<p>this is not Duke Lacrosse, and I think that’s a poor example given what we do know about this situation. </p>
<p>I recognize the Freeh report is not a legal document however I see it as a credible account of what occurred. And Spanier losing his job hardly addresses his actions and inactions. I agree,he has a right to a fair trial,if in fact he is charged with anything. However, imho, he clearly acknowledges in his email, that while they may be vulnerable for not reporting he opted to let it go. Worse,than that, their plan (inappropriate as it was) to talk with Sandusky and report him if he did NOT cooperate was not followed through on. This was inexcusable. Absolutely inexcusable.</p>
<p>PSU players do not count against the scholarship limit for the first year. Next year they do and one would have to open up. Coaches have many things to weigh such as impact on current team/players, impact on recruiting of HS players, etc. But transfers can help–even for just 1 year if there is an obvious need at a position. ;-)</p>
<p>The image of Penn State students and alumni loudly defending Paterno(think Franco Harris - no seriously Franco, think) , and railing against sanctions, creates or reinforces, depending on your starting point, an impression of myopia and, quite frankly, intellectual weakness. It is unfair, in that it likley misrepresents the sentiments of the majority, but there it is. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Penn State supporters have legitimate complaints about the nature of the NCAA penalties, and more specifically, the process and procedures involved in determining sanctions. If the NCAA is interested in curtailing the influence of powerful athletic programs and campus worship cults, well, they certainly know where to find them. Penn State should, by that standard, be standing on, maybe leading, a long line to the hangman’s noose. And yet they stand alone. Surely the NCAA is not waiting for further tragedies before taking action (hint- they are).</p>
<p>I think the trick for PSU supporters is to address their valid concerns thoughtfully, while not defending the indefensible (ie, sounding like Franco Harris or Matt Millen).</p>
<p>Myturn…So what do you think should happen to Spanier right now?</p>
<p>The duke reference was an example of someone (the coach)whose reputation was decimated by the media without being charged with anything. That’s all it was meant to be.</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying, and it must have felt like scoffing. But I believe that you may have misinterpreted the intent of many people. I think most reasonable people would say that your concerns about your son were perfectly legitimate – but that there were other, much more important considerations in this terrible case. I don’t think you disagree with that at all.</p>
<p>As for the significant impact, I really don’t see it. Everything stays in place – everything. The team, the fans, band and cheer, local merchants. It’s true that the team’s win-loss record will probably suffer for some years. Other than that, I’m sorry, but there is simply no “death” here, slow or otherwise. </p>
<p>As for the bowl ban: My understanding is that the sanctions were imposed for the purpose of diminishing Football Fever in Happy Valley. By that measure, they have been an utter failure, and bowls would have been just one more demonstration of that failure. Penn State can survive without bowls for a few years; heaven knows, it hasn’t lost anything else.</p>
<p>sax = I don’t know about Curley and Shultz but, according to his own statement, Spanier was interviewed by Freeh’s team for five hours. So he had a chance to put his version of events to Freeh. Apparently whatever he told them didn’t change their minds on his role in the coverup.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His defence is that nobody ever told him they saw a child being sexually abused in a shower. But he was told something bad happened and never tried to find out what it was. And that’s the best possible interpretation of what happened. Not to mention that all he institutional failures, Clery act and the rest, ultimately should be laid at his door.</p>
<p>And he knew enough in 2001 to know that sheltering Sandusky entailed “vulnerabilities.” It’s hard to square that with his protests that he didn’t know anything criminal was going on.</p>
<p>LasMa- no, I don’t think I was misinterpreting anything. When I voiced concern for the players, other students, and local shopkeepers the comments ranged from (paraphrasing) “life’s unfair” to “there is always collateral damage” to “there are only 6 home games, what’s the big deal” to “no one complained when SMU was given the death penalty” to “its just football” to “innocent people are always impacted.” I believe there were a few “too bad” and “who cares” comments as well.</p>
<p>Not really. PSU was scrambling to save its hide by coming up with stratagems to avoid the inescapable. Without jumping on their own sword and incur injuries that could easily be cured, they would have been beheaded. The NCAA rolled over.</p>
<p>I know I made a comment somewhat like that. I honestly meant exactly what I said, with no underlying current against Penn State. I didn’t undersand what the big deal was about losing 6 home games. And I learned that each game brings in about $10 million to the community. I’m glad I asked.</p>
<p>Boy, I’ll say. USC got a two year bowl ban and Penn State got a four year ban. So calibrating by its punishments, I guess the NCAA considers 14 years of aiding and abetting the rape of multiple children to be only twice as bad as letting Reggie Bush’s parents stay in a condo rent free.</p>
<p>If the NCAA rolled over why is everyone saying the offer on the table and agreed to was worse than the death penalty? I don’t really understand the actual impact of all the scholarships etc. </p>
<p>Am I the only one who thinks that the BOT operates under some rules regarding timing, notification of mtgs., getting a quorum together etc? This would be the only reason I can see them handing decisions off to erickson</p>
This question is from a few pages back, but I think it’s relevant to the discussion of the last few pages. I think it’s not only possible, but likely, that outside counsel told the PSU brass that they had no legal obligation to report the story from McQueary to anybody, or to do anything about it at all. In fact, that’s what I think–that they had no such legal obligation, at least from a criminal law perspective. The counsel may have gone on to note that there would be vulnerabilities from not reporting–they might be charged with failing to report, even if there isn’t really a good case to be made (this has happened with Curley and Schultz–we’ll see if they ever go to trial on that charge), and they might be accused in a civil suit of being negligent for failing to do more, and they might get really, really bad PR for failing to report. I think this is consistent with the facts as we know them with respect to what happened in 2001. So I can imagine the brass deciding that if they aren’t legally required to report, then they wouldn’t.</p>
<p>I’m not one of those saying that. I think death penalty would have been a lot worse and a lot more appropriate. The fact that Penn State and it boosters argued so hard against the death penalty, and that Erickson so eagerly embraced the supposedly harsh alternative, shows that they too viewed the death penalty as a lot worse.</p>
<p>Regarding the Bowl Game ban; it’s possible that given the weak teams that a sanctioned Penn State would field over the next 5 years, playing in second (or even third) tier bowl games could be a net loss. It happens. Rutgers spent more on the trip than it received when it played in a bowl game a few years ago in the southwest.</p>
<p>Freeh’s report leaves plenty of doubts, as we will see if anybody else ever goes to trial. While it’s more definitive than the grand jury report, it still has many limitations. For example, in a trial, there will be restrictions on what evidence can be introduced (like hearsay) that didn’t apply to Freeh. As I’ve also noted above, the behavior “should have been reported,” but it may well be that nobody was actually required to report it.</p>
<p>What will people say if Curley and Schultz are acquitted? Or if the charges against them are dropped? Or if Spanier is never charged with anything? Or if the civil suits against PSU fail? I predict that if any of these things happen, that many people will not be able to admit that they might have been wrong about the guilt of any of these people. This is why I always feel uncomfortable about a rush to judgment, even if it looks pretty clear. Richard Jewell and Steven Hatfill can tell you what happens if “everyone” gets it wrong. So I always like to see real evidence, and cross-examined testimony, before I make up my mind entirely. Sandusky got that, but nobody else has, yet.</p>
<p>Ya gotta be more specific if your trying to slam me for being inconsistent. So help me out. What is not consistent? I’m not seeing it.
I would still say all those things right now.</p>