NCAA: WHY?

[RutgersMO]

No action yet (ever?) on UNC (the University of phantom or NO CLASSES).

No action yet on the new allegations that Joe Pa knew about Sandusky in the 70's.

Reverses "Rutgers Rule" to disallow satellites / allows the rich to get richer with MI et al satellites
(where's Bernie when we need him).

WHY?

MO

 

[shu2x79]

Why would the NCAA get involved again in the Paterno issue? I do agree that the way the NC matter is being handled is a disgrace.

 

[RutgersMO]

Why would the NCAA get involved again in the Paterno issue? I do agree that the way the NC matter is being handled is a disgrace.

Why? Because if the case can be made that Joe Pa knew...WHO ELSE KNEW? Admin?

So the penalties that were in force that were lifted might have to be reinforced!

The NCAA is the joke that should never be told...it has no PUNCH LINE!

MO

 

[miketd1]

Honestly, there's not much else for NCAA to do at PSU.

NCAA needs to regulate collegiate sports scandals (like UNC, Miami, USC), not criminal ones (PSU).

IMO, they have more "right" going after UNC, Ole Miss, and Miami since those (alleged?) violations of NCAA rules involve actual players (accepting money, favors, absentee classes, grade changes, etc.).

 

[vkj91]

Why? Because if the case can be made that Joe Pa knew...WHO ELSE KNEW? Admin?

So the penalties that were in force that were lifted might have to be reinforced!

The NCAA is the joke that should never be told...it has no PUNCH LINE!

MO

We already knew Joe and the Admin knew about it. Only people disputing that were aped fans, this just proves they knew for a longer period of time. Like it or not, the B1G wants a strong PSU and that's partly why sanctions were lifted. You think they just happened upon the easiest crossover games in the history of crossover games while on sanctions by accident?

 

[RutgersMO]

We already knew Joe and the Admin knew about it. Only people disputing that were aped fans, this just proves they knew for a longer period of time. Like it or not, the B1G wants a strong PSU and that's partly why sanctions were lifted. You think they just happened upon the easiest crossover games in the history of crossover games while on sanctions by accident?

VK

Obviously I don't like it...maybe I'm piling on because Rutgers will probably suffer.

As Michigan and fill in the blank U. : Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Oregon etc. find it easier to steal recruits from NJ, the rich will get richer...so Bernie's 1% metaphor works: we need recruiting equality: i.e. where's R our 5 star recruits (in Michigan ?).


MO

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

For the NCAA to sanction Penn State, it would have to, you know, actually investigate something itself. And it would need to confirm the allegations. And if you want to tie it all back into the McQueary incident, the NCAA would have to rewrite its guidelines on reporting abuse - again - since Paterno followed said guidelines.

Don't hold your breath on any of the above. My personal feelings are the NCAA needs to worry about enforcing its own rules, which it often struggles to do, and not the laws of the United States or whether a football coach lives up to anyone's moral standard.

 

[vkj91]

VK

Obviously I don't like it...maybe I'm piling on because Rutgers will probably suffer.

As Michigan and fill in the blank U. : Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Oregon etc. find it easier to steal recruits from NJ, the rich will get richer...so Bernie's 1% metaphor works: we need recruiting equality: i.e. where's R our 5 star recruits (in Michigan ?).


MO

Recruiting equality is about as realistic as income equality. Cream is always gonna rise to the top. When RU spends the money, builds the facilities, and hires the right people we will get ours. Until then we look just like the OWS crowd. Bunch of whiners sitting around talking about how the world ain't fair. While talking on their IPhones, staring at their laptops, and sipping their 8$ coffees.

 

[Knight Shift]

 

[RutgersMO]

Recruiting equality is about as realistic as income equality. Cream is always gonna rise to the top. When RU spends the money, builds the facilities, and hires the right people we will get ours. Until then we look just like the OWS crowd. Bunch of whiners sitting around talking about how the world ain't fair. While talking on their IPhones, staring at their laptops, and sipping their 8$ coffees.

Mixing threads....but I just pledged yesterday, for the building fund over the next 5 years/ asked for a bequest form as well.

You make a good point about income equality ...but G'd I wish we had someone like Phil Knight (I live 1/2 in Oregon, about 20 miles from Nikeland) who could help!

MO

 

[miketd1]

MO: We have what Oregon doesn't -- a recruiting hotbed in our backyard.

 

[vkj91]

MO: We have what Oregon doesn't -- a recruiting hotbed in our backyard.

I'd rather have Phil Knight. Lol

 

[superfan01]

Mo you gotta move on PSU.

Those guys are long gone from the program.

 

[miketd1]

I'd rather have Phil Knight. Lol

You're messing up my spin game

 

[Scarlet16E]

No action yet (ever?) on UNC (the University of phantom or NO CLASSES).

No action yet on the new allegations that Joe Pa knew about Sandusky in the 70's.

Reverses "Rutgers Rule" to disallow satellites / allows the rich to get richer with MI et al satellites
(where's Bernie when we need him).

WHY?

MO

The "Rutgers Rule" was not reversed.
The reversal was a months old rule that banned college football coaching staffs from participating in camps run run third parties.

 

[vkj91]

Mo you gotta move on PSU.

Those guys are long gone from the program.

Fans need to accept the NCAA has moved on but we don't need to. Those guys might be gone but the culture is still the same.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

Fans need to accept the NCAA has moved on but we don't need to. Those guys might be gone but the culture is still the same.

I've always gotten a kick out of the "culture problem" thing. The "culture" surrounding football at Penn State, from a student/alumni/fan perspective, is no different from that at Alabama, Ohio State, Auburn, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Florida State, etc. And in terms of how the program is run, from academics to playing by the rules, you can argue the environment at Penn State is better than that at many of the schools I listed.

Sandusky's crimes were awful. If he was protected in any way, that's disgusting. Even if the only negative turns out to be Joe Paterno choosing not to follow up on the reports to the administrators and The Second Mile, that's disappointing. But regardless, as it relates to child sexual abuse and how the situation was handled or not handled, citing the "culture" as a problem is lazy and doesn't do proper justice in investigating how Sandusky was able to operate for so long.

 

[miketd1]

Vegas: While Joe & co. may have followed legal procedure to a T, many believe Joe had an ethical obligation to those kids to utilize his considerable network and influence to dig deeper rather than pass the buck up the chain of command to folks with potentially significant conflicts of interest. It's fine if you want to say Joe followed the rules, but he can't have "success with honor" without the honor part.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

Vegas: While Joe & co. may have followed legal procedure to a T, many believe Joe had an ethical obligation to those kids to utilize his considerable network and influence to dig deeper rather than pass the buck up the chain of command to folks with potentially significant conflicts of interest. It's fine if you want to say Joe followed the rules, but he can't have "success with honor" without the honor part.

I've said this before on this board: Joe did not handle the situation perfectly. He did the correct thing by having McQueary report his story to the administrators. Where Paterno failed was not following up with those administrators, assuming he did not indeed follow up, as it became clear a law enforcement investigation was not taking place. To be fair, I think McQueary fails worse in that sense, given he was a direct witness and could have alerted the police at any time. His father and family friend, a mandatory reporter, as well as those at The Second Mile all also must take some responsibility here, but I digress...

I agree that Joe's legacy takes a hit if all he did was pass the buck. However, that (a) does not necessarily equate to a cover-up and (b) in the context of my reply regarding the NCAA rules, to impose sanctions after a coach follows the guidelines for reporting abuse would be absurd and set a dangerous precedent.

 

[RU#1fan]

No Concern Athletes Actions

 

[miketd1]

Vegas: whether or not there was an actual cover-up depends on Joe & co.'s motivations for doing so little. You'll have to forgive the majority of us for believing the desire to maintain the PSU brand and protecting Joe's legacy played a role there. If it did -- in even the tiniest of ways -- then football was put before the welfare of children and voila: cover-up.

 

[koleszar]

We already knew Joe and the Admin knew about it. Only people disputing that were aped fans, this just proves they knew for a longer period of time. Like it or not, the B1G wants a strong PSU and that's partly why sanctions were lifted. You think they just happened upon the easiest crossover games in the history of crossover games while on sanctions by accident?

Now this makes sense. I always wondered how they lucked out with a round robin of the three worst teams in the west for three years. This explanation is very plausible. No one is this lucky and shame on the B1G in their dealings with psu, by championing to have the sanctions reduced and the rigged scheduling.

 

[vkj91]

@Cheesesteak Vegas your response is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. "It would be dissapointing if joe didn't follow up or did the bare minimum?" That's the kind of thing a rationale fan would say about a coach not following up about a failed drug test, a burglary charge or maybe even a bar fight type situation. It's not what's said regarding inappropriate sexual actions in A team locker room.
If I went to my superiors with such a story I damn well would have followed up and I'd certainly question seeing the guy around the office with children. Here's a second example for you. Your President coming out and defending JOPA and the school over the latest allegations. Why not say nothing? Why not simply say we are aware of the reports ? No, he gets all defensive despite full well knowing PSU paid claims back to 1971.
Your claims that you guys always did it the right way. Problem here is once everyone understands how the Sandusky thing was handled the idea that you guys did things the "right way, had honor, or stellar academics" comes seriously into question. If your going to harbor a ped you will probably let a few other things slide along the way?
Lastly, when fans of Bama, LSU, OSU, and ND tear up their campus or flip over TV vans over a coach getting fired we can start to make comparisons.

 

[vkj91]

Now this makes sense. I always wondered how they lucked out with a round robin of the three worst teams in the west for three years. This explanation is very plausible. No one is this lucky and shame on the B1G in their dealings with psu, by championing to have the sanctions reduced and the rigged scheduling.

I don't think it was some secret. I think it was even alluded to by the B1G

 

[topdecktiger]

Fans need to accept the NCAA has moved on but we don't need to. Those guys might be gone but the culture is still the same.

The culture is a problem that is going to be harder to change. Just look at this thread. The other poster to whom you first responded admitted that he wanted Penn St to get sanctions because it will benefit Rutgers. Well, that's the same type of attitude as from the Penn St people. It's still a football-first mentality.

Vegas: While Joe & co. may have followed legal procedure to a T, many believe Joe had an ethical obligation to those kids to utilize his considerable network and influence to dig deeper rather than pass the buck up the chain of command to folks with potentially significant conflicts of interest. It's fine if you want to say Joe followed the rules, but he can't have "success with honor" without the honor part.

The point is, the NCAA can't do anything about the "success with honor" part. That's a moral/abstract issue. The NCAA regulates ball games.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

@Cheesesteak Vegas your response is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. "It would be dissapointing if joe didn't follow up or did the bare minimum?" That's the kind of thing a rationale fan would say about a coach not following up about a failed drug test, a burglary charge or maybe even a bar fight type situation. It's not what's said regarding inappropriate sexual actions in A team locker room.
If I went to my superiors with such a story I damn well would have followed up and I'd certainly question seeing the guy around the office with children. Here's a second example for you. Your President coming out and defending JOPA and the school over the latest allegations. Why not say nothing? Why not simply say we are aware of the reports ? No, he gets all defensive despite full well knowing PSU paid claims back to 1971.
Your claims that you guys always did it the right way. Problem here is once everyone understands how the Sandusky thing was handled the idea that you guys did things the "right way, had honor, or stellar academics" comes seriously into question. If your going to harbor a ped you will probably let a few other things slide along the way?
Lastly, when fans of Bama, LSU, OSU, and ND tear up their campus or flip over TV vans over a coach getting fired we can start to make comparisons.

We don't have all of the answers regarding what happened in the 1970s, if anything, at this point. However, just because the PSU BoT signed off on settlements dating back to 1971 doesn't mean the incident in question actually occurred or, if it did, that the victim somehow ended up on a conference call with "Jim and Joe." A lot of unknowns and question marks about that CNN story and those allegations.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

Vegas: whether or not there was an actual cover-up depends on Joe & co.'s motivations for doing so little. You'll have to forgive the majority of us for believing the desire to maintain the PSU brand and protecting Joe's legacy played a role there. If it did -- in even the tiniest of ways -- then football was put before the welfare of children and voila: cover-up.

You guys are entitled to your beliefs. It's not surprising that someone would believe that considering the way this entire story hashort been reported since November 2011.

IF he protected Sandusky for the sake of his legacy or the PSU brand, that's despicable. But let's remember that Joe didn't silence McQueary; he told him to report the story up the chain of command. And The Second Mile was also notified of the incident. If they were trying to cover something up, they sure let a lot of people in on the secret. Does that prove there was no cover-up? No. But it suggests to me that what happened in the early 2000s was more of a royal f*$k up than something nefarious so Sandusky wouldn't be caught.

Now, if Paterno knew in the 1970s, that changes things. Obviously, he becomes much more complicit and things get worse for him. However, let's say the 1971 incident IS true, and the kid somehow got an audience with Joe Paterno. I think the motive of protecting the brand no longer applies. The PSU brand wasn't quite established then, Joe certainly didn't have a legacy to worry about, and Jerry was a no-name assistant in 1971; he could have been fired immediately no questions asked. You don't avoid risk to the program by promoting him to DC and sit idly by as he starts a charity involving kids. At least, no rational person would do that.

Is it possible, given the climate in the early 70s, that no one would have believed Victim A? Sure. However, if/when something pops up again in 1976, then it's time to take action for sure. Again, it doesn't seem to follow the idea, to me, of "protecting the brand" by keeping someone like this on your staff for 35 years.

 

[BoogieKnight]

The PSU thing is simple...the guys at the top (not just Paterno) got too powerful and believed they could handle everything in house...including child rape. Same thing happened with the Catholic Church. At PSU there was no procedure in place for such a situation and now there is. Listen I have no love lost for PSU but I'm sick of reading all these threads on here about it. Yes Joe and the administration knew, handled it poorly and as a result more children may have been harmed. That is tragic. But Paterno is dead and Sandusky is locked up. It's over

 

[miketd1]

In my mind, I toss out the 1971 incident. Agree with you - circumstances and motives do not align with a cover up there. They do, however, align with a money grab today. Either way, the settlement was simply to reduce liability in the event there was something going on - not an admission of guilt (as lots of uninformed PSU haters purport).

Which brings us back to MM. I 100% believe Joe would have turned in Sandusky if Mike 1.) witnessed sexual assault and 2.) told Joe as much in clear terms. That said, I think Mike walked in on Sandusky and the kid, but did not actually witness anything sexual occurring. However, there was enough circumstantial evidence (naked JS, naked boy, late at night alone, slapping sounds, JS's reputation(?)) for him to go to his dad and then Joe.

And that's what he reported to Joe: circumstantial evidence. Joe, not wanting to blow everything up based on circumstantial evidence, did the bare minimum. Ditto PSU admin. They reported to Second Mile, but there's reason to believe that place is corrupt (separate issue).

Decades later, when it was clear Sandusky was a predator and PSU was burning, Mike changed his story as part of a plea bargain. And everyone who used knowledge of Sandusky's exploits (even second and third hand) to benefit in some way got their magic bullet to pin the blame squarely on Joe and the PSU program. Exactly what the media want$.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

In my mind, I toss out the 1971 incident. Agree with you - circumstances and motives do not align with a cover up there. They do, however, align with a money grab today. Either way, the settlement was simply to reduce liability in the event there was something going on - not an admission of guilt (as lots of uninformed PSU haters purport).

Which brings us back to MM. I 100% believe Joe would have turned in Sandusky if Mike 1.) witnessed sexual assault and 2.) told Joe as much in clear terms. That said, I think Mike walked in on Sandusky and the kid, but did not actually witness anything sexual occurring. However, there was enough circumstantial evidence (naked JS, naked boy, late at night alone, slapping sounds, JS's reputation(?)) for him to go to his dad and then Joe.

And that's what he reported to Joe: circumstantial evidence. Joe, not wanting to blow everything up based on circumstantial evidence, did the bare minimum. Ditto PSU admin. They reported to Second Mile, but there's reason to believe that place is corrupt (separate issue).

Decades later, when it was clear Sandusky was a predator and PSU was burning, Mike changed his story as part of a plea bargain. And everyone who used knowledge of Sandusky's exploits (even second and third hand) to benefit in some way got their magic bullet to pin the blame squarely on Joe and the PSU program. Exactly what the media want$.

I can't say I disagree. To take it a step further, people need to realize that this entire scandal is also tied up in politics. Corbett, then the AG, slow played the investigation while simultaneously pocketing hundreds of thousands in gubernatorial compaign dollars from people connected to The Second Mile.

I wouldn't put it past powerful, wealthy men to deflect blame to a football program to avoid some harsh questions from the media directed at themselves. Thus, leaking an exaggerated grand jury report, saying Joe was told of "anal rape" which wasn't the case, and firing Spanier to take control of the narrative from the beginning. Corbett, who could have taken Jerry off the streets much earlier, had a voting position on the board and suddenly was very concerned, encouraging the board to fire Joe and "think about the boy in the shower." Amazing how his priorities changed. In return, plenty of individuals on the PSU Board of Trustees benefited personally and financially from the way things played out, basically selling PSU out and violating their fidcuciary duty to the university, and also protected their own self interests. And it's easy to deflect when the other subject is a celebrity the ilk of Joe Paterno. People, and the media, eat stuff like that up. I mean, look at the sex abuse scandal going on with the former speaker of the house. That's approaching the top levels of our government, but no one knows who he is so it barely lasts the news cycle.

As I've said, mistakes were made by Paterno and on the administration side of things, but if we want to get to the bottom of what might be the bigger issues, questions needs to be asked how Sandusky was left free for so long, how he was able to continue to adopt kids, etc. Talking about Joe Paterno is good for clicks, but it's much too simple a view to take on this entire thing if the goal, as it should be, is to try to prevent future children from suffering from these same types of crimes.

 

[Pritz99]

UNC? Better watch out, Charlotte. The NCAA will be so pissed off at UNC they give YOU two years probation.

 

[PSU_Nut]

No action yet (ever?) on UNC (the University of phantom or NO CLASSES).

No action yet on the new allegations that Joe Pa knew about Sandusky in the 70's.

Reverses "Rutgers Rule" to disallow satellites / allows the rich to get richer with MI et al satellites
(where's Bernie when we need him).

WHY?

MO

UNC is still pending. They just received the letter notifying them of the allegations which is a step in the NCAA due process rules.

You do realize the NCAA has a statue of limitations for things. So even if unverified claims are true the NCAA according to their own rules can't take action.

They never reversed the "Rutgers Rule". School are still not allowed to host camps away from campus. Coaches are however allowed to be guest coaches. It all in the fine details but someone else is technically hosting this camp. This is how coaches have been getting around the rule the past couple of years.

 

[RutgersMO]

UNC is still pending. They just received the letter notifying them of the allegations which is a step in the NCAA due process rules.

You do realize the NCAA has a statue of limitations for things. So even if unverified claims are true the NCAA according to their own rules can't take action.

They never reversed the "Rutgers Rule". School are still not allowed to host camps away from campus. Coaches are however allowed to be guest coaches. It all in the fine details but someone else is technically hosting this camp. This is how coaches have been getting around the rule the past couple of years.

The new ice age will occur before the NCAA does ANYTHIHG to one of it's CHOSEN (UNC).

Statue of limitations is a legal term: I'm talking about morals, ethics, choosing to deal with the truth instead of skirting it. The PSU debacle extends to the mystique/ perception of the school / it's demi-god: Joe Pa. It includes the administration, it's alums / fans. This is the statue that PSU should erect and tear down that statue of Pateno once / forever:


If not just erect a statue of Jerry Sandusky next to Joe Pa...and call it "friends till the end" .

As for the Rutgers Rule. I know that technically it hasn't been reversed. But that's like saying you support laws that ban marriage between parents / their offspring....and you're going to Utah with some guy named Jeffries to promote your ideas. "It's a technicality...a way around the meaning / spirit of the rule. Period".

MO
"Ignorance is NOT a virtue".

 

[AshCatchEm]

The reversed camp rule helps kids without the means to travel. It's that simple.

 

[RutgersMO]

The reversed camp rule helps kids without the means to travel. It's that simple.

No, it's not. Period end!

It's an end run: "Ignorance is neither a virtue nor an excuse".

MO