<p>That is for the fiscal year ending June 2011. Right now the atheletics department is looking to borrow $30M. (Not looking to get into a debate, just providing more current information.)</p>
<p>No extortion. Just too small of a price to pay. Money should go to the victims of this web of rats, but their “ship” should have been sunk for multiple years. Only way that the penalty might have meant something. It should have hurt. Deeply and for a long time.</p>
<p>Football in Happy Valley should be in the sad past and in a humble and distant future. Not in the … present.</p>
<p>extortion? you can’t be serious. Penn State had multiple opportunities over the course of YEARS to intervene and their president elected instead to “protect” Sandusky, you know because it was “kinder”. </p>
<p>Sandusky is paying the price for his despicable crimes. Penn State is paying for protecting the criminal instead of particularly vulnerable children.</p>
<p>Not just “protecting”. “Enabling” - they provided him the location, the funds, the trips, the title, the cover. They did far, far more than merely “protect” Sandusky.</p>
<p>Wait, did I miss the conviction of persons other than Sandusky?</p>
<p>Sanctions and settlements are decent proxies for the term convinction. This case is still a WIP.</p>
<p>Fwiw, the recent decisions such as for Miami are a clear indication that the NCAA is being a lot more lenient than in the past. SMU played in the wrong decade.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Others have been indicted but have not yet come to trial.</p>
<p>“Wait, did I miss the conviction of persons other than Sandusky?”</p>
<p>Last I heard, you wanted to protect your (or other people’s) daughters against “unconvicted” rapists. Why? They haven’t been convicted - hey, they haven’t even been arrested.</p>
<p>
I also want to protect all of us from mob rule.</p>
<p>Oh, yes, the “mobs” that tore down JoePa’s statue and then marched on the JoePa library. The mobs that marched on the NCAA demanding a ten-year ban. The mob that demanded that demanded the trustees revoke Sandusky’s Professor Emeritus title. </p>
<p>I feel very well protected. Thank you for your good efforts.</p>
<p>I was thinking of a different mob, but I appreciate your gratitude.</p>
<p>Wonder how much money the lawyers are getting from this settlement?</p>
<p>Why are you asking? Idle curiosity, or are you suggesting that this is some kind of trumped up case mainly for the benefit of a set of personal injury lawyers? Or something else?</p>
<p>No, but usually when there is a large settlement, there are many personal injury attorneys who stand to benefit immensely. I was surprised by the number of victims. Not doubting there were a lot of victims, but lawsuits, where the defendant has a deep pocket, tend to attract tort lawyers like flies.</p>
<p>Dottie is denying everything:</p>
<p><a href=“Jerry Sandusky's wife: Victims 'were manipulated, and they saw money'”>http://www.today.com/news/jerry-sanduskys-wife-victims-were-manipulated-they-saw-money-2D79356845</a></p>
<p>My guess is that she really believes this because if she were to admit the truth she’d have to accept her complicity.</p>
<p>She should be in jail as well.</p>
<p>This is just so hard to understand. Denial is a powerful tool. </p>
<p>Oh that’s just inexcusable.</p>
<p>“Do I believe him?’’ she told Matt Lauer. “I definitely believe him. Because if I didn’t believe him, when I testified at trial, I could have not said what I said. I would have had to tell the truth.”</p>
<p>hmm…what an odd phrase. “I would have had to tell the truth.”</p>
<p>I don’t believe HER, she claims the victims’ financial gain was at play. Well, I say financial gain was and is at play for her. She is going to go to her grave holding onto her lie to maintain all that his life meant for her. For her to say she definitely believes him, and NEVER even doubted him despite the realities in front of her shows her utter denial. Any spouse would at minimum question, go to a therapist to grapple with her “reality” vs the claims. She never did this. That in itself is sick. She is despicable for maligning those poor young men. And I guess their “son” Matt also only saw the money. ugh.</p>