<p>I am not asking about the one guy- he is one member he is not the Board. The Board either has a role or they do not.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s one thing I think we can all agree on.</p>
<p>Erickson just saved Penn State from getting the death penalty by agreeing to the sanctions, and they want to fire him for that? I thought the board wanted to keep football, not to give NCAA reasons to pull the trigger.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the board’s strategy here. Are their delusions of Penn State’s football grandeur so out of control that they imagine they are bigger and stronger than NCAA? Do they imagine that NCAA will quietly fold if they stand up to it and reject the sanctions? They’ve got to realize that the NCAA has Penn State football in a death grip here. NCAA is making it hurt with the sanctions, but they can certainly squeeze a whole lot harder and make it hurt a whole lot more if the Penn State board foolishly dares them to try it.</p>
<p>Lubrano and McCombie were recently elected to the board by the alumni, and both had campaigned for election as being opposed to the firing of Paterno. So the alumni are getting what they voted for - a board that will defend the memory of Joe Paterno to the death. Unfortunately, it may turn out to be to the death of Penn State football, which is probably not what the alumni actually wanted.</p>
<p>The NY Times has a summary of the rules for Penn State players and recruits who want to play elsewhere:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having the Penn State games still be on TV is something O’Brien can hype.</p>
<p>My big question tho is why hasn’t Penn State cut Curley and Shultz lose completely–why do they have to pay their legal expenses. And why why why is Spanier still on the faculty?</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State Alum And Potential Trustee Is Not A Baseball Star, Doesn’t Feel The Need To Correct Anyone Who Says Otherwise](<a href=“Penn State Alum And Potential Trustee Is Not A Baseball Star, Doesn't Feel The Need To Correct Anyone Who Says Otherwise”>Penn State Alum And Potential Trustee Is Not A Baseball Star, Doesn't Feel The Need To Correct Anyone Who Says Otherwise)</p>
<p>" And why why why is Spanier still on the faculty?"</p>
<p>And why hasn’t even a single faculty member publicly suggested he shouldn’t be? Is it that he brings such luster to the college of health and human development?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No wonder Lubrano fits right in the PSU athletic culture. “I’ve never said anything that was untrue.” We’ll take his word for that! :)</p>
<p>B-schools will study this for years to come. Tom no one will know the answer to your question. My guess is the board did know what was going on…probably had some sort of concensus…probably wasn’t unanimous in how they felt but disbanded at some point over the weekend with a general understanding of what was going to happen and this guy is a blow hard. Hopefully the press will find him an amusing distraction and that’s all. If this was an elected position as some one says, he obviously ran on some popular platform.</p>
<p>ROTFL Mini I just read the link you posted. Hopefully the NCAA finds him funny also.</p>
<p>Momof3- you most likely are correct. The balance of the BOT should bring him under control.</p>
<p>“If this was an elected position as some one says, he obviously ran on some popular platform.”</p>
<p>Oh, he did all right:</p>
<p>[Anthony</a> lubrano News, Video and Gossip - Deadspin](<a href=“http://deadspin.com/anthony-lubrano/]Anthony”>http://deadspin.com/anthony-lubrano/)</p>
<p>Wouldya look at that – the board decided to keep Dr. Erickson after all, being of the opinion that the sanctions were a more constructive course than the DP. No vote, no removal. And as of yet, no statement. (I would put money on some random BOT member shooting off their mouth in the parking lot, though. Mr Lubrano, you’rrrrrrre up!)</p>
<p>
Putting aside how comparable the two are–if naming the building after him was a quid pro quo for getting the money, then I think you have to give the money back. Do you really think the university should keep his dirty money, anyway?</p>
<p>
^^That’s funny, a “lose cannon” - I like it!!</p>
<p>If the BoT does not accept the sanctions, or delays the acceptance, it will open a whole can of worms. And what they don’t seem to understand is there are other who can and will (or already have) imposed sanctions, like the league. </p>
<p>Go ahead, reject the sanctions, and see what happens to your schedule. Does anyone think the other teams will even consider playing games against them? I would call that a de facto self-imposed death penalty.</p>
<p>Then of course there are the players - wasn’t part of the plan meant to protect the rights of those players? If the BoT rejects the sanctions, what happens to those players? Unless the NCAA gives them some sort of waiver, those players will not be eligible to play elsewhere. If they delay accepting the sanctions, those players have a shorter time to arrange something with those other schools. With that kind of ill will toward the players, who would want to stay?</p>
<p>As for the concept of institutional control, the BoT hires the President, the President acts on behalf of the school and the BoT. It wasn’t a question of Spanier acting without the BoT’s consent when he was President, it was about them being completely out of the loop. If they fire him, it will be suicide by proxy.</p>
<p>Re: post 7259
Actually mini, the Freeh report does not say students witnessed Sandusky in the shower with young boys. Pages 39 and 40 state twice “several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys…”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf[/url]”>http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf</a></p>
<p>Just wanted to make sure that the Freeh report is quoted accurately.</p>
<p>Stand corrected. (My citation was a secondary source.) (It would be unlikely that they would have interviewed former students from 1994-1997, though if football coaches and staff members “regularly saw it”, it would be highly unlikely that students - and, specifically, football players - didn’t see it as well.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the starting QB? probably nothing. PSU isn’t unique in letting their football program be above the rules… just the only one that used the program to cover for child rapists (so far).</p>
<p>Don’t a bunch of programs use female college students to uhhh… “help recruit” prospective football athletes?</p>
<p>[College</a> Football ‘Hostesses’ are Sex Bait to Lure Top Recruits - David DiSalvo - Brainspin - True/Slant](<a href=“http://trueslant.com/daviddisalvo/2009/12/10/college-football-hostesses-are-sex-bait-to-lure-blue-chip-recruits/]College”>http://trueslant.com/daviddisalvo/2009/12/10/college-football-hostesses-are-sex-bait-to-lure-blue-chip-recruits/)
[College</a> Football Hostesses: Girls That Help Get Recruits](<a href=“http://www.lostlettermen.com/7-19-2011-ncaa-hostesses/]College”>http://www.lostlettermen.com/7-19-2011-ncaa-hostesses/)
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/sports/ncaafootball/15vecsey.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/sports/ncaafootball/15vecsey.html</a>
[A</a> Brief History Of Campus Recruiting Hostesses](<a href=“A Brief History Of Campus Recruiting Hostesses”>A Brief History Of Campus Recruiting Hostesses)</p>
<p>As posted by mini…</p>
<p>“What is the value of a degree from an institution that lacks academic integrity?”</p>
<p>Now there is no academic integrity?</p>
<p>You read me right. And I’ve given my reasoning for it as well. You can disagree of course. Free country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ordinarily, the Board should be overseeing the President. But this Board is tainted, and needs to be ousted ASAP. Erickson seems to be the only grownup in the place.</p>
<p>
Jane, Jane, Jane How dare you question why Curley and Schultz are being protected and not inquire why the janitor (now deceased) isnt being vilified.</p>