<p>^^I posted earlier that USC coach Lane Kiffin was actively recruiting Silas Redd. Today the LA Times has another piece about that. USC is really putting on a full-court press. They have also dispatched one of Redd’s high school teammates, who is currently on the USC team, to talk to Redd and help seal the deal.</p>
<p><<i really=“” think=“” the=“” “success=”" with=“” honor"=“” thing=“” is=“” part=“” of=“” problem.=“” ad,=“” football=“” coach,=“” univ=“” president=“” and=“” who=“” knows=“” else=“” had=“” no=“” honor.=“” none.=“”>></i></p><i really=“” think=“” the=“” “success=”" with=“” honor"=“” thing=“” is=“” part=“” of=“” problem.=“” ad,=“” football=“” coach,=“” univ=“” president=“” and=“” who=“” knows=“” else=“” had=“” no=“” honor.=“” none.=“”>
<p>You’re right, there is no honor to be found among the administration. But the football players were not involved in this sordid coverup, and neither were the students. Why can’t they choose to fulfill their own “success with honor” philosophy? </p>
<p>Posting this video again. </p>
<p>[Positivity</a> at Penn State; One Oregon family’s story - YouTube](<a href=“Positivity at Penn State; One Oregon family's story - YouTube”>Positivity at Penn State; One Oregon family's story - YouTube)</p>
</i>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just a small technical correction: for Big Ten schools including Penn State, the television contracts are between national networks and the conference, and all the television revenue goes directly to the Big Ten conference, which then allocates it in equal shares to member schools once a year. When a smaller school (or really any non-conference opponent) plays at a Big Ten school, there’s a contract between the host school and the visiting school, usually stipulating a fixed fee that is paid to the visiting school. Basically this is coming out of gate receipts; it doesn’t matter whether that game is televised or not, because that doesn’t affect the revenues of the host school. But it really doesn’t matter how you do the bookkeeping on it; the smaller school is essentially just hiring itself out to line up as the opposition for a negotiated price, and for the host school that fee is just part of the cost of doing business.</p>
<p>I suspect the reason Penn State didn’t get a television ban is that, because of the way the Big Ten television contracts are structured, that would have penalized every Big Ten school in equal measure with Penn State. It would have created big holes in the broadcast schedules for ABC, ESPN, and the Big Ten Network, probably depressed ratings somewhat, at least on a regional basis, and possibly reduced television revenue coming into the conference, reducing every Big Ten school’s share of the take. And since you can’t exactly black out just one team in a game, it would have meant a game blackout for every Big Ten school on Penn State’s schedule (as well as for all of Penn State’s non-conference opponents). In any event, I think Emmert probably concluded that’s just too much collateral damage to schools that had nothing to do with the mess in State College. A television ban is much more effective if it hits the school you’re trying to punish directly in the pocketbook, i.e., if that school has a stand-alone television contract, which hardly any schools have anymore. (Notre Dame still does). Taking a whack at the finances of an entire conference seems like a misplaced penalty, unless the entire conference is somehow implicated in the violations which is not the case here.</p>
<p><< I really think the “success with honor” thing is part of the problem. The AD, Football Coach, Univ President and who knows who else had no honor. None.>></p>
<p>I think the piece that you are(and others) are missing is that yes, those men you mentioned had no honor. None at all. BUT, for those students, football players and others…they are trying to show that they can move on WITH honor. They came to Penn St. under the premise of “success with honor”. They didn’t know what was happening and truly believed what they were being told. They are trying to show they can move on, get a degree, play football and show that honor. Just because somebody else did wrong, doesn’t mean that the football players and students play and live with that same sentiment. Give the students and players a chance to show that they can have success with honor. (I realize there are a few that rioted, said stupid things, etc. There’s always a few bad apples in any bunch - I"m talking though about the majority of students).</p>
<p><<on the="" current="" penn="" state="" students.="" i="" agree="" that="" they="" obviously="" did="" not="" create="" this="" mess,="" but="" was="" very="" disappointed="" when="" rioted="" over="" firing="" of="" paterno.="" don’t="" approve="" rioting,="" if="" felt="" just="" had="" to="" riot="" would="" have="" respected="" them="" a="" lot="" more="" protest="" child="" abuse="" or="" criminal="" cover-up="" by="" their="" school’s="" leaders.="">></on></p>
<p>Such a small percentage of students rioted. In fact, the first person arrested for rioting wasn’t even a student. I agree though -I too was SO disappointed with what those few students did and how they portrayed Penn State. But again - they were a small few. Just like those few students who rioted at UMD and burnt a couch or those fans who rioted after their team won the Stanley Cup. A few stupid people can ruin it for a lot of others. BUT - why can’t you respect the majority of students (over 10,000 at the vigil, and many thousands others at other times) who are holding vigils, raising money, starting Facebook groups to get others involved, petioning for changes in child abuse laws, etc. etc. etc. They are trying SO hard to make a positive difference. </p>
<p>To me, that is success with honor. Young students faced with criticism, jokes, generalizations and little support - but still they plan to return to their studies and earn their degrees, they still plan to raise millions of dollars for pediatric cancer, they still will continue to raise awareness and money for child abuse and they still plan to support their football players. Yes, many will still go to football games. The students can’t win - if they go to the football games they will hear “See, nothing has changed - same football culture as before”. If they don’t go to the games they will hear “See, it was all about winning. If they don’t have a winning team they don’t care”. Penn State students are trying to show that they can play football with honor, they can move forward and make sure history will never repeat itself. Why can’t people just give them a chance. If they were your children, wouldn’t you want that for them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the NCAA did not shut down Penn State football for one year because it did not want to hurt the local economy. Or perhaps, it did not want Illinois, Iowa, Purdue and Nebraska with a open date in their home schedules. My money is on the latter, but you can believe the former if it makes you feel beter.</p>
<p>I didn’t say the players had no honor. Spanier and others, consistently made a big deal of how “clean” and problem free the PSU football program was, and chastized others for their problems. All the time sheltering a child abuser in order to protect their “honor”. And that is evil.</p>
<p>The mind set that allowed the evil to fester is scary.
The faculty, BOT, Penn State Forever and whoever else first need to understand what was done to innocent CHILDREN in the name of Penn State Honor. “Sucess with honor” just reminds the world of what dishonorable acts were committed.</p>
<p>The mind set that created the enviroment that allowed the evil on campus needs to change. Perhaps in time those words will bring something else to mind, but for now when I hear “Success with honor” I think—there is no honor in harboring a child abuser, there is no honor in a cover up, there is no honor in evil. There is only failure.</p>
<p>Mom2M - I agree with you that what happened was horrible. I have spent over 20 years investigating and working with sexually abused children so I get it. I really get it. But, my point is that even though there were some that abused their power and allowed something horrible to happen, there are many still there who are good, honorable people. </p>
<p>The “mindset” that you talk about is the minority - not the majority. It’s scary that a few people could have had that type of influence on the University. Yes - that needs to change. I agree. I’m simply saying to give the majority a chance to prove who they are and to show you how they can move forward honorably.</p>
<p>It seems to me that many people will not be happy until everyone associated with PSU walks around with their heads down , their tail between their legs mumbling “Im so, so sorry for the next 20 years.”</p>
<p>Not gonna happen.</p>
<p>PSU students, teachers and alumni are angry and disappointed in their leadership. They are as aghast at what has been done by the leaders of the college as everyone else. But they are not child abusers, they would not harbor child abusers and they rail at the suggestion that they are involved in the deeds of the leaders. </p>
<p>College students are in general optimistic, passionate, hard working and eager to leap into the world to make a difference. PSU students are no different. Penn State is a bit different than many colleges because the main campus where everyone ends up is truly in the middle of nowhere and the town small. These kids forge friendships and relationships that take them long into adult life and you will see many PSU generations in a family.</p>
<p>Is football a part of this. Sure it is. It’s a big10 college program in the US. Big excitement, big time TV, fun to cheer for. The students who attend the games (20,000) are all about the excitement of Big Ten Football. PSU did not create the football monster. Money and the media created the monster of big time college football. PSU is a big enough school to support it.</p>
<p>Grcxx has done a great job in trying to help people understand how the students are feeling. They are frustrated that they cannot fix this.</p>
<p>The media downplays the positives and focuses on the negatives. It makes for better headlines.So does a cameraman handing a kid a bottle and daring them to throw it . Anything positive will diminish the headlines.</p>
<p>Even Thon has been attacked. The kids spend all year raising money for childhood cancer support and they are told “you are too proud of your accomplishment.” What’s with that? They are proud, they are excited and it’s one of the first times in some of their lives that they can feel an accomplishment from working as part of a large group. These kids can then go as adults knowing that they can change peoples lives.</p>
<p>So I think you will see a swell of PSU people coming to the aid of their college; not because of football but because their community is under attack.</p>
<p>crosspost with ljrfrm. Obviously on the same page. wow.</p>
<p>I hear you Sax. I understand and have posted on here multiple times that the students, parents, and alumni should not be vilified, this should not affect their futures etc. I have been upset when posters have commented about a Penn State grad not being given the same consideration in a hiring situation, as that seems terribly unfair and inappropriate.</p>
<p>If my child was at Penn State I would want him/her to be given support by the university to manage through this, and I hope some of the professors find a creative way to help students, I imagine this is a likely scenario come the new school year in a few short weeks. </p>
<p>I still am outraged that Spanier, the one who had the power to stop this, no matter what anyone else said or did, including Paterno, has not suffered any consequences. And if my kid was at Penn State I’d be raising hell about that. We teach our kids that if they make a mistake, they should be accountable and should have to take the consequences, well this is not being demonstrated by Spanier. And yes, Corbett too…</p>
<p>
I do not believe the author’s comments were restricted solely to the text of the sanction decree, but included other statements that Emmert has made, such as…</p>
<p>[NCAA</a> president Mark Emmert hopes Penn State penalties send message - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8197388/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-hopes-penn-state-penalties-send-message]NCAA”>NCAA president Mark Emmert hopes Penn State penalties send message - ESPN)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the second point:</p>
<p>
More than that, he is complaining that Erickson is not being open (as he promised) and is not following the rules (as he promised), and while these may be “niceties” in your eyes, they are also features of a cover-up that nearly killed the athletic program and severely damaged our finances and reputation. This is a time when it is crucially important that (a) we follow the rules as written and (b) operate completely in the open, and Erickson is doing neither.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first batch of schools might have a wealth of available scholarships, or consider the players they already have a still a better option than grabbing a few PSU players and dealing with a possible negative backlash. Replacing a junior or senior who might have deep connection to the team with a renegade transfer might not do wonders for the locker room unity.</p>
<p>USC might be in a different position and have more needs to fill holes left from their own suspension. </p>
<p>In the end, every school will simply do what is best for them. And only them. Pretending that they would refrain out of sympathy or concern for PSU is pure … what did that moron faculty member at PSU say again … oh yes, pure horse manure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. That is what victims do. We want PSU, from the bottom to the top, to stand up straight and accept the penalties and start recognize that a whole of wrong happened at PSU. </p>
<p>And a good start would be to also recognize how lucky they were to escape the only penalty that would have been just and justified. And that is life without football for several seasons. </p>
<p>As it stands, the penalties are slaps on the wrist. By the time the holidays come around, most of the problems will have been forgotten or buried. The media will move onto greener pastures. Unless, more actions arise to really cripple the school.</p>
<p>myturnnow. </p>
<p>Legal indictments take time. People have to give the system time to work. The Freeh investigation came out on July 12. </p>
<p>Spaniers name and reputation have been decimated already and he has yet to be charged with a crime. I assume he will be charged with perjury at the very least.</p>
<p>just wondering Sax,are you suggesting that Spanier’s reputation should not have been decimated, as he was not yet charged with a crime? After all, the Freeh report arrived at some pretty clear information, and the NCAA is relying on it’s credibility as did the university in removing Paterno’s statue. Why would criminal charges need to be filed for him to be held accountable for his actions and inactions?</p>
<p>Xiggi. The media has no interest in highlighting those that accept the penalties and want to move on.</p>
<p>Erickson, the president of the university, accepted the NCAA penalties and took down the statue within 10 days of the Freeh report. I think that’s pretty darn good.</p>
<p>Often times Boards have legal restrictions on when they can act and how they can vote. Some laws state that they must publicly advertise their meetings a week before the event etc. I have no idea what the laws are for the PSU board. The board also consists of a bunch of people from all over with normal jobs they have to attend to. Getting a forum or consensus takes time.</p>
<p>I would also think that all decisions should/must be run through your attorneys before accepting any legal contracts.</p>
<p>For those reasons I think things are moving almost too fast.</p>
<p>The Freeh report is not a legal document that I know of. It is a very thorough investigation. However Freeh did not interview all of the main people in this case. (Paterno, Curly, Schwaratz, McQUeary, Spanier)</p>
<p>Spanier was already asked to resign or be fired back in November ( about a day after the GJR was leaked) and he did so without criminal charges. I think for starters that is holding him accountable.</p>
<p>Again he has a right to be heard. He has a right to defend himself if he is charged in a crime.</p>
<p>I can wait for it to be done correctly.</p>
<p>I’d like to hear what he has to say.</p>
<p>Peoples reputations are destroyed daily without charging them with anything. Its a media past time. Think Duke Lacrosse.</p>
<p>
I understand where you’re coming from, that Erickson displayed the very behavior (to a lessor degree, but in spirit) that brought down the house in the first place. As I understand it Erickson did check with the board chairwoman, Peetz, and university outside council to see if he had the authority to negotiate and approve the deal with the NCAA. The board chairwoman was obviously aware and could have easily told him no. I’m not giving him a ‘pass’, but Erickson did go to his contact on the BOT before acting. If the board is angry they should take it up with their chairwoman. The other concern is there appears to be more then one member of the BOT that has a significant problem staying away from the media when the university would be best served otherwise. This may have come in to both Erickson’s and Peetz’s decision to allow him to deal with the NCAA without full knowledge of the board. A media leak would have been very bad (as if things weren’t bad enough). Again, I’m not discounting what you’re saying, I’m just looking at it from the perspective that I can see why it was done this way.</p>
<p>I don’t see any reason at all for Silas Redd to not see what his options are. If you were a premed student in your last year of undergrad work, and the department fires all the professors and is about to have it’s budget decimated, you would be a fool to not continue to think about your future. He has career goals too, like every high-acheiver. Redd is highly valued by Penn State not just for his athletic talents, but for his admirable leadership abilities. I’ve had the pleasure to meet him in a non-athletic venue and I can’t speak highly enough about his poise and maturity, and his peers definitely model themselves after him. Which is not to say they are all perfect. </p>
<p>And there’s something ironic and sad about the focus on coaches, athletes, and “poaching” issues. Remember, the new normal would include less interest in a 19 y.o.'s transfer to another school!</p>
<p>I am making a naive assumption here that most University Presidents are indeed trustworthy and that Spanier was an anomaly (part of reason there is so much outrage)? I see no problem putting trust in Erickson as long as the BOT keeps appropriate checks and balances. What we have is two extremes, too little oversight in the past and now too much oversight.</p>
<p>Of course, Silas has every right to transfer. It has been made public that Coach O’Brien’s contract provided an automatic extension for every year that the PSU was under sanctions. So HE doesn’t have to worry so much about his career if PSU can not field a team, but the kids do.</p>