<p>
Now you’re just making things up.</p>
<p>
No, Sandusky was convicted on 45 out of 48 charges, the exception being the three charges involving Victim 2, the attack that McQueary witnessed.</p>
<p>No, you’re wrong. He was acquitted of 3 charges, only 1 of which pertained to the McQueary incident. And that was the anal rape charge, and only because a) McQueary stated he did not actually see a ***** being inserted into a rectum and b) the victim did not come forward.</p>
<p>
</insert></p>
<p>goingmyway beat me to the punch. Two of the not guilty findings were not related to McQueary’s testimony. There was a single not guilty finding regarding the episode McQueary witnessed, but that was not a repudiation of his testimony.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would have preferred the death penalty for two years because I think it would be better to just shut down that football stadium for a while to let the die-hard Paterno fans cool their jets. I fear these sanctions are just harsh enough to do what the heavy reparations imposed on Germany after World War I did: create enough pain and seething resentment that it ends up fueling the very attitudes it was intended to cure. I have a feeling a lot of JoePa cultists are feeling like the wronged party today.</p>
<p>That said, I do think the sanctions are pretty stiff. Look, if you gave, say, Indiana a 4-year bowl ban, it would mean nothing because they hardly ever go to bowls anyway. But Penn State has been to 25 bowls in the last 30 years, including all the big ones (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange). Its near-automatic bowl bids are a big recruiting lure, both because it means the opportunity to play on a high-profile national stage, but also because it gives coaches and athletes several extra weeks of practices, which puts them that much farther along in their development for the next spring practice and the next season. Programs that don’t get bowl bids are prohibited from using December for coach-led football practice.</p>
<p>A four-year bowl ban coupled with the concurrent loss of 10 schollies a year for 4 years, and on top of that free transfers for any current or incoming Penn State football players, probably means Penn State football is headed into the toilet for a good 10 years or so. It will be 8 or 9 years before they’re back at full strength in scholarship football players, and they may not be so very attractive to the top 4- and 5-star recruits even during that rebuilding period, because those kids would know they’re coming into a program that’s not at full strength. </p>
<p>My guess is the Penn State seniors are circling the wagons right now, trying to prevent defections. I’d be surprised if many seniors left. Juniors, sophomores, and redshirt freshmen need to take a longer term view; I’d be surprised if we didn’t see some significant number of departures. This year’s incoming freshman class was already pretty thin–ranked #51 nationally by Rivals.com, well below Penn State’s usual level. I think any of those kids who have an opportunity to go elsewhere will need to give it serious thought, because they’re looking at 4 years in football Siberia at Penn State. Same, of course, for the verbal commits to the 2013 class.</p>
<p>So I think there are going to be a lot of unhappy football fans in Happy Valley for the next decade or so. And probably some resentful ones. Like the Germans between the wars.</p>
<p>^Only 1 acquittal charge is related to Victim #2 that McQueary testified on.</p>
<p>[Jerry</a> Sandusky verdict: Complete breakdown of charges | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html]Jerry”>Jerry Sandusky verdict: Complete breakdown of charges - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>The convicted charges related to Victim #2 include; Indecent assault, Unlawful contact with minors, Corruption of minors, and Endangering welfare of children. The jury just was not convinced for sure that intercourse happened given the evidence provided and I can understand that reasoning.</p>
<p>ESPN is reporting that Spanier has written a letter to the Trustees saying that he “did all he could” in the Sandusky case, that even tho Freeh interviewed him for 5 hours, there were “errors” in the Freeh report. </p>
<p>So he is fighting hard. The reporter speculated that the “real audience” for the letter was the prosecutor investigating the case who would be the one to bring charges against him.</p>
<p>
Very true, my mistake - unable to quickly find the full list of charges, I was going off of my recollection of the day the conviction was announced, and that recollection was faulty. There were convictions related to Victim 2, and McQueary’s testimony did therefore contribute to Sandusky’s incarceration.</p>
<p>My apologies.</p>
<p>McQueary is still an <<insert insult=“” here=“”>>, that opinion is long-standing and repeatedly reinforced.</insert></p>
<p>Spanier is scrambling, the relationship between Baldwin (Penn State attorney) is telling, he is now throwing her under the bus.</p>
<p>This guy has a sordid past.</p>
<p>
No problem. I’ve posted things I’ve had to take back, too. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, your analogy totally doesn’t work because in your scenario there are multiple parties and disputed facts among the parties to the proceeding. The NCAA’s disciplinary proceeding was strictly between the NCAA and a member institution, Penn State. Penn State said “Here’s what we did, or at least what, to the best of our knowledge after our own investigation, we think we did; and because we did it, we think we deserve some kind of punishment.” There were only two parties to that proceeding, and they agreed to a set of facts. That’s it. The NCAA imposed penalties on the only party it had any kind of jurisdiction over, Penn State, and more specifically, Penn State’s football program. It did not impose penalties on Joe Paterno’s estate, or on Curley, or Schultz, or Spanier, or on the Trustees; they face whatever criminal and civil liability they face completely independently of what the NCAA did today, which it did in response to what amounts to Penn State’s confession. Sure, after 5 or 10 years of litigation it may come out that parts of the Freeh report were incomplete, or exaggerated, or mistaken in some particulars, or whatever. But to suggest that the NCAA is somehow required to wait until all the smoke clears from all the criminal and civil litigation that ever might arise concerning any alleged party to this whole sordid mess before disciplining one of its member institutions that steps forward and says, “Here’s what we did and we know it’s pretty serious and merits punishment, so let’s get it over with,” is just absurd. And more than that, it’s just part of the ongoing culture of denial at Penn State: kick the can down the road, let’s just play football.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea is generally true, but the parallels between the scope and size of the reparations that appeased Clemenceau and the scope of the penalties imposed on PSU are feeble, even after applying some relativity. Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, and the other defeated countries could not survive the penalties that are a profound impact on their entire populations. Here, you simply have penalties on a small part of the university, and financial penalties that could be erased by the fanatical support of PSU lovers. The PSU penalties will represent a small bump in the road, and not the crippling and devastating blows to the economy and well-being of an entire nation. The WW1 penalties were so drastic and demeasured that another war became inevitable. PSU will not go hungry; they simply lost their creme brulee and whipping cream. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many scholarships were … saved through this well orchestrated set of farcical penalties? How many full scholarships do they still have? Did the number go from 85 to 75, or is there a different math for this program? Reducing the scholarhips of a soccer by 3 to 5 might decapitate a program, but football with its headcount rules? </p>
<p>What will this mean? That third stringer punters or long snappers might not be blessed with a scholarship? What is the ratio of players who are on scholarship to the ones who can dress for a football games? </p>
<p>The penalties on scholarship are meant to impress, but they hardly crimp the style of the football team. The “true” recruited players will hardly feel the impact in terms of scholarships. A real penalty should have meant NO football for a long period of time, and that would have made a discussion on the number of scholarships entirely moot. </p>
<p>The reputation … that might be something else.</p>
<p>thanks for the link, samiany. It’ll be interesting to see Spanier turn himself into a pretzel to explain away the emails in the Freeh report.</p>
<p>
I will be the first (well, second I guess) to admit that my analogy is flawed, but there ARE multiple parties to this, they are just being lumped into two sides - NCAA, and PSU. In reality, both sides are made of up various groups, only some of which have power over the proceedings - that doesn’t mean the other parties do not exist, just because they are not the NCAA Executive Board or the PSU BoT/President. And those other parties DO dispute many of the “facts” because many of the “facts” are actually opinions.</p>
<p>
It imposed a punishment on athletes, administration, students, and supporters, and did so based on a report commissioned by and approved by a subset of the administration. That it is the apex of that administration does not change the fact that they will have a hard time showing support for their actions.</p>
<p>
Actually, I have stated several times that I understand the plight of the NCAA in having to find a timely AND just solution, a combination that is likely possible only through blind luck. That they think that their sanctions will do any more to prevent this from recurring than the convictions, indictments, and lawsuits already have is absurd, and often insulting.</p>
<p>My objections are twofold: </p>
<p>First that the NCAA (and the PSU BoT) are acting in a manner that is in THEIR best interests, interests that do not necessarily intersect with justice no matter how much they represent it as such - the NCAA wants money and authority, the BoT and Erickson want their jobs and the approval of the media, and THAT is what this was all based on.</p>
<p>Second, that I object to the NCAA’s ability both to act as a defacto monopoly and to operate with essentially no rules. Their justification was to point to a section of their bylaws that essentially says “we can do whatever we want, for any reason, so suck it.” and I have a problem with such an organization.</p>
<p>
D1 football teams are allowed 25 scholarships per year and 85 in total … Penn State has been reduced to 65 and 15. Given only 15 guys are coming in a year I’d think they will have a lot of trouble staying near 65 scholarship guys each year. 15 guys coming in each year sounds like a lot … but that number in a class includes the kids who get redshirted, injured, or transfer. </p>
<p>Even if these numbers were workable I would think the level of recruit that are going to get will go WAY down. Call #1 - come to Alabama … we’ve been to major bowls 6 years in a row including 3 BCS championship games and we’re odds on favorites to win the SEC again … Call #2 - come to PSU … you won’t be able to go to a bowl in your time at PSU, you won’t be on TV, and we’ll be lucky to be 500, but you get to play in Happy Valley … unless a top recruit has been a life-long PSU fan I’d think they have practically no shot for the next 3 years or so.</p>
<p>Coach O’Brien has a serious uphill battle over the next few years.</p>
<p>"excuse me cosmic? the information is so thin??
McQueary reported seeing Sandusky assault a child in the Penn State showers. is that what you consider “thin”?</p>
<p>You do realize that the charges related to McQueary’s testimony were the only charges of which Sandusky was acquitted, right? McQueary is a self-serving <<insert insult="" here="">> and has been his whole life, and the only people who can be clearly shown to have known fully what was happening are the two people who have been indicted.</insert></p>
<p>thanks ttparent and goingmyway for finding the correct info re: charges.</p>
<p>cosmic–appreciate your apology but it also means your argument about the information being “thin” was hollow.</p>
<p>
My original statement on the evidence being thin was not actually in regards to McQueary - you just decided that I was referring to Sandusky and McQueary and I erroneously ran with it.</p>
<p>For Spanier and Paterno, the amount of actual evidence IS very thin, a couple of emails at most in each case, all of them vague and several of them secondhand, and while it might end up being enough to indict Spanier I doubt that what has been presented so far would convict either of them. The evidence against Curley and Schultz is much more comprehensive, which led to the indictments and will almost certainly result in convictions. The evidence on Sandusky was damning, but not what I was referencing in my comment. </p>
<p>I reacted to the statement about McQueary because (a) his and his father’s testimony have been among the most shaky and inconsistent offered and because (b) I knew the guy and think extremely poorly of him.</p>
<p>[Spanier</a> says university lawyer kept him in dark on Sandusky investigation | TribLIVE](<a href=“/ccpa/”>/ccpa/)</p>
<p>Interestingly, Spanier’s letter does not assert he was not informed of Sandusky’s activities or McQ’s report to Paterno, Schultz and Curley.
His complaint is w/ Baldwin’s failure to keep the cover up intact.</p>
<p>
The four year bowl/post season ban is the real penalty.</p>
<p>PSU will make a future headcoach very wealthy…to take the helm of this franchise and return it to success will be a true undertaking</p>