Well, isn't that interesting?
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Well, isn't that interesting?
"
In November 2011, Myers and the rest of the board were met with what had been an unthinkable crisis – the fallout from the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
Recognizing that some alumni were and remain angry about the board’s removal of Joe Paterno as head football coach and Graham Spanier as president in the wake of the charges against Sandusky and other Penn State administrators for allegedly concealing his crimes (many of which have been thrown out), Myers calls the decisions “difficult but necessary,” to demonstrate that the university was exercising institutional control.
“It was devastating,” he says, adding that he knew both men for many years and considered Paterno among his heroes and Spanier a friend. “I can only speak for myself, but I felt there was no choice but to do what we did.”
He adds, however, that he believes the NCAA had no place in levying sanctions in 2012, most of which were ultimately repealed or ended early, and he has previously said that he argued against the university’s signing of the consent decree that imposed that sanctions. And he believes Louis Freeh “grandstanded in the press conference,” announcing the results of his university-commissioned investigative report, making statements that weren’t supported by the report and unfairly harming the university."
http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...-back-on-six-decades-with-penn-state,1469436/
In November 2011, Myers and the rest of the board were met with what had been an unthinkable crisis – the fallout from the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
Recognizing that some alumni were and remain angry about the board’s removal of Joe Paterno as head football coach and Graham Spanier as president in the wake of the charges against Sandusky and other Penn State administrators for allegedly concealing his crimes (many of which have been thrown out), Myers calls the decisions “difficult but necessary,” to demonstrate that the university was exercising institutional control.
“It was devastating,” he says, adding that he knew both men for many years and considered Paterno among his heroes and Spanier a friend. “I can only speak for myself, but I felt there was no choice but to do what we did.”
He adds, however, that he believes the NCAA had no place in levying sanctions in 2012, most of which were ultimately repealed or ended early, and he has previously said that he argued against the university’s signing of the consent decree that imposed that sanctions. And he believes Louis Freeh “grandstanded in the press conference,” announcing the results of his university-commissioned investigative report, making statements that weren’t supported by the report and unfairly harming the university."
http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...-back-on-six-decades-with-penn-state,1469436/
Myers can go f' himself. He's a lying sack of shit.
When they introduce (or at least acknowledge) Myers to the crowd during the game, and boy oh boy I sure hope they do, I plan to stand and loudly proclaim my level of appreciation for the level of foresight (or 'forecast'?!) and courage he demonstrated regarding his hero and his friend in going along with that "difficult but necessary" decision back in Nov. 2011. Speaking only for myself, I feel I have no choice but to do this. My hope is that many thousands of alumni and fans will do the same, and the Director of Homecoming Alumni Relations takes full notice.
I may even "salute" the Myers-donated weather vane with a silent, special, and very fitting hand signal. I've noticed that weather vane for many years, and it is certainly one of the better weather vanes in all of Beaver Stadium*.
*That statement may not be supported by the facts. I hope it does not unfairly harm the university.
Maybe in a few years I will think back about what I could have or should have done when the moment of truth arrived - i.e. Myers taking a bow in front of the crowd. A real moment of truth... you know, the moments when we need our leaders to really be leaders, to speak up, to take a stand, to state an opinion that may go against the flow or against what another leader is saying. Something desperately needed but sorely lacking from our BOT in Nov. 2011....
Nah. Doing so would be too much like grandstanding after the fact.
What a bunch of revisionist tripe from yet another OGBOT eunuch. He is so FOS that even he can't possibly believe the garbage that spews from his own mouth.
Joel will check out soon enough. Not soon enough for many of us. But, soon enough.
Which leads to the next question- exactly why was it necessary, Joel? There was absolutely no other way to demonstrate "institutional control?" In fact, what you did allowed things to get totally out of control.
In essence he's admitting they felt like they had to do something, anything, to show they were in control. So they decided to fire Joe and ditch Spanier - two guys who did nothing wrong. It's ridiculous logic.
What's also ridiculous is the fact that after firing Joe they went absolutely silent for a few days and exercised no leadership whatsoever. They only people associated with the university who had the nerve to speak publicly on behalf of Penn State were members of the football team.
Last edited:
What "members of the football team"?
As for Joel, I am only disappointed that this is one of the few recent homecoming parades and games that I am missing. I have called him a coward on his Facebook page, via email, and I only wish I had the opportunity to let him know what I think, (relatively) face to face.
And they did all of that based on a one sided non factual prosecutorial document, the GJP. And there were how many lawyers on our BOT at the time?
And not one of them said wait a minute, let's wait until the trials are done not knee jerk based on a freaking GJP. What a complete travesty. Smh
There was a 459 page filing in the Paterno vs NCAA case today. At first glance I see on page 6 where the NCAA specifically denies that the unprecendented failure of institutional intergrity and institutional control at Penn State in connection with the Sandusky matter fell outside the "scope of the NCAA's authority."
It seems to me that the NCAA is trying to weasel out of responsibility for their egregious conduct regarding the sanctions they placed on Penn State in conjunction with the consent decree that were not based on the facts of what actually happened.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA DR EMMERTS ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER.pdf
It seems to me that the NCAA is trying to weasel out of responsibility for their egregious conduct regarding the sanctions they placed on Penn State in conjunction with the consent decree that were not based on the facts of what actually happened.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA DR EMMERTS ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER.pdf
I wonder if that claim is based on the Freeh "conclusions".
Then I wonder if the veracity of the Freeh "conclusions" will be called into question.
I haven't read the filing, but based on @francofan's description it appears that the NCAA has elected to double down on the "loss of institutional control!" claim, which is based almost entirely on the Freeh conclusions.
So unless the NCAA's plan is to throw Mr. Freeh under bus, this is not going to be a winning strategy.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
The NCAA seem's to be taking the response of putting the burden of proof for everything on the plaintiffs(basically prove they do not have the right to investigate institutional control and that this was not just a criminal matter) and the ncaa bylaws say they could push forward with this investigation. Also saying some of what the plaintiff's are pushing for is irrelevant. Not sure whether that is the wisest move on their part, the legal bee's on this board can chime in with their thoughts on what they feel the best defense is and whether this is their best course of action.
Last edited:
The NCAA is in a tough spot regarding Freeh. The filing refers to conduct described in the Freeh report yet Freeh himself is now claiming it was simply his opinion. Well, if it's an opinion it certainly couldn't have been considered a factual report to be used as the sole reason for levying sanctions. Facts are important and the NCAA had none.
From Emmert's 7/23/2012 Penn State press conference:
"We have informed Penn State of the findings, the adoption of the findings coming from the Freeh report, and also of our penalties. We have crafted this in the form of a consent decree which university has signed, as well as we have."
This is most definitely not going to end well for the NCAA.
For those interested in the full PC transcript: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/23/cnr.01.html
I just want to kick the NCAA's ass right now.
The NCAA is fukked. Big time. Major $$$ payments to plaintiffs looming. The Paterno legal team knows they have NCAA by the jewels.
The entirety of their argument is built on an objectively & verifiably false foundation. I see collapse (of this case) & perhaps even surrender (again).
I hear ya'.......and I would love to believe that the NCAA folks will be facing significant penalties (the INDIVIDUALS, more so than the ENTITY....because, quite frankly, laying out significant coin at the entity level does dick to effect the NCAA)
That said, aside from the emotional "hope":
The NCAA is going to be making "major $$$ payments" to who, exactly?
And for what "tort"?
".....The entirety of their argument is built on an objectively & verifiably false foundation....."
Couldn't agree more.
That said, the "Bad Outcome" is what?
I don't disagree. However, from the beginning the Paternos have said their goal is not money. Their plan is to donate all net proceeds to charity. What they want is to honor Joe's wishes to uncover the truth. With that being the case I can't imagine the Paternos agreeing to any type of settlement which doesn't include complete and full disclosure and a public admission of wrongdoing and incompetence on the part of the NCAA. If an agreement isn't reached on that front then the relevant facts will be revealed under oath in court.
They're going to lose this lawsuit, and the loss will be public.
Divide and conquer. Here, we have Freeh claiming it was an opinon and the NCAA levying massive penalties based on this "opinion". Will be fun to watch those to finger point.
How so?
What are they going to be found Guilty of?
Not trying to be obtuse......I just don't get it.
What does it mean to "lose" this lawsuit.....how....why? What is the bad fallout?
I can lose a game of Monopoly to one of my kids......someone can even write a story for the CDT so that "everyone knows". So what? Would I - or anyone else - care?
How is the NCAA going to face a bad outcome? What is going to happen to them that would make anyone - including the folks at the NCAA - even care?
That's what I'm asking.
In most legal situations, the answer is obvious......I "lose" means something along the lines of:
I go to jail for X years
or
I pay a $X dollar fine.
What is the anticipated "bad outcome" for the NCAA? For what "tort"?
I'm not saying you (or anyone else) SHOULD be able to - or obligated to - answer that question.....but we have a lot of folks that seem to feel that there is some "fate accompli" that the "NCAA" (whatever the heck that means....A specific person? The nameless, faceless entity?) is going to pay dearly. But I have yet to hear/read/see exactly how that is going to happen.
Kinda' like the "Corman put the ball on the 1 yard line.....Paterno suit will score the TD" idiocy we saw so much of years ago.
I expect that is certainly in the cards.....to one degree or another
I know someone
who predicted that exact scenario 3-4 years ago.....where Louis Freeh assumes his role as the "black hole for finger-pointing" - - - after all, that's what he gets paid for, and he is the perfect (and un-damagable) foil for both the NCAA and the PSU BOT Scoundrels.
And if the stars line up just right, we'll also get the objective analysis of how that opinion compares to the data from the actual findings of the investigation.
Last edited:
FWIW......there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 Octillion) stars in the Universe - - - - I just checked with Felli
That's a lot of stars to get all lined up.
Or an astronomer.FWIW......there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 Octillion) stars in the Universe - - - - I just checked with Felli
That's a lot of stars to get all lined up.
Jimmy W @JmmyW
NCAA specifically denies the Consent Decree is an indictment of the entire Penn State community.
Penn State strenuously objects.
NCAA specifically denies the Consent Decree is an indictment of the entire Penn State community.
Penn State strenuously objects.
Yeah, it's pretty hard to walk that back. Would a reasonable person conclude that's an indictment of the Penn State community? I mean, only in exactly so many words.
Just play the Freeh press conference. Case closed.
Ask Ken Frazier. He said we were all responsible.
