Lubrano post on Facebook

[m.knox]

T

Contrary to their belief, I want the facts to show that Joe and all the others at Penn State acted appropriately and I hope those kind of facts come to light if they exist. I always admired Joe (though I did think he coached too long) and I still admire him. No one is perfect and Joe would be the first one to agree with that. What I consider a misstep does not negate all the good he did through the years; he's is still an icon.

Mistakes were made. Individuals missed an opportunity to nail a pedophile. Does it mean they knowingly aided and abetted Sandusky?

You need to get off the minutiae and focus on the big picture. The charge against Penn State is that individuals knowingly allowed a pedophile to operate under their noses, and did nothing about it in the name of football.

I highly doubt that to be true. You are talking about 4 free minded individuals all agreeing to "allow" Sandusky to sodomize and fellate young boys. Do you think they had a conversation about it? "Well Graham, it's only fellatio.... a little fellatio never hurt anyone"....... It's a preposterous hypothesis. Were they fooled? Likely. Were they in denial? Probably. Did they believe MM? Doubtful. All of it is perfectly human.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

A case can be made that JoePa's testimony was unreliable, yes. Ten years' time lapse, Joe's age and memory and the questionable state of Joe's health, his slightly haltering search for the right words, the general unreliability of eye witness testimony (and his was hearsay), etc. The problem is that his testimony is on public record and these reasons for discounting his testimony remain speculative.

The overarching issue is not whether posters here accept Joe's words in the docket or what posters here think of Joe. We know what we believe about Joe. This argument is about what the public at large thinks of Joe. It's his defamation in the public square, not within Penn State fandom, that is the object of the movement to literally or figuratively "restore the statue."

The counterargument to the first paragraph is that Joe had a well-known reputation for having a nearly photographic memory (read, for instance, The Penn Stater article saluting Joe) that could recall small incidents from decades previous and that he was mentally alert enough at that age to operate as CEO of a sizeable organization in one of the most competitive businesses in the U.S.

If you want to make the argument to a non-Penn Stater that Joe's testimony was unreliable, in the contrast to the public record, you must get someone in a position to know, probably McQueary, to publicly explain that Joe didn't know what he was talking about and/or that his testimony was coached. Short of that, the reasons for discounting Joe's testimony aren't very compelling to the general public.

Yeah Joe had a great memory at one time during his life, probably until he was 80 or so. How about when he was 87? That is a very weak argument. In the past he remember instances and faces and general topics but the actual conversation word for word? Are you really making that statement? at 87? Boy that is a stretch, even for you.

 

[Evan Ceg]

Yeah Joe had a great memory at one time during his life, probably until he was 80 or so. How about when he was 87? That is a very weak argument. In the past he remember instances and faces and general topics but the actual conversation word for word? Are you really making that statement? at 87? Boy that is a stretch, even for you.

Actually, Joe died a month into his 86th year.

For the great majority of his life Joe was often able to recall conversational details from years past. I've already made the case, pro and con, whether he could accurately recall his February 2001 dining table conversation with McQueary. Ultimately, what you or I think about this doesn't matter. It's what we can convince Joe's/Penn State's critics about his testimony that counts.

 

[Mixolydian]

A case can be made that JoePa's testimony was unreliable, yes. Ten years' time lapse, Joe's age and memory and the questionable state of Joe's health, his slightly haltering search for the right words, the general unreliability of eye witness testimony (and his was hearsay), etc. The problem is that his testimony is on public record and these reasons for discounting his testimony remain speculative.

The overarching issue is not whether posters here accept Joe's words in the docket or what posters here think of Joe. We know what we believe about Joe. This argument is about what the public at large thinks of Joe. It's his defamation in the public square, not within Penn State fandom, that is the object of the movement to literally or figuratively "restore the statue."

The counterargument to the first paragraph is that Joe had a well-known reputation for having a nearly photographic memory (read, for instance, The Penn Stater article saluting Joe) that could recall small incidents from decades previous and that he was mentally alert enough at that age to operate as CEO of a sizeable organization in one of the most competitive businesses in the U.S.

If you want to make the argument to a non-Penn Stater that Joe's testimony was unreliable, in the contrast to the public record, you must get someone in a position to know, probably McQueary, to publicly explain that Joe didn't know what he was talking about and/or that his testimony was coached. Short of that, the reasons for discounting Joe's testimony aren't very compelling to the general public.

That's a lot of words to say basically nothing. Most of us here don't discount Joe's words at all. He said "I don't know what you would call it" and "I don't know exactly what it was". It's right in the testimony as you well know. Those phrases express much doubt as to what was going on. When someone is trying to remember or explain something and they use those phrases, it trumps everything else.

He also said if he thought Sandusky was harming children he would have stopped it. I believe him.

 

[WDLion]

A case can be made that JoePa's testimony was unreliable, yes. Ten years' time lapse, Joe's age and memory and the questionable state of Joe's health, his slightly haltering search for the right words, the general unreliability of eye witness testimony (and his was hearsay), etc. The problem is that his testimony is on public record and these reasons for discounting his testimony remain speculative.

The overarching issue is not whether posters here accept Joe's words in the docket or what posters here think of Joe. We know what we believe about Joe. This argument is about what the public at large thinks of Joe. It's his defamation in the public square, not within Penn State fandom, that is the object of the movement to literally or figuratively "restore the statue."

The counterargument to the first paragraph is that Joe had a well-known reputation for having a nearly photographic memory (read, for instance, The Penn Stater article saluting Joe) that could recall small incidents from decades previous and that he was mentally alert enough at that age to operate as CEO of a sizeable organization in one of the most competitive businesses in the U.S.

If you want to make the argument to a non-Penn Stater that Joe's testimony was unreliable, in the contrast to the public record, you must get someone in a position to know, probably McQueary, to publicly explain that Joe didn't know what he was talking about and/or that his testimony was coached. Short of that, the reasons for discounting Joe's testimony aren't very compelling to the general public.

I'm 74 and can clearly remember names and events from my childhood and schooldays. Remembering events or people from last week, month, year or 10 years ago are a completely different matter.

 

[NittPicker]

A case can be made that JoePa's testimony was unreliable, yes. Ten years' time lapse, Joe's age and memory and the questionable state of Joe's health, his slightly haltering search for the right words, the general unreliability of eye witness testimony (and his was hearsay), etc. The problem is that his testimony is on public record and these reasons for discounting his testimony remain speculative.

It's on public record via transcript but it would be great if audio existed. Some people want to overlook the fact Joe uttered two seemingly contradictory consecutive sentences. "It was a sexual nature. I don't know what you'd call it." The second sentence seems to invalidate the first but some ignore the second sentence and act as if Joe pounded his fist and yelled, "It was a sexual nature!!!" The problem with transcripts is they don't capture voice inflection. Most of us have heard Joe answering questions during press conferences. He and many others have a quirk in which they ask a question with the proper voice inflection but leave the word order as if it was a statement. With Joe's voice in mind, it's very easy to interpret his testimony as, "It was a sexual nature?? I don't know what you'd call it."

 

[GTACSA]

Mistakes were made. Individuals missed an opportunity to nail a pedophile. Does it mean they knowingly aided and abetted Sandusky?

You need to get off the minutiae and focus on the big picture. The charge against Penn State is that individuals knowingly allowed a pedophile to operate under their noses, and did nothing about it in the name of football.

I highly doubt that to be true. You are talking about 4 free minded individuals all agreeing to "allow" Sandusky to sodomize and fellate young boys. Do you think they had a conversation about it? "Well Graham, it's only fellatio.... a little fellatio never hurt anyone"....... It's a preposterous hypothesis. Were they fooled? Likely. Were they in denial? Probably. Did they believe MM? Doubtful. All of it is perfectly human.

I essentially agree with you. The problem is that when opinions are based on a leap from known facts to supposed facts, how in the world can that be managed, controlled or changed? The facts show that no one at Penn State ever contacted the police, the District Attorney, CYS or CPS. If people then reach the conclusion that Penn State knowingly allowed a pedophile to operate under their noses, what do you think should be done to change that opinion? The horse has left the barn.

Spanier recognized the potential problem in his email; he had the foresight to understand the dangers. And now, 15 years later, it is what it is.

 

[simons96]

I essentially agree with you. The problem is that when opinions are based on a leap from known facts to supposed facts, how in the world can that be managed, controlled or changed? The facts show that no one at Penn State ever contacted the police, the District Attorney, CYS or CPS. If people then reach the conclusion that Penn State knowingly allowed a pedophile to operate under their noses, what do you think should be done to change that opinion? The horse has left the barn.

Spanier recognized the potential problem in his email; he had the foresight to understand the dangers. And now, 15 years later, it is what it is.

gah! I had to take you off ignore to respond to your RIDICULOUS statements! That is the exact OPPOSITE of what Spanier said and meant!!

I wish you understood the English language like the rest of us and weren't so . . . obtuse. or that you confuse YOUR OPINIONS and YOUR LEAP TO SUPPOSED FACTS as KNOWN FACTS!

are you that dense you don't see that what you accuse others of doing is EXACTLY WHAT YOU FIGGIN DO?? CONSTANTLY???

For a guy who accuses others of making things up, you sure do insinuate a lot of DISPROVEN FANTASY into your comments.

 

[BobPSU92]

gah! I had to take you off ignore to respond to your RIDICULOUS statements! That is the exact OPPOSITE of what Spanier said and meant!!

I wish you understood the English language like the rest of us and weren't so . . . obtuse. or that you confuse YOUR OPINIONS and YOUR LEAP TO SUPPOSED FACTS as KNOWN FACTS!

are you that dense you don't see that what you accuse others of doing is EXACTLY WHAT YOU FIGGIN DO?? CONSTANTLY???

For a guy who accuses others of making things up, you sure do insinuate a lot of DISPROVEN FANTASY into your comments.

Please allow me to summarize. gtasca is a douchebag.

 

[simons96]

Please allow me to summarize. gtasca is a douchebag.

 

[kentuckycb]

Mistakes were made. Individuals missed an opportunity to nail a pedophile. Does it mean they knowingly aided and abetted Sandusky?

You need to get off the minutiae and focus on the big picture. The charge against Penn State is that individuals knowingly allowed a pedophile to operate under their noses, and did nothing about it in the name of football.

I highly doubt that to be true. You are talking about 4 free minded individuals all agreeing to "allow" Sandusky to sodomize and fellate young boys. Do you think they had a conversation about it? "Well Graham, it's only fellatio.... a little fellatio never hurt anyone"....... It's a preposterous hypothesis. Were they fooled? Likely. Were they in denial? Probably. Did they believe MM? Doubtful. All of it is perfectly human.

This is a great post...objectively it's right on target.

 

[Marshall30]

What were the exact words of C, S, & S when discussing Jerry "if we don't report..."?

 

[91Joe95]

Actually, Joe died a month into his 86th year.

For the great majority of his life Joe was often able to recall conversational details from years past. I've already made the case, pro and con, whether he could accurately recall his February 2001 dining table conversation with McQueary. Ultimately, what you or I think about this doesn't matter. It's what we can convince Joe's/Penn State's critics about his testimony that counts.

Wow. You still think PR is the primary goal? You are so out of touch.

 

[Aoshiro]

A case can be made that JoePa's testimony was unreliable, yes. Ten years' time lapse, Joe's age and memory and the questionable state of Joe's health, his slightly haltering search for the right words, the general unreliability of eye witness testimony (and his was hearsay), etc. The problem is that his testimony is on public record and these reasons for discounting his testimony remain speculative. .

Oh for goodness sakes. It's not speculative. Study after study has shown that people cannot reliably recall events long in the past. You have to ignore years of solid academic research to believe that ANY of them can accurately remember their conversations in 2001.

 

[91Joe95]

That's a lot of words to say basically nothing. Most of us here don't discount Joe's words at all. He said "I don't know what you would call it" and "I don't know exactly what it was". It's right in the testimony as you well know. Those phrases express much doubt as to what was going on. When someone is trying to remember or explain something and they use those phrases, it trumps everything else.

He also said if he thought Sandusky was harming children he would have stopped it. I believe him.

Joe also seemed genuinely confused about the 2002 date that was being mentioned to him.

 

[Aoshiro]

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think Friday changed anything in the big picture. When facts show that nobody at Penn State was informed of MM's observations, then the narrative changes. Or if the facts show they were informed and reported them to police outside Penn State, or the District Attorney or CYS or CPS, that changes the narrative. As much as I want those facts to come out if they exist, I'm skeptical they will.
.

What is going to be shown is that MM told people that he saw Sandusky horsing around in the shower and it (rightly) made him very uncomfortable.

Everything else was fabricated by Frank Fina.

 

[WeR0206]

I essentially agree with you. The problem is that when opinions are based on a leap from known facts to supposed facts, how in the world can that be managed, controlled or changed? The facts show that no one at Penn State ever contacted the police, the District Attorney, CYS or CPS. If people then reach the conclusion that Penn State knowingly allowed a pedophile to operate under their noses, what do you think should be done to change that opinion? The horse has left the barn.

Spanier recognized the potential problem in his email; he had the foresight to understand the dangers. And now, 15 years later, it is what it is.

We still don't know for sure if CC CYS was informed in 2001 or not (same with UPPD chief Harmon). Its not a fact that they weren't told. Both Schultz and Courtney testifed they thought CYS was told. After learning how CYS operates via the Tutko case, CC CYS probably shrugged the complaint off or didnt even look into it bc they already cleared JS in 1998 for his naked bear hug from behind showering behavior. If this happened there would be no record bc CYS purges unfounded complaints. IOW it's impossible to prove if CYS recieved a complaint that they deemed unfounded unless there is a corresponding police report like 1998. CYS had a HUGE conflict of interest re: JS since they worked hand in hand with his freaking charity and referred countless kids there!

You can thank MM for there never being a 2001 UPPD report bc he apparently never felt strong enough about what he THOUGHT was happening that night to make a written statement to UPPD or ask Schultz to send an officer so he could file a police report to get a criminal investigation started.

Also there were several people outside of PSU who were told about 2001 including: JM, Dr. D, Raykovitz and Heim at TSM. Did they knowingly allow a pedo to operate under their noses as well? Can't have it both ways.

 

[MtNittany]

Mistakes were made. Individuals missed an opportunity to nail a pedophile. Does it mean they knowingly aided and abetted Sandusky?

You need to get off the minutiae and focus on the big picture. The charge against Penn State is that individuals knowingly allowed a pedophile to operate under their noses, and did nothing about it in the name of football.

I highly doubt that to be true. You are talking about 4 free minded individuals all agreeing to "allow" Sandusky to sodomize and fellate young boys. Do you think they had a conversation about it? "Well Graham, it's only fellatio.... a little fellatio never hurt anyone"....... It's a preposterous hypothesis. Were they fooled? Likely. Were they in denial? Probably. Did they believe MM? Doubtful. All of it is perfectly human.

Not sure what mistakes C/S/S made. Just because a corrupt OAG or a bought and paid whore tells me it's so, that doesn't make it true.

 

[Aoshiro]

The facts show that no one at Penn State ever contacted the police, the District Attorney, CYS or CPS.

Where are these "facts?" For example, where are the CPS call logs from 2001?
The fact is that four years later, we still don't know exactly what happened after that email exchange.
The one thing that we do know is that Schultz contacted Raykovitiz and Raykovitz told Heim.
Some "coverup."

 

[simons96]

What were the exact words of C, S, & S when discussing Jerry "if we don't report..."?

"The only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."

only a complete moron would interpret that to mean Spanier knew Sandusky had molested a child and they were covering it up.

 

[WeR0206]

"The only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."

only a complete moron would interpret that to mean Spanier knew Sandusky had molested a child and they were covering it up.

Exactly..and their message was that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop.

The emails/notes show the original plan was for TC to report the incident to everyone (TSM and DPW) but JS (go behind his back).....then at some point TC decided to directly confront JS about his inappropriate behavior and tell TSM with or without his cooperation but loop in DPW (since they are an independent child welfare agency) only if JS pushed back against their new directives. Apparently JS agreed so Tim only went to TSM (together with JS) and DPW wasn't needed.

They didn't contemplate telling DPW to report suspected child abuse but to help them convince JS that his behavior was wrong in case he tried to pull the "I'm a child care expert" card on them. The reason I say this is if Courtney looked up the statute correctly on sun 2/10/01 he would have told Schultz suspected abuse needs to be reported via phone call to childline asap and a written report to local CYS within 48 hrs....not tell DPW two weeks later.

Them deciding DPW didn't need looped in is what freeh tried to cite as the admins deciding to cover it up even though that makes no sense since they went on to inform TSM (who was required to look into all incidents) anyway.

 

[GTACSA]

"The only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."

only a complete moron would interpret that to mean Spanier knew Sandusky had molested a child and they were covering it up.

I did not post the Spanier reference in support of an assertion that Spanier knew Sandusky molested a child. You jumped to that conclusion and went all postal; not a surprise.

Spanier recognized that if Jerry didn't stop his behavior and continued on then Penn State would become vulnerable for not having reported it. (Side note to Ashiro: Spanier agrees they are not reporting it)

He recognized the potential problem for Penn State by not reporting and dang if he wasn't right. Whatever Spanier knew, and he may have known less than the others since I don't believe MM talked to him, he knew what a failure to report meant.

So what's your major malfunction?

 

[simons96]

Exactly..and their message was that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop.

The emails/notes show the original plan was for TC to report the incident to everyone (TSM and DPW) but JS (go behind his back).....then at some point TC decided to directly confront JS about his inappropriate behavior and tell TSM with or without his cooperation but loop in DPW (since they are an independent child welfare agency) only if JS pushed back against their new directives. Apparently JS agreed so Tim only went to TSM (together with JS) and DPW wasn't needed.

They didn't contemplate telling DPW to report suspected child abuse but to help them convince JS that his behavior was wrong in case he tried to pull the "I'm a child care expert" card on them. The reason I say this is if Courtney looked up the statute correctly on sun 2/10/01 he would have told Schultz suspected abuse needs to be reported via phone call to childline asap and a written report to local CYS within 48 hrs....not tell DPW two weeks later.

Them deciding DPW didn't need looped in is what freeh tried to cite as the admins deciding to cover it up even though that makes no sense since they went on to inform TSM (who was required to look into all incidents) anyway.

exactly right.

and I am sure GTA posted something evasive and condescending, but I ain't taking that schmoehead off ignore any more.

 

[m.knox]

I essentially agree with you. The problem is that when opinions are based on a leap from known facts to supposed facts, how in the world can that be managed, controlled or changed? The facts show that no one at Penn State ever contacted the police, the District Attorney, CYS or CPS. If people then reach the conclusion that Penn State knowingly allowed a pedophile to operate under their noses, what do you think should be done to change that opinion? The horse has left the barn.

Spanier recognized the potential problem in his email; he had the foresight to understand the dangers. And now, 15 years later, it is what it is.

In 1998, CYS and the police were involved...... They failed. Had they not failed, Mike McQuery might still be a college football coach. Am I wrong here?

Evidently, they were also fooled. One might note that they were trained professionals.

To your question above, common sense is a good start.

 

[BobPSU92]

"The trolls are wrong again!"

 

[GTACSA]

In 1998, CYS and the police were involved...... They failed. Had they not failed, Mike McQuery might still be a college football coach. Am I wrong here?

Evidently, they were also fooled. One might note that they were trained professionals.

To your question above, common sense is a good start.

You are correct on 1998.

I know that Penn State did not knowingly allow a pedophile to operate under their noses. I know that protecting the football program wasn't the reason it wasn't reported; they reported it in 1998 without any concern about the program.

I just don't know that common sense will have any effect.

 

[91Joe95]

You are correct on 1998.

I know that Penn State did not knowingly allow a pedophile to operate under their noses. I know that protecting the football program wasn't the reason it wasn't reported; they reported it in 1998 without any concern about the program.

I just don't know that common sense will have any effect.

And yet you time and again defend the bot's handling of the crisis. Talk about a disconnect.

 

[Woodpecker]

Penn State should have defied the NCAA and taken it to court. That only would have kept the fate of Penn State Athletics totally in the air for a year or more during legal ping pong. Uncertainly kills, and would have devastated all our varsity teams. That strategy would have been an effective Death Penalty, not to mention more PR damage in the public sphere. As galling as the chosen strategy may have been, the results have turned out better than any of us could have reasonably expected.

I disagree with this. If this would have gone to court, Penn State athletics would be permitted to continue until the decision on the penalty was ruled upon. Why would a disputed penalty be imposed while its legality was being adjucated?

 

[BobPSU92]

I disagree with this. If this would have gone to court, Penn State athletics would be permitted to continue until the decision on the penalty was ruled upon. Why would a disputed penalty be imposed while its legality was being adjucated?

I would suggest you not waste your time arguing with such stupidity.

 

[MtNittany]

You are correct on 1998.

I know that Penn State did not knowingly allow a pedophile to operate under their noses. I know that protecting the football program wasn't the reason it wasn't reported; they reported it in 1998 without any concern about the program.

I just don't know that common sense will have any effect.

GTACSA - curious if you took the time out of your busy schedule to listen to the JZ/Slaten interview. If you play it backwards it says "Turn me on BOT...Turn me on BOT...Turn me on BOT".

 

[Obliviax]

Joe also seemed genuinely confused about the 2002 date that was being mentioned to him.

Joe? The entire prosecution team had the YEAR wrong until Freeh's report. You ask Joe, and the rest to recall specific word usage when two years of investigation had the YEAR WRONG.

 

[psuro]

Where are these "facts?" For example, where are the CPS call logs from 2001?
The fact is that four years later, we still don't know exactly what happened after that email exchange.
The one thing that we do know is that Schultz contacted Raykovitiz and Raykovitz told Heim.
Some "coverup."

The incident happened on the campus of Penn State University, at University Park, Pa - which is not part of State College - it is, in all essence - it's own municipality - it has it's own zip code/post office, it's own utilities and power and it's own police force - they are the ones who respond first, because they are police force for University Park, Pa.

 

[MtNittany]

The incident happened on the campus of Penn State University, at University Park, Pa - which is not part of State College - it is, in all essence - it's own municipality - it has it's own zip code/post office, it's own utilities and power and it's own police force - they are the ones who respond first, because they are police force for University Park, Pa.

Isn't it odd that we're discussing an incident where the victim (Allan Myers) swore nothing happened? JS is in jail for counts on that charge, and C/S/S still face endangerment and failure to report charges. How do you endanger a victim who swore nothing happened? How do you dish out time to JS when the victim said nothing happened?

Edited - it's like you're trying to cut down a tree w/ pruning shears when there's a chain saw laying right next to you.

 

[WDLion]

You are correct on 1998.

I know that Penn State did not knowingly allow a pedophile to operate under their noses. I know that protecting the football program wasn't the reason it wasn't reported; they reported it in 1998 without any concern about the program.

I just don't know that common sense will have any effect.

If you don't believe there was a cover up, then what is your problem?
Freeh and the BOT coming to the conclusion there was a cover up is the whole issue.

 

[demlion]

If you want to make the argument to a non-Penn Stater that Joe's testimony was unreliable, in the contrast to the public record, you must get someone in a position to know, probably McQueary, to publicly explain that Joe didn't know what he was talking about and/or that his testimony was coached. Short of that, the reasons for discounting Joe's testimony aren't very compelling to the general public.

Just briefly, again, "compelling to the general public" is not the only and not even close to the most important goal here. They spent untold millions doing this false narrative thing. Not likely to be largely overcome now. But there is still the truth and the truth is still a valuable thing.

 

[Evan Ceg]

I disagree with this. If this would have gone to court, Penn State athletics would be permitted to continue until the decision on the penalty was ruled upon. Why would a disputed penalty be imposed while its legality was being adjucated?[sic]

Of course PSU Athletics would have been allowed to continue while stays, injunctions and appeals played out. And during that entire time, coaches, student athletes and the sporting media would have been debating and talking about whether Penn State would receive the Death Penalty or at least very draconian sanctions at the end of the process. (Remember, the NCAA would be even more motivated by PSU's defiance in this hypothetical, and we wouldn't have won any friends among the public at large, either.)

So, while the legal process plays out and our teams are competing, our coaches are checking out other jobs, our student-athletes are investigating other schools to transfer to, and our recruits are asking why they should sign with a school that might be about to get hammered by the NCAA. Uncertainty kills. The 2011-12 season was one of our better ones across the board, the 2012-13 season was even better as I recall, but both seasons would have been disasters even if we had won the legal battle with the NCAA at the end of the legal ping pong. That's called a Pyrrhic Victory.

 

[WeR0206]

Of course PSU Athletics would have been allowed to continue while stays, injunctions and appeals played out. And during that entire time, coaches, student athletes and the sporting media would have been debating and talking about whether Penn State would receive the Death Penalty or at least very draconian sanctions at the end of the process. (Remember, the NCAA would be even more motivated by PSU's defiance in this hypothetical, and we wouldn't have won any friends among the public at large, either.)

So, while the legal process plays out and our teams are competing, our coaches are checking out other jobs, our student-athletes are investigating other schools to transfer to, and our recruits are asking why they should sign with a school that might be about to get hammered by the NCAA. Uncertainty kills. The 2011-12 season was one of our better ones across the board, the 2012-13 season was even better as I recall, but both seasons would have been disasters even if we had won the legal battle with the NCAA at the end of the legal ping pong. That's called a Pyrrhic Victory.

Just stop. And you think PSU OG BOT assuming the guilt of CSS and branding the school and entire community as pedo enablers who value football more than basic human decency (before any trials had even happened yet mind you) was the better move?? You don't think that was used against us on the recruiting trail??

There was absolutely no reason to admit guilt and start paying settlements before the criminal trials of CSS. None. You place everone on leave pending due process and no comment until then. You sure as hell dont hire a scumbag lawyer like freeh to blow you're own brains out before the trials either....freeh said there was a cover up (without having any subpoenae power or talking to any of the key players) and now the judicial system said otherwise. Oopsies!! That puts freeh's team (and the ncaa/OG BOT) in a pretty undeniable situation...

 

[94LionsFan]

Just stop. And you think PSU OG BOT assuming the guilt of CSS and branding the school and entire community as pedo enablers who value football more than basic human decency (before any trials had even happened yet mind you) was the better move?? You don't think that was used against us on the recruiting trail??

There was absolutely no reason to admit guilt and start paying settlements before the criminal trials of CSS. None. You place everone on leave pending due process and no comment until then. You sure as hell dont hire a scumbag lawyer like freeh to blow you're own brains out before the trials either....freeh said there was a cover up (without having any subpoenae power or talking to any of the key players) and now the judicial system said otherwise. Oopsies!! That puts freeh's team (and the ncaa/OG BOT) in a pretty undeniable situation...

The irony of Evan's post is that it does exactly what we were chastised for -- placing a higher priority on winning football games than on "doing the right thing" (in this case, standing up for the principle of innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc.).

 

[GTACSA]

If you don't believe there was a cover up, then what is your problem?
Freeh and the BOT coming to the conclusion there was a cover up is the whole issue.

I have no problem; my position has always been that MM's report should have been forwarded to outside authorities like was done in 1998. Put the onus on a third party to keep Penn State out of it. Had that happened none of this occurs. One lousy phone call.

 

[bwifan]

Man this must of been a big shock to the old guard and CR666 he has just been so quiet through all this.... Awaiting him to spew his new company line and tell us peasants what idiots we are and stop being sheep and move on...