Recent motion in Paterno et al vs NCAA

[ApexLion]

Because for the last 20 years, no person outside of Jay's father has found Jay worthy of offering a (football coaching) job to.

I realize you are in Michigan or wherever but I know for a fact, not a rumor, not speculation, that you are speaking out of your rear orifice. Okay?

Whether the motion is relevant is another topic and no doubt part of the legal contest being waged. However, on your notion above: completely, utterly, without question, false.

Got it?

Good.

Go back to speculating on other things.

 

[RobBliz]

So why isn't he coaching today?

Because he was a track record of being a poor coach.

 

[sluggo72]

Because he was a track record of being a poor coach.

HUH?? He does?? explain that??

 

[rjg82]

I have heard that "some" coaches have actual documentation that they were not considered and/or turned down for coaching/sportscaster positions soley because of the psu sanctions. My guess is those coaches will testify if this moves forward.

 

[RobBliz]

HUH?? He does?? explain that??

I think the statement is self explanatory. There is no way in hell he ever got that job without riding Daddy's coat tails. What exactly did he ever accomplish? What QBs actually progressed under his guidance?

 

[Connorpozlee]

Darryl Clark.

 

[RobBliz]

Darryl Clark.

Please... Darryl Clark was a great guy and a great athlete (with or without Jay). Darryl Clark was not a great passer and improved very little while at PSU. Clark and MRob were good/ great players but I just don't see Jays hand in that.

When I think Jay I think more Bolden, Jones and Early McGloin (before OB got to work with him).

 

[LAHammer]

What do you expect with MichnitLion?? He is part of a sub culture of Michigan wolverines disguised as a Nit Lion.
Leave him alone and he will just leave.

 

[kgilbert78]

I think the statement is self explanatory. There is no way in hell he ever got that job without riding Daddy's coat tails. What exactly did he ever accomplish? What QBs actually progressed under his guidance?

He did work at other places before PSU. Some of the same places he applied to. James Madison is not exactly a powerhouse. And yes he may well have gotten those jobs in the first place because of his name. And that is part of the point--he did not even get a courtesy interview. Before 2011, he would have at least gotten that--no matter what some PSU fans think of his qualifications and skills. Because that's the way the game is played. The argument here is not that he would have gotten the job--or even deserved to. The legal argument is that he never got a chance.

 

[sluggo72]

I think the statement is self explanatory. There is no way in hell he ever got that job without riding Daddy's coat tails. What exactly did he ever accomplish? What QBs actually progressed under his guidance?

Daryll Clark?
Mike Robinson?
Mc Moxie??

a host of TE's that played in the pros as well when he was TE coach.

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/paterno_jay00.html
Looks pretty good to me

I cant change his parents, but you haven't offered one thing to show he was a poor coach.

 

[RobBliz]

Daryll Clark?
Mike Robinson?
Mc Moxie??

a host of TE's that played in the pros as well when he was TE coach.

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/paterno_jay00.html
Looks pretty good to me

I cant change his parents, but you haven't offered one thing to show he was a poor coach.

If he was a good coach he would be able to get a job. He was an joke and it was sickening that Joe allowed the staff to get as poor as it did. Come talk to me when his lawsuit is laughed out of the court room.

 

[sluggo72]

Please... Darryl Clark was a great guy and a great athlete (with or without Jay). Darryl Clark was not a great passer and improved very little while at PSU. Clark and MRob were good/ great players but I just don't see Jays hand in that.

When I think Jay I think more Bolden, Jones and Early McGloin (before OB got to work with him).

well that says a lot right there!! You seemed to forget to throw Pat Devlin in the mix as well. So anybody with success, it was all them, and anybody that struggled, it was all because of Jay. Got it.

 

[bvillebaron]

How seriously Jay was considered as a head coach somewhere, will be determined in court. As will everything else in this matter. However, the blanket statement about coaches could certainly include Jay and Bill Kenney.

Well of course it could psuro. Someone also needs to explain to Michnutt (I mean MichNitt) that this is discovery not the trial.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Funny thing is that as soon as I typed that up I knew somebody would respond quickly saying he didn't make him better. Not sure what else to say really.

 

[lein]

Please... Darryl Clark was a great guy and a great athlete (with or without Jay). Darryl Clark was not a great passer and improved very little while at PSU. Clark and MRob were good/ great players but I just don't see Jays hand in that.

When I think Jay I think more Bolden, Jones and Early McGloin (before OB got to work with him).

LSU couldn't get anything out of Bolden, is that Jay's fault? McGloin benefited from a better schema (and maturity), not necessarily Jay's fault.

How many schools considered Clark as QB? Keep in mind, in court, facts matter. Jay has coached B1G player of the year and a 1st team B1G QB. That is indisputable. If necessary, I'm sure both Clark and Robinson would gladly testify in Jay's favor for the work he did (based on comments they have made in the past).

 

[bjf1984]

And.........................................NONE OF THAT MATTERS!!!!!


Whether one thinks Jay/Kenney were the second coming of Vince Lombardi, or the poor man's version of Tim Beckman, it DOESN'T MATTER!!!


The issue is whether or not the NCAA unfairly tarnished the reputation, unfairly disparaged, unjustly degraded the members of the PSU coaching staff....which would then impede upon their ability to make a living.
None of the issues at hand involve the NCAA being critical/supportive of any of the coach's abilities to design an offense or develop the skills of a linebacker.

 

[RobBliz]

And.........................................NONE OF THAT MATTERS!!!!!


Whether one thinks Jay/Kenney were the second coming of Vince Lombardi, or the poor man's version of Tim Beckman, it DOESN'T MATTER!!!


The issue is whether or not the NCAA unfairly tarnished the reputation, unfairly disparaged, unjustly degraded the members of the PSU coaching staff....which would then impede upon their ability to make a living.
None of the issues at hand involve the NCAA being critical/supportive of any of the coach's abilities to design an offense or develop the skills of a linebacker.

While I do agree with you, it still makes me sick. Jay would never have been hired beyond some crappy DII school at best. The idea that he is going to sue (Even if it is the evil ncaa) after stealing money from PSU all of those years makes me sick. He was a terrible coach and a lousy recruiter.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

The consent decree relies on the "factual findings" of the Freeh Report to conclude, "Some coaches, administrators and program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors and no one warned the public about him."

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Binding Consent Decree.pdf

What's the definition of “factual findings”?.

This also from the consent decree:

“FSS has compiled an “exhaustive factual record” compiled from, inter alia, more than 430 interviews and analysis of more than 3.5 million pieces of electronic data and documents.”


The NCAA might argue that the words “exhaustive factual record” refers to nothing more than the mere existence of interviews and documents. In other words, “exhaustive factual record” meaning FSS didn’t make stuff up and that it’s fact that records physically existed which were relied upon in reaching their conclusions, right, wrong, or indifferent. Accordingly, the definition of "factual findings" could connote with that of "factual record" making it more problematic for the plaintiffs to win.

 

[bjf1984]

What's the definition of “factual findings”?.

This also from the consent decree:

“FSS has compiled an “exhaustive factual record” compiled from, inter alia, more than 430 interviews and analysis of more than 3.5 million pieces of electronic data and documents.”


The NCAA might argue that the words “exhaustive factual record” refers to nothing more than the mere existence of interviews and documents. In other words, “exhaustive factual record” meaning FSS didn’t make stuff up and that it’s fact that records physically existed which were relied upon in reaching their conclusions, right, wrong, or indifferent. Accordingly, the definition of "factual findings" could connote with that of "factual record" making it more problematic for the plaintiffs to win.

=

 

[Cruising Route 66]

I can't imagine ANYONE in ANY SITUATION being more out to left field than you are wrt the meaning of this motion.

It is simply not worth any more of a comment than to say that you are either just intentionally trying to get a rise out of folks.......or you are the most obtuse creature to ever rise out of primordial ooze.

That little diatribe would put CR to the test.

Now that's pretty funny coming from the biggest ultracrepidarian in this forum.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

=

Back to the kitchen Hop Sing.

 

[bjf1984]

Now that's pretty funny coming from the biggest ultracrepidarian in this forum.

You mean kinda' like:

You being involved in any discussion regarding righteousness, truth, morality, or intelligence?

LMAO


=

 

[91Joe95]

While I do agree with you, it still makes me sick. Jay would never have been hired beyond some crappy DII school at best. The idea that he is going to sue (Even if it is the evil ncaa) after stealing money from PSU all of those years makes me sick. He was a terrible coach and a lousy recruiter.

You've got issues.

 

[91Joe95]

What's the definition of “factual findings”?.

This also from the consent decree:

“FSS has compiled an “exhaustive factual record” compiled from, inter alia, more than 430 interviews and analysis of more than 3.5 million pieces of electronic data and documents.”


The NCAA might argue that the words “exhaustive factual record” refers to nothing more than the mere existence of interviews and documents. In other words, “exhaustive factual record” meaning FSS didn’t make stuff up and that it’s fact that records physically existed which were relied upon in reaching their conclusions, right, wrong, or indifferent. Accordingly, the definition of "factual findings" could connote with that of "factual record" making it more problematic for the plaintiffs to win.

Excellent. All the NCAA has to do now is produce those documents for their argument to hold up.

 

[PSUMATT85]

I think the statement is self explanatory. There is no way in hell he ever got that job without riding Daddy's coat tails. What exactly did he ever accomplish? What QBs actually progressed under his guidance?

How about Mike Robinson from the 6-4 Iowa game to what he did in '05. He was a little better. Most likely I am going to hear he got better on his own, but Jay made othe QB's worse , correct?

 

[PSUMATT85]

Please... Darryl Clark was a great guy and a great athlete (with or without Jay). Darryl Clark was not a great passer and improved very little while at PSU. Clark and MRob were good/ great players but I just don't see Jays hand in that.

When I think Jay I think more Bolden, Jones and Early McGloin (before OB got to work with him).

I don't think Jay was great, but he wasn't the worse either, which appears to be your agenda. This is clear with you throwing PJ in there. BIll O made him a tight end, yet you fault Jay. C'mon

 

[roswelllion]

So Mich nit,
who is the subset of coaches [plural] that ignored the signs of JS proclivities?

 

[Bushwood CC]

"coaches" = plural, as in more than 1. 2 is the minimum whole number that is more than 1. Hence, they would have to name at least 2 coaches. If it said "a coach", that would be singular, meaning 1. Furthermore, the word "some" is an indefinite pronoun and can be singular or plural, depending on what it's referring to. In this case, it's referring to "coaches" and is therefore plural.

Well you have to remember that 'ole esquire Michy believes that cowardly, self-serving lying is a sophisticated legal strategy....

 

[michnittlion]

So Mich nit,
who is the subset of coaches [plural] that ignored the signs of JS proclivities?

Per the Freeh Report (if one believes in its conclusions) and the Consent Decree --- Joe Paterno. And nobody else.

One coach of out ten fits the definition of "some" (for anyone who wants to argue "some" implies "more than one", tell me how many cookies I eat if I eat some of the 2 cookies on my plate) and one coach out of ten also fits the definition of a "subset."

 

[michnittlion]

Well you have to remember that 'ole esquire Michy believes that cowardly, self-serving lying is a sophisticated legal strategy....

I'm not a lawyer (esquire). Never have claimed such.

 

[Aoshiro]

What's the definition of “factual findings”?.

This also from the consent decree:

“FSS has compiled an “exhaustive factual record” compiled from, inter alia, more than 430 interviews and analysis of more than 3.5 million pieces of electronic data and documents.”


The NCAA might argue that the words “exhaustive factual record” refers to nothing more than the mere existence of interviews and documents. In other words, “exhaustive factual record” meaning FSS didn’t make stuff up and that it’s fact that records physically existed which were relied upon in reaching their conclusions, right, wrong, or indifferent. Accordingly, the definition of "factual findings" could connote with that of "factual record" making it more problematic for the plaintiffs to win.

That's a bizarre theory that is unlikely to get very far, but if the defendants want to go down that road, they will have to present Freeh's "factual record." However, subjecting Freeh's "factual record" to public scrutiny is something that the NCAA, Freeh, and the Penn State board of trustees have been fighting tooth-and-nail. This puts your evil little friends in quite a jam.

 

[91Joe95]

Per the Freeh Report (if one believes in its conclusions) and the Consent Decree --- Joe Paterno. And nobody else.

One coach of out ten fits the definition of "some" (for anyone who wants to argue "some" implies "more than one", tell me how many cookies I eat if I eat some of the 2 cookies on my plate) and one coach out of ten also fits the definition of a "subset."

You need a dictionary. Or ethics. Whichever fits.

 

[bjf1984]

Per the Freeh Report (if one believes in its conclusions) and the Consent Decree --- Joe Paterno. And nobody else.

One coach of out ten fits the definition of "some" (for anyone who wants to argue "some" implies "more than one", tell me how many cookies I eat if I eat some of the 2 cookies on my plate) and one coach out of ten also fits the definition of a "subset."

 

[anon_vmuicqnzlyp3u]

Correct me if I am wrong but Jay was never a coordinator was he? Position coaches are very rarely chosen as head coaches especially at a p5 school. Maybe at a DII or DIII but not much higher. Maybe if Jay set his sights on a coordinator position he might get a look.

 

[CDW3333]

That's a bizarre theory that is unlikely to get very far, but if the defendants want to go down that road, they will have to present Freeh's "factual record." However, subjecting Freeh's "factual record" to public scrutiny is something that the NCAA, Freeh, and the Penn State board of trustees have been fighting tooth-and-nail. This puts your evil little friends in quite a jam.

The defendants don't have to do crap-the burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs.

And that's where things get difficult for the Paterno Estate. It can't even make a prima facie case of defamation.

Ordinarily, in a defamation case the Plaintiff can made a primie facie case simply by taking the stand and testifying that he didn't do any of the bad things the Defendant said he did. Now there's sufficient evidence for the jury to find for the Plaintiff and it would be up to the Defendant to prove that it didn't act with actual malice or with recklessness.

But in this case the Paterno Estate doesn't get to first base because there's no way for it prove that the things Freeh said in his report about Paterno are false. The only person who could do that is not available to testify.

 

[lobo lion]

Per the Freeh Report (if one believes in its conclusions) and the Consent Decree --- Joe Paterno. And nobody else.

One coach of out ten fits the definition of "some" (for anyone who wants to argue "some" implies "more than one", tell me how many cookies I eat if I eat some of the 2 cookies on my plate) and one coach out of ten also fits the definition of a "subset."

My goodness, this is not rocket science. If you were to say "some coach," you'd be talking about a single individual; referring to "some coaches" necessarily suggests more than one.

 

[BobPSU92]

We have some real dumb shits here. The usual cast of horses' asses strikes out again. Whiff!

 

[WeR0206]

But in this case the Paterno Estate doesn't get to first base because there's no way for it prove that the things Freeh said in his report about Paterno are false. The only person who could do that is not available to testify.

Yes there is, by examining the supposed factual record, source files, etc that freeh based his report on and seeing if they support freeh's "reasonable conclusions". You know, those same source files PSU/FSS/freeh have been fighting tooth and nail against releasing to the plaintiffs?

Also we know for a FACT that Joe didnt cover up/enable JS bc Joe followed PSU policy and state law to a T by reporting what MM told him to TC and also putting MM directly in touch with Curley and Schultz. As soon as freeh gives up the source docs he knows the whole charade is going to come crashing down. Hence the fighting tooth and nail to not turn them over via discocery as hes already been ordered to.

Your arguments are incredibly weak.

 

[91Joe95]

The defendants don't have to do crap-the burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs.

And that's where things get difficult for the Paterno Estate. It can't even make a prima facie case of defamation.

Ordinarily, in a defamation case the Plaintiff can made a primie facie case simply by taking the stand and testifying that he didn't do any of the bad things the Defendant said he did. Now there's sufficient evidence for the jury to find for the Plaintiff and it would be up to the Defendant to prove that it didn't act with actual malice or with recklessness.

But in this case the Paterno Estate doesn't get to first base because there's no way for it prove that the things Freeh said in his report about Paterno are false. The only person who could do that is not available to testify.

Fina and the ag disagreed. Twice.

 

[Aoshiro]

The defendants don't have to do crap-the burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs.

And that's where things get difficult for the Paterno Estate. It can't even make a prima facie case of defamation.

Ordinarily, in a defamation case the Plaintiff can made a primie facie case simply by taking the stand and testifying that he didn't do any of the bad things the Defendant said he did. Now there's sufficient evidence for the jury to find for the Plaintiff and it would be up to the Defendant to prove that it didn't act with actual malice or with recklessness.

But in this case the Paterno Estate doesn't get to first base because there's no way for it prove that the things Freeh said in his report about Paterno are false. The only person who could do that is not available to testify.

The Paterno Estate claims aren't for defamation, they are for commercial disparagement.

And clearly the judge does not agree with your evaluation, because he has repeatedly allowed the case to proceed.

The NCAA, Penn State, and Freeh will be forced to produce documents, and all will be revealed. The truth will out.