<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the part that struck me, too.</p>
<p>One thought on the pensions–if they continue to be paid to Sandusky, the money from them may become available to civil claimants (I don’t know if pension payments can be garnisheed or not, but the funds could be reached after they were paid). I don’t think it’s such a bad thing for money to flow from the State of Pennsylvania to the victims–the state authorities also are complicit in allowing football to take over Penn State.</p>
<p>Great point, Hunt. Haven’t been following - have any civil suits been filed against Sandusky at this point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And Penn State was one of the first to show up in Dallas to recruit the football players who faced the loss of a career as a SMU football player. </p>
<p>While you expect that from football coaches, it makes the adulation of those people harder to comprehend. The idolatry of Paterno was probably bigger --and misplaced-- than anywhere else.</p>
<p>I suspect most Penn Staters are angry; at Spanier, Curley, Paterno, Schultz, and of course Sandusky. They know, I assume, that reforms are needed, and culture needs to change. So why the defensiveness with regard to NCAA sactions? I suspect it has less to do with the sanctions themselves than the public hanging quality to it all.</p>
<p>The NCAA decided, if they are to be believed, that the sanctionable issue was not competitive advantage, but rather the development of a culture whereby athletics became so important, so powerful, that the members of the program operated outside of/above the rules of the University (and that certainly happened at Penn State). Universities, the NCAA has very recently come to believe, should place high priority on education (insane) and emotional nourishment rather than the worship of athletic acheivment. In doing so, the NCAA has attempted to portray, or at least imply, that the situation at Penn State was anomolous. It is not; and Penn Staters, aware of that fact, undoubtedly and understandably resent the NCAA’s disingenuous moralizing. Unsurprisingly, anger ensues.</p>
<p>If you believe that football players and coaches at Alabama or LSU or USC or Texas or (your choice) do not operate outside of/above the rules of their respective universities, well I have some nice swamp land you may be interested in. And what will the NCAA do about these universities, where the athletic department bullies admissions, and faculty, and campus security, and the university leadership? </p>
<p>Nada.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell that to Sorkin!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s being widely reported this morning that NCAA was promising Penn State a four year football death penalty if it did not accept the sanctions. Given that choice I don’t see how anyone, even Anthony Lubrano, can be so dense as to attack Erikson for accepting the sanctions. it was the better of two very harsh options.</p>
<p>In other news, USC head coach Lane Kiffin who took over the job in the wake of their most recent scandal has said that the worst thing about serving out the bowl ban and having your players able to transfer without penalty was having coaches from other schools openly call up your best players and recruit them to jump ship, right from under your nose. And there is nothing you can do about it.</p>
<p>Now with the tables turned, it looks like Kiffin is not above playing the other side of that game and is apparently recruiting some of the current Penn State stars:
[Now</a> USC’s Lane Kiffin may be chasing a ‘free agent’—Silas Redd - latimes.com](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-0725-usc-pac-12-20120725,0,2407357.story]Now”>Now USC's Lane Kiffin may be chasing a 'free agent'—Silas Redd)</p>
<p>Lane Kiffin is total scum and I’m glad he’s out of the SEC. There were hilarious songs written about him when he screwed UTenn.</p>
<p>Just speechless. Although give benefit of youthful naivete, (writer is in Class of 2013)</p>
<p>[Graham</a> Spanier is not the leader media portrays | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/07/graham_spanier_is_not_the_lead.html]Graham”>Graham Spanier is not the leader media portrays - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>Graham Spanier is not the leader media portrays</p>
<p>Eighteen months ago, I emailed former Penn State President Graham Spanier to request a letter of recommendation for a program with the Department of Homeland Security. He responded, “I’ll be happy to do this. Good luck.”</p>
<p>
And therein lies the rub. For me, the most disheartening thing about all this is that football and the money it generates still reigns in this country. And apparently, there is no end in sight.</p>
<p>“It’s being widely reported this morning that NCAA was promising Penn State a four year football death penalty if it did not accept the sanctions”</p>
<p>One may fairly ask why the NCAA is in the plea bargaining business.</p>
<p>And the NCAA plan for dealing with other programs where cultures of athletic worship exist? Where coaches and athletes operate outside of/above university rules? </p>
<p>Pin drops.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is absolutely true, and also why the “negotiated” penalties imposed by the NCAA fell so short. </p>
<p>A golden opportunity to send a strong message was lost. With football being played this Fall at PSU, most people around the country will be oblivious to the “penalty” phase. Does anyone really believe the last Stanford-USC games were less important because USC was not a full-fledged member of the football community. </p>
<p>Until the NCAA stops acting in such a self-preservation mode and beheads one of its biggest programs, the colleges and their officials will continue to push the envelope. The attitude of the BOT of PSU is telling: not only did they feel to be able to approve the action of their senior official, but also to further negotiate with the NCAA. Where does that come from? From the way schools deal with the NCAA! </p>
<p>What might the leaders of football programs at Alabama or LSU or USC or Texas say behind closed doors about the “fate” of PSU? Heck, if that is all what they got, let’s be more aggressive. The good old days of Osborne and Barry Switzer are not over. WE ARE STILL IN CHARGE! </p>
<p>It is good for all to remember that this scandal was the biggest ever in collegiate football. Well, at least, everyone but the folks in Happy Valley, that is.</p>
<p>I have not heard a peep or read a word about the victims and their attorneys. I’m sure there are more victims and I think strategy is being formed as to how to get the most payout as fast as possible . The attorneys will probably want to move as a group, and will hit everyone and everything they can. It’s the way it usually works, and then drop those where the pay off is not as worthwhile, It’s the deepest pockets where they will hit the hardest. It may be that they are not in the best position yet to file their suits, and are awaiting other indictments and convictions. The university could be working with them right now. I remember that they did say that counseling will be offered and that they wanted to talk to the attorneys about that venue as soon as Sandusky was found guilty.</p>
<p>I feel that it is important that the sanctity of the legal system is kept when things like this happen with changes made when they can not adequately handle a situation. It doe bother me that there are a lot of people out for blood when there is a procedure and things have to be established. It’s in the worst cases, that it becomes important to follow these steps, because it is too easy to become of lynch mob mentality. That we have an innocence until proven guilty mantra in our system is an important thing. The system has worked with Sandusky, now the others involved in this have to have their days in court where they get nota chance to refute the charges if they so choose.</p>
<p>For better or worse, when it comes to “guilt” or “innocence” I doubt very much that either perpetrators or victims will get their day in court (unless the money trail turns up stuff). There is no incentive on the part of federal prosecutors to bring charges against the former Professor Emeritus, and without charges against him, there can’t be other cases brought under either RICO or the Mann Act.</p>
<p>They in theory could attempt to refute the charges in a civil case (where the predominance of evidence standard holds), but I can’t imagine that any of them would want to take that chance, and there will be heavy pressure from the university for the individuals to settle out of court.</p>
<p>But the pressures for damages could be huge. Imagine, say, all the profits the University has made off football for the past 14 years, plus interest, as a starting point.</p>
<p>Lawyers: Shower abuse victim to sue Penn State</p>
<p>[Lawyers:</a> Shower abuse victim to sue Penn State - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/lawyers-shower-abuse-victim-sue-penn-state-163042317--spt.html]Lawyers:”>http://news.yahoo.com/lawyers-shower-abuse-victim-sue-penn-state-163042317--spt.html)</p>
<p>From Sparkeye’s link;</p>
<p>"The identity of so-called Victim 2 has been a central mystery in the Sandusky case, and jurors convicted Sandusky last month of offenses related to him judging largely by the testimony of Mike McQueary, who was a team graduate assistant at the time and described seeing the attack.</p>
<p>“Our client has to live the rest of his life not only dealing with the effects of Sandusky’s childhood sexual abuse, but also with the knowledge that many powerful adults, including those at the highest levels of Penn State, put their own interests and the interests of a child predator above their legal obligations to protect him,” the lawyers’ statement said."</p>
<p>I imagine with Victim 2 emerging now Penn State would face further liability. I am glad to see this young man find the courage to speak.</p>
<p>Sandusky was STILL harassing this kid September 2011. </p>
<p>From Sparkeyes’s link:</p>
<p>In recording of a pair of voicemails released with the statement and posted online by the lawyers, a voice that’s purportedly Sandusky’s expresses his love and says he wants to express his feelings “up front.”
The voicemails are dated Sept. 12 and Sept. 19, less than two months before the former Penn State coach was arrested on child sex abuse charges late last year.
The second voicemail asks whether Victim 2 would like to attend Penn State’s next game.
Sandusky left “numerous” voicemails for their client fall 2011, the attorneys said.</p>
<p>Also from sparkeye’s link. I wonder why Victim 2 was not part of the Sandusky trial–not that they needed him. So Sandusky kept after him until last year. Unbelievable. Beyond appalling. And the lure was STILL Penn State footbal games.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^I know, absolutely unbelievable how Sandusky was harassing this young man, trying to manipulate him away from talking…and to think that offering him to attend Penn State’s next game was still his lure.</p>
<p>I wont post the link makes me sick to my stomach. But you can listen to them on line.</p>