just done what was right from the outset, Penn State would be held up as an example of how "it's supposed to work." Think about it, all it would have taken was a simple "We have discovered that Mr. Sandusky showers with kids. We do not do that at Penn State. It's entirely inappropriate and Mr. Sandusky has been relieved of his duties." Do that one simple thing, and Penn State is a shining example if how college football is supposed to work. Everyone involved is a hero for simply doing the right thing. And, it fits right in with their squeaky clean image.

Instead, Penn State spends years cultivating this squeaky clean image, this "grand experiment" and when the perfect chance comes along to actually prove that Penn State isn't "like everyone else", that they are "better", they blow, and they blow it big. Ironic isn't it?

Debatable. Sandusky had been at Penn State for 30 years at that point. I think it's just as likely that everyone in PSU's administration and Paterno would have been forced out in disgrace then because "You had to have known; you've known him for so long and this isn't something that just happens." I suspect that said self-interested concern probably helped prompt the cover up in the first place.

I think you're right. Even if they'd forced him out in 1998 or 2001 there still would have been fallout. And Paterno would likely still have been fired (for the "you had to have known" aspect that would have run rampant). What would have been different however is Paterno and Penn St football still would have been redeemable. There's so far no evidence they knew anything prior to 1998. And no evidence yet they covered something up prior to 98. So any scandal would have been all based on speculation and assumption. Which while damaging in the court of public opinion, aren't criminal like their actions subsequent to 1998/2001. There actions after that point became a conspiracy to cover up and enable Sandusky's actions that IS evidenced by actual proof, not supposition. And the fact it's proven is what has destroyed Paterno's legacy as well as his job, and put the football program in a position where the majority, of press at least, seem to be calling for its complete shut down.

Basically Paterno and co. traded their legacy, and in some cases their freedom if the trials go the way they should of the guys who had the decency not to die before they could be prosecuted, and their morality for an extra decade of "JoePa football."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you have the Big Ten Network saying they didn't show it because they're not a news network. Or because they're a promotional arm of the Big Ten and this isn't a good way to promote it.

Have they even discussed this on BTN? All I've seen is football games and top ten lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone just made a great point to me:

Why not let Sandusky's victims decide if they want the statue removed, the name off the library, the season cancelled? Let's be honest, at the end of the day, they're the ones with the damage done.

I'm pretty sure they'd want to tear down the stadium too. I was severely disappointed after reading some Penn State "fanatics" who actually said it was the fault of the victims that Joe Paterno was fired! Really!?!?! It's in reference to a Christine Brennan article. They used the very, very cheap "if they weren't there" excuse. Really!?!? At least Lavar Arrington has admitted guilt because Sandusky used one kids adoration of Arrington to bring him into that facility. I love Ohio State, but not enough to blindly believe Urban Meyer's a saint. If this happened at OSU I'd say fire the whole coaching staff and start over. Shut it all down for one season and build it all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. Penn State knew the report would air on CNN and they changed the channel.

But the channel they changed to was also supposed to run the news conference live, unless Penn State knew something that wasn't otherwise announced.

http://www.lehighval...y_jerry_sa.html

That's irrelevant. They always keep CNN on, and they knew CNN was showing the press conference. Why change the channel if you're ok with the airing of the press conference?

The "we changed it to another channel that was going to air it also but they didn't oops" story reads like a bad excuse.

Well you cut out half of my post.

Still doesn't explain the need to change from one broadcast of it to another when it's not usually your policy to change channels.

I was only addressing the part that delt with the "changed the channel" excuse because, well, it reads like that. A terrible excuse. Treating it as a viable version of events is giving it, and the university, more credit then it or they deserve.

The other part of your post was right on the money.

This whole channel changing thing just has me baffled, because they really can't be that dumb. I can't believe that the conspiracy to hide and deflect blame would go all the way down from new administrators to a lowly television operator.

I don't think it was so much a conspiracy as it was another manifestation of that cult-like behaviour we've seen out of the more vocal members of the Penn State alumni and student body. Do I think the higher ups ordered the television operator to change the channel? Possible but unlikely. It's more likely that whoever was responsible for changing the channel was a true believer in the "JOPA WE ARE PENN STATE!!!" nonsense and took it upon themselves to try and deflect blame by changing the channel.

As for the "they really can't be that dumb" notion, well normal, well adjusted people wouldn't be. The level of disconnect from reality I've witnessed from those Paterno loyalists associated with Penn State through this mess, however, is pretty telling. I'd say it's entirely within the character of either the university's leadership or one or two lone fanatical students or employees to change the channel thinking "if we change the channel then people won't hear them say mean things about JoPa and everything will be all right." That's level of delusion that seems to exist in Happy Valley at the moment.

http://onwardstate.c...ing-the-hub-tv/

I arrived at the first floor of the HUB around 8:30 and went to the helpdesk. I asked the clerk if someone could change the channel to PCN when Louis Freeh's press conference would start at 10:00. He nodded and said someone would do it. For the next half-hour, I listened to the banter from bottom-of-the-barrel anchors of the CNN morning program. They chatted about sharks, movies, and Romney's appearance at the NAACP. At 8:59, a blue screen of death emerged on the screen, and it changed to PCN in anticipation for the press conference an hour later. For the visiting reporters and freshmen, it must have been a shock for them to learn that one does not simply change the HUB TV. While they were running around like headless chickens, I took the time to read the Freeh Report.

There was no plot afoot. Whomever was in charge of the television at the time knew that s/he would be in a meeting, and left the TV on a channel that was guaranteed to have the press conference. CNN never assured its viewers it would air Freeh's presentation or the question-and-answer portion. If the supervisor had left on news' worldwide leader (currently ranked third), the audience would have been delighted to an hour of jumped conclusions from the same network that informed us that Healthcare Reform had been fully repealed.

According to this, it sounds like some student took it upon his or her self to get the channel changed. They claim that CNN never guaranteed that the press conference would air (according to posters here, they did), while PCN did guarantee it. It sounds like this student really had a bone to pick with CNN, and may have had an agenda. Maybe he or she felt that the guaranteed criticism of the school would have been easier to handle from PCN vs CNN. Either way, even if this account is accurate, whoever was at the desk should have declined the request for a channel change, especially if they weren't going to be there to manage the TV at the single most important (TV) moment concerning the school in recent memory.

Sources outside of Penn State (whom I am more likely to believe at this point) seem to have upheld the notion that CNN made it clear they would air the press conference. As for PCN, well networks don't just decide what to air on the fly. They have the entire day's schedule lined up. I have a hard time believing PCN decided they were going to air the press conference only to say "ah, screw it, lets just continue airing this instead" when the time came. That's not how television works. And said scheduel could probably have been obtained any number of ways open to the public. So if a student was really concerned about making sure everyone saw the press conference on PCN I have to believe they would have confirmed that PCN was indeed going to show it before they changed the channel.

I don't know. The whole thing reads like a terrible excuse. It seems like, to me, that one of two things happened. Either the decision to change channels was made from up high and they're having someone take the blame for it, or one student did take it upon himself to change the channel because they've drunk to much of the kool-aid and now that criticism over the action is coming in he's being pressured to cover up his behaviour with this transparent excuse.

EDIT-

Also, the story you linked is from a site called Onward State. According to the site "Onward State is an online news organization serving Penn State students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the State College community." Given the way Penn State students and alumni have reacted, I'm not inclined to believe that they would report the happenings of this case without a pro-Penn State/JOPA!!! bias. From the article....

No. No it is not. Yellow journalism has once again inspired “journalists” to write unsubstantiated rumors about Penn State culture.

To me this reads as "when will the media stop picking on poor old Penn State?!?!" It's just more of the same from a very delusional group of people. Not blaming you for linking the story Vet. Just providing an alternative take as to the site's motives.

Edited by Ice_Cap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. Penn State knew the report would air on CNN and they changed the channel.

But the channel they changed to was also supposed to run the news conference live, unless Penn State knew something that wasn't otherwise announced.

http://www.lehighval...y_jerry_sa.html

That's irrelevant. They always keep CNN on, and they knew CNN was showing the press conference. Why change the channel if you're ok with the airing of the press conference?

The "we changed it to another channel that was going to air it also but they didn't oops" story reads like a bad excuse.

Well you cut out half of my post.

Still doesn't explain the need to change from one broadcast of it to another when it's not usually your policy to change channels.

I was only addressing the part that delt with the "changed the channel" excuse because, well, it reads like that. A terrible excuse. Treating it as a viable version of events is giving it, and the university, more credit then it or they deserve.

The other part of your post was right on the money.

This whole channel changing thing just has me baffled, because they really can't be that dumb. I can't believe that the conspiracy to hide and deflect blame would go all the way down from new administrators to a lowly television operator.

I don't think it was so much a conspiracy as it was another manifestation of that cult-like behaviour we've seen out of the more vocal members of the Penn State alumni and student body. Do I think the higher ups ordered the television operator to change the channel? Possible but unlikely. It's more likely that whoever was responsible for changing the channel was a true believer in the "JOPA WE ARE PENN STATE!!!" nonsense and took it upon themselves to try and deflect blame by changing the channel.

As for the "they really can't be that dumb" notion, well normal, well adjusted people wouldn't be. The level of disconnect from reality I've witnessed from those Paterno loyalists associated with Penn State through this mess, however, is pretty telling. I'd say it's entirely within the character of either the university's leadership or one or two lone fanatical students or employees to change the channel thinking "if we change the channel then people won't hear them say mean things about JoPa and everything will be all right." That's level of delusion that seems to exist in Happy Valley at the moment.

I agree with all of this. The only part that doesn't add up is that PCN did publicize that they were airing the press conference live, via press releases (quoted in the link I posted above) and on their site.

I think what happened was (and correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read nearly as much about this as most of you so there could very well be facts that I'm missing) is that the outrage took place at 9:00 AM, when the report was released, not when the presser aired. The channel changed when the news people would have been getting fed excerpts of the report on teleprompters and then offering their commentary on what happened. Come to think of it, do we know that PCN didn't air it at 10? I can't remember if a time was given for when the $27M turkey thing was being debated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I submit that we haven't even scraped the surface of it for Paterno. He's dead. There are 3 guys who are still alive and who will be subject to criminal prosecution and in order to stay out of jail, or receive reduced sentences, are going to throw Joe Pa so far under the bus, the stuff we've heard so far is going to seem tame. They are all going to point the finger solely at him as the main culprit and how much he knew and why he covered it up to save their own asses.

This is only going to get worse. Dead men tell no lies, but they can't defend themselves either. Which is a good thing--I want to hear it all, I want his apologists hear it all and still try to defend him. Did Paterno intentionally keep him at Penn State by paying him into retirement and giving him an office so he wouldn't go to another school, rape kids there and have it found out PSU knew all along? Sandusky was a great d-coordinator--why not go get another job? It's gotta be that Paterno wouldn't let him--probably cut him a deal that said you stay here and never leave and we'll pay you forever, give you access to Penn State football and alumni, etc. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Some really telling stuff is going to come out about what actually happened behind the scenes. It wasn't a few e-mails and a few meetings, I think they managed the hell out of this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone just made a great point to me:

Why not let Sandusky's victims decide if they want the statue removed, the name off the library, the season cancelled? Let's be honest, at the end of the day, they're the ones with the damage done.

I'm pretty sure they'd want to tear down the stadium too. I was severely disappointed after reading some Penn State "fanatics" who actually said it was the fault of the victims that Joe Paterno was fired! Really!?!?! It's in reference to a Christine Brennan article. They used the very, very cheap "if they weren't there" excuse. Really!?!? At least Lavar Arrington has admitted guilt because Sandusky used one kids adoration of Arrington to bring him into that facility. I love Ohio State, but not enough to blindly believe Urban Meyer's a saint. If this happened at OSU I'd say fire the whole coaching staff and start over. Shut it all down for one season and build it all over again.

Anyone who is blaming the victims in this situation for ANYTHING that happened, particularly relating to something as meaningless as football deserves to be taken out to sea and thrown overboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Title IX:

You can't just shut down the school itself. Where are 90,000 kids going to get an education and how many thousands of people will lose their jobs? (90,000 systemwide, University Park is approximately half of that).

Football program is one thing. The actual school itself cannot just close its doors. If it did, where do those kids go? The entire town would become a black hole. There literally is NOTHING there other than the university and some cows. That's definitely NOT going to happen.

Cut some funding maybe, but you can't kill the school itself. And about that endowment, it says 1.8 Billion but do we know what's restricted, what's revocable, what's required to be spent on X,Y,Z?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone just made a great point to me:

Why not let Sandusky's victims decide if they want the statue removed, the name off the library, the season cancelled? Let's be honest, at the end of the day, they're the ones with the damage done.

Ehh... ultimately, it's up to the NCAA to send a clear message that this is not how college athletics should sustain themselves. Unfortunately, they're too greedy and too scared to ever do it, which is why NCAA lawyers are already going around in the media listing reasons why they "can't do anything legally" to punish Penn State.

But if you're a small school without a famous name and a big endowment, don't you dare give a recruit a slice of pizza or a ride home! That just disrespects the spirit of the game right there. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Title IX:

You can't just shut down the school itself. Where are 90,000 kids going to get an education and how many thousands of people will lose their jobs? (90,000 systemwide, University Park is approximately half of that).

Football program is one thing. The actual school itself cannot just close its doors. If it did, where do those kids go? The entire town would become a black hole. There literally is NOTHING there other than the university and some cows. That's definitely NOT going to happen.

Cut some funding maybe, but you can't kill the school itself. And about that endowment, it says 1.8 Billion but do we know what's restricted, what's revocable, what's required to be spent on X,Y,Z?

Will they actually do it, I highly it doubt for the reasons pointed out.

But it is something the government could do if they chose to, and because of that Penn State is basically at their mercy if its decided that the NCAA isn't going to go far enough in regards to punishing the football program. To this point I would give the NCAA a D for they've handled the situation. The reason I don't give them an F is because they have said they would look into taking action following the release of the Freeh report. But you can't tell me they couldn't get on the phone with him and ask for an initial report just so they would have something to go on. And maybe that is in fact what they did, but it doesn't look like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Title IX:

You can't just shut down the school itself. Where are 90,000 kids going to get an education and how many thousands of people will lose their jobs? (90,000 systemwide, University Park is approximately half of that).

Football program is one thing. The actual school itself cannot just close its doors. If it did, where do those kids go? The entire town would become a black hole. There literally is NOTHING there other than the university and some cows. That's definitely NOT going to happen.

Cut some funding maybe, but you can't kill the school itself. And about that endowment, it says 1.8 Billion but do we know what's restricted, what's revocable, what's required to be spent on X,Y,Z?

Will they actually do it, I highly it doubt for the reasons pointed out.

But it is something the government could do if they chose to, and because of that Penn State is basically at their mercy if its decided that the NCAA isn't going to go far enough in regards to punishing the football program. To this point I would give the NCAA a D for they've handled the situation. The reason I don't give them an F is because they have said they would look into taking action following the release of the Freeh report. But you can't tell me they couldn't get on the phone with him and ask for an initial report just so they would have something to go on. And maybe that is in fact what they did, but it doesn't look like it.

They could have asked, but that does not mean that the university would have to respond, especially since there was not an official NCAA Notice of Inquiry regarding possible NCAA infractions. The Emmert letter only raised questions of possible infractions. At least with Montana, there was an official NoI and even if one was sent, they rest of the process would not be public like the Freeh Report.

Neither the NCAA nor the investigators with the Freeh Report possess subpoena power. The best thing for the NCAA to do is to wait for those who do...do (Justice Dept.- since Sandusky took a kid across state lines to a bowl game; Dept of Education who is in the process of their investigation, but yeaterday a spokesperson even said, "(a) "conclusion is unlikely any time soon", yesterday. FYI, the Department of Education has completed a total of 54 Clery Act investigations since 1997. Eastern Michigan was given the largest fine for failing to alert the campus after the 2006 murder of a student and other violations.

Also remember that the DoEd does not formally give Penn State its "overall" accreditation. That is done by geographic region and in their case, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education does. Most agencies have four stages of severity: warnings, probation, denial of accreditation, and membership revocation

Some schools of public notoriety have been placed at warning or probation in the last decade but most are HBCU (Historically Black), however in terms of the FBS,

Texas Tech was on probation from SACS from 2006-08.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's disappointing to hear, is that there are people speculating that the NCAA won't and can't do anything. If the NCAA doesn't see that this was a complete lack and disregard for institutional control, I don't know what is. If SMU got the Death Penalty for 1 year for players getting money and not hurting a soul, then I think Penn State needs to get at least 5 years away from football. I hate hearing people talk about how punishing the players on the current team is wrong. Is it really punishing them if you allow them to transfer like SMU players were? They are free to go. What's wrong is that the Penn State money maker will be allowed to continue as if nothing happened, because anything other than shutting down the program is a slap on the wrist and looking the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's disappointing to hear, is that there are people speculating that the NCAA won't and can't do anything. If the NCAA doesn't see that this was a complete lack and disregard for institutional control, I don't know what is. If SMU got the Death Penalty for 1 year for players getting money and not hurting a soul, then I think Penn State needs to get at least 5 years away from football. I hate hearing people talk about how punishing the players on the current team is wrong. Is it really punishing them if you allow them to transfer like SMU players were? They are free to go. What's wrong is that the Penn State money maker will be allowed to continue as if nothing happened, because anything other than shutting down the program is a slap on the wrist and looking the other way.

Essentially, if college football wants to retain any sense of dignity or a single shred of credibility, they simply have to shut down Penn State's football program. Problem is, college football, more than any sport, enjoys spitting in the face of dignity and credibility. There is no sport in the world (ok, South American soccer during the narco-soccer era was worse, but still) that is more corrupt and devoid of any moral compass than American college football. That's essentially why I don't see anything coming of this. Hopefully if that happens people will see college for the complete farce that it really is and protest their team's games against Penn State. Unfortunately, I don't think most fans have that much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.