Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by That Phat Hat, Nov 8, 2011.
********ing page break.
"Apparently willing?" Jee-zus.
The stories about this all seem to say that Erickson said (paraphrased) "we can't accept a four-year death penalty, and if that's what we get, we'll go to court and fight the NCAA to the end; or, we can talk about something less severe that we'll just accept." In such a scenario, it's actually not so obvious that the NCAA would have won such a challenge, since none of the NCAA regulations/enforcement structures encompass either the offenses they were punishing, the process used to decide guilt and arrive at a punishment, or the process of notifying and involving the school. The NCAA made this up as they went along, and I have no doubt that Penn State would challenge them on that. My gut feeling is that the NCAA would prevail; but it's not obvious that they would, and even if they did, it would cost them money. So they agreed to negotiate.
Should they have? In my opinion, no; but I hate the NCAA and have no respect for them at all, so it doesn't surprise me.
Wait, I thought this was worse than the death penalty. If your options are the death penalty or something worse than the death penalty, why did they agree to something worse?? Like I said, this is a soft penalty, and it's all bullshit.
Gee, that sounds familiar. Hence, why the 4 year penalty was never a serious threat.
And that, my friends, succinctly describes the entire ********ing problem with Penn State.
I think it's clear that it was a serious threat for the NCAA to assess it; I have no idea what the chance would have been that a court would uphold it. I don't think the fact that Emmert was willing to negotiate when Erickson came back to him means it wasn't a serious threat -- everything in life is subject to negotiation. After all, there's no such thing as a bad option.
Because the people who said "this is worse than the death penalty" were, for the most part, not imagining a *four year* death penalty.
It's OK, Penn State's picking up the bill.
They should be Rangered. Make them play division III for a few years.
I can see this:
NCAA: Here is the penalty: 4 years of no football and a fine we are still deciding, but should be $150m or so.
NCAA: We've got everybody on board
NCAA: (into speakerphone) Everybody, you agree.
From phone: Yes.
NCAA: There you go. 4 years of a disbanded football program.
*slides paper towards Erickson*
Erickson: Hold on, let me think...Okay, how about a reduction in scholarships?
NCAA: What else?
Erickson: No bowl games for 2 years.
Erickson: No way, that's it.
NCAA: (into speakerphone) Everybody?
From phone: No.
Erickson: That's my final. You give us the 4 year death sentence and I'll sue your ass.
NCAA: You think? Hold on a minute.
*Picks of phone and talks a bit*
NCAA: Okay, here's the deal. Settle this quick. 4 years no bowls. Scholarships down to 15 a year with a max of 65. You with me so far?
NCAA: And there will be a $60mil fine. You can pay it over 5 years, and it all goes to child abuse programs.
Erickson: Shit, that's a lot of money.
NCAA: You'd rather pay more?
Erickson: You guys are assholes.
NCAA: Okay, sue us. Keep this mess in the paper. Let the journalist see what they can dig up and how far back Sandusky did what the hell he was doing, using Penn State facilities. And let us investigate, see how much more crap we uncover. See your enrolllment drop, your funding drop. Get investigated by the state legislature. Have this mess hanging over your head and career for years, or sign off.
Erickson: *fuming* You guys are going to ******** our football program.
NCAA: You all did that together. If not, this would have been much, much less.
Erickson: Fine. I'll take it.
This is the type of thing I can see happening.
If it was so serious, in the negotiations they would have ended up somewhere in the middle (i.e. a 2 year ban). Instead, the penalty wasn't even a one year death penalty.
How do you know they *didn't* end up in the middle? Do you honestly think PSU was perfectly happy with what they *did* get?
this could be a way for the PSU president to save a little face and allay the troops. by showing how much worse the penalties could have been (even if it was never a serious consideration to begin with), he can show them what a great deal (relatively speaking) he negotiated for them.
I hear Prairie View A&M is looking for a slumpbuster.
This is the reason why I think that any threat of legal action from PSU is hollow.
If they sue, then God only knows what comes out in discovery.
What comes out cuts both ways. I can't imagine the NCAA wants put under a microscope either.
That wouldn't scare the NCAA nearly as much as it does Penn State. The NCAA's skeeziness is pretty well-known and is largely financial. It doesn't involve the coverup of child-buggering.
Actually, PV won the SWAC in 2009.
No, but eww.
Presumably, such legal action would be based upon the assertion that the NCAA had acted outside its charter -- the charter under which Penn State agreed to affiliate with the NCAA -- when it decided to punish things outside the offenses the NCAA had previously identified, and in a fashion different from how the NCAA had previously described. Given that focus of the legal action, and since by my (perhaps wrong?) understanding, discovery requests are required to pertain to the question of the action, what could come out in discovery? You arguably can't go fishing for further evidence of a cover-up when the question is whether the NCAA is allowed to punish such a cover-up in the first place. Or am I missing something?
Jerry Sandusky case: Lawyers say they've found Victim 2, the boy Mike McQueary saw being molested
With transcribed voice mails between Sandusky and Victim 2
If someone's posted this link before, I apologize. It's an interview of a pedo victim whose rapist was connected with Sandusky. I remember that there was some discussion in the media about The Second Mile a few months ago, and then it kinda died down. I don't know how reliable a site this is, so take the link for what you will.
EDIT: Just took a second look at some of the ads. These people are ********ing creepy, but there may still be some truth in the interview.