The Freeh Report and the Future of Penn State

**festivus** · 07-13-2012, 11:37 PM

Just because some idiot wrote it on the internet doesn't mean it has any merit, rpcfball. The guy appears to be a knucklehead and his argument, unlike the Freeh report, appears to be a bunch of personal insults against Freeh and the "sheep" who would believe him.

He's either an apologist or some random internet knucklehead looking for the contrary point of view so he can get a few hits on his website.

To summarize: Not recommended.

**ActualSpamBot** · 07-14-2012, 12:45 AM

Wow that article was terrible. Apparently we're all "sheep" who are going to "be destroyed" by "a wrecking ball of truth and honesty." Personally I was destroyed by his wrecking ball of "unnecessary" "quotation" "marks".

**psuasskicker** · 07-14-2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by TurtlesNBirds

The report lists a cause of this scandal as "a culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus." Now it has come out that Paterno knew about Sandusky's molestation accusations back in 1998 and lied to a grand juty about it. So why was Sandusky given permission by Paterno and the AD to maintain an office at the football facility and still be allowed to bring children around the facility through 2011? Clearly Sandusky did have an association with the football program. The NCAA has used the term "lack of institutional control" in the past when dealing out penalties, while a pretty generic term it would certainly apply here.

I haven't argued that. Lack of institutional controls is, in fact, exactly what I argued they WOULD get the university on.

'98-'01 likely will not be in question. Sandusky was originally investigated in '98. The investigation resulted in at the very least there not being enough evidence to proceed, and in all likelihood exonerated from any wrong-doing. It wouldn't at all be surprising to see a highly tenured and respected coach have a horrible accusation against him wind up going nowhere, and then be allowed to continue his normal activity. Think about Bettis and the rape accusation he faced as a pretty decent example.

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

Spanier was fired as president but he is still a tenured professor at the university so no, I'm not wrong. I get that you want to protect PSU but they have not punished the people that were involved and that's my point.

I don't want to protect PSU, stop putting words in my mouth. The point about Spanier is that he was fired from his president position, so how exactly can the NCAA sanction him or damage him via sanctions? Your claim was that they should only hurt those involved. Mine was, none of the people involved in this remain in their positions (save the BOD), the NCAA cannot hurt them via sanctions, and so therefor if the NCAA sanctions PSU, it will only be hurting people who were not involved in this horrible cover-up.

And no, I did not and am not arguing that the NCAA shouldn't sanction. I'm simply stating the fact of what a sanction does.

- C -

**edtude** · 07-14-2012, 10:56 AM

Even More Ugliness

In January 2011, Joe Paterno learned prosecutors were investigating his longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexually assaulting young boys. Soon, Mr. Paterno had testified before a grand jury, and the rough outlines of what would become a giant scandal had been published in a local newspaper.

That same month, Mr. Paterno, the football coach at Penn State, began negotiating with his superiors to amend his contract, with the timing something of a surprise because the contract was not set to expire until the end of 2012, according to university documents and people with knowledge of the discussions. By August, Mr. Paterno and the university’s president, both of whom were by then embroiled in the Sandusky investigation, had reached an agreement.

Joe knew before the season even started last year that the end was near and he got what he could. This whole thing gets uglier by the day.

**Ravenswintitle** · 07-14-2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

I don't want to protect PSU, stop putting words in my mouth. The point about Spanier is that he was fired from his president position, so how exactly can the NCAA sanction him or damage him via sanctions? Your claim was that they should only hurt those involved. Mine was, none of the people involved in this remain in their positions (save the BOD), the NCAA cannot hurt them via sanctions, and so therefor if the NCAA sanctions PSU, it will only be hurting people who were not involved in this horrible cover-up.

And no, I did not and am not arguing that the NCAA shouldn't sanction. I'm simply stating the fact of what a sanction does.

- C -

hiding him and keeping him on staff and tenured is OK then? And the board is still inact.
IMO they should be ashamed of themselves for not taking action; I hope they reconsider and self impose so the NCAA doesn't have to step in; but I'm doubtful

**HoustonRaven** · 07-14-2012, 11:54 AM

A self-impostion of penalties would also go a long way in restoring the good name of PSU, but I am doubtful as well.

They need to rip the band-aid off, not do this slow burn thing they seem to be doing.

**DkBlue** · 07-14-2012, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

A self-impostion of penalties would also go a long way in restoring the good name of PSU, but I am doubtful as well.

They need to rip the band-aid off, not do this slow burn thing they seem to be doing.

I lot of people who have no role in this are going to be burned by it. The statement that Joe did not want to bother anyone on the weekend illustrates how casually this incident was taken.

Penn State needs to pay a price for this whatever that may be.

**edtude** · 07-14-2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by DkBlue

I lot of people who have no role in this are going to be burned by it. The statement that Joe did not want to bother anyone on the weekend illustrates how casually this incident was taken.

Penn State needs to pay a price for this whatever that may be.

Agreed the potential economic ramifications could go potentially deep and very wide. Part of me still thinks that the NCAA is going to worm out of this one and that will be an even bigger shame.

**edtude** · 07-14-2012, 01:23 PM

Rick Reilly: The sins of the father

If reading this doesn't convince you that something needs to be done nothing ever will.

What a fool I was.

In 1986, I spent a week in State College, Pa., researching a 10-page Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year piece on Joe Paterno.

It was supposed to be a secret, but one night the phone in my hotel room rang. It was a Penn State professor, calling out of the blue.

"Are you here to take part in hagiography?" he said.

"What's hagiography?" I asked.

"The study of saints," he said. "You're going to be just like the rest, aren't you? You're going to make Paterno out to be a saint. You don't know him. He'll do anything to win. What you media are doing is dangerous."

Jealous egghead, I figured.

What an idiot I was.

And this

I talked about Paterno's "true legacy" in all of this. Here's his true legacy: Paterno let a child molester go when he could've stopped him. He let him go and then lied to cover his sinister tracks. He let a rapist go to save his own recruiting successes and fundraising pitches and big-fish-small-pond hide.

Here's a legacy for you. Paterno's cowardice and ego and fears allowed Sandusky to molest at least eight more boys in the years after that 1998 incident -- Victims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Just to recap: By not acting, a grown man failed to protect eight boys from years of molestation, abuse and self-loathing, all to save his program the embarrassment. The mother of Victim 1 is "filled with hatred toward Joe Paterno," the victim's lawyer says. "She just hates him, and reviles him." Can you blame her?

**ballhawk** · 07-14-2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by edtude

Rick Reilly: The sins of the father

If reading this doesn't convince you that something needs to be done nothing ever will.

And this

That was a pretty good read on an icon's fall from grace. Ill admit that my first reaction when Paterno died was that at least he wouldnt have to deal with any of this. But, as the truth starts to trickle out, he was just as guilty as anyone. And unfortunately the bastard took a lot of secrets to his grave. Fuck PSU...the entire institution needs to be brought to its knees.

**HoustonRaven** · 07-14-2012, 06:03 PM

Board of Trustees just decided to keep the statue in place (during the slow news cycle of a Saturday, btw).

Stupid. This seemed a no brainier to me. Bowden was right. Everytime someone sees that statue is now going to be reminded of this tragedy.

**edtude** · 07-14-2012, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Board of Trustees just decided to keep the statue in place (during the slow news cycle of a Saturday, btw).

Stupid. This seemed a no brainier to me. Bowden was right. Everytime someone sees that statue is now going to be reminded of this tragedy.

Paterno Statue to Remain for Now

Just amazing, read some of the comments in the article and to me they are just so far out of touch it is amazing.

**psuasskicker** · 07-14-2012, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

hiding him and keeping him on staff and tenured is OK then?

I'm done conversing with you while you're putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

A self-impostion of penalties would also go a long way in restoring the good name of PSU, but I am doubtful as well.

They need to rip the band-aid off, not do this slow burn thing they seem to be doing.

One of the big problems here with the school taking action right now (or anyone taking action right now) is that there simply is no agreement on what the right decision is for how to punish the football program. The death penalty likely completely kills the program for decades. Not years, decades. SMU still hasn't recovered. And the football program has played a MAJOR role in the school becoming as great as it has. Not "great" as in "great at football"...as in "such a great learning institution."

There's simply no easy answer in this. I'm hopeful the school disciplines itself. That would be appropriate. But I have no problem at all with everyone taking time to figure out what the right course of action should be. Right now, we don't even know that we've learned everything there is to learn about this.

Originally Posted by ballhawk

That was a pretty good read on an icon's fall from grace. Ill admit that my first reaction when Paterno died was that at least he wouldnt have to deal with any of this. But, as the truth starts to trickle out, he was just as guilty as anyone. And unfortunately the bastard took a lot of secrets to his grave. Fuck PSU...the entire institution needs to be brought to its knees.

Aaaaaaaaaaand there's where you lost me.

Seriously, this is a moronic statement. Not just a bad one. Not just an ignorant one. It's an absolutely, unquestionably moronic riot-mentality statement that when you stop to think about it for even five seconds makes literally no sense what-so-ever.

Do you know how many people are directly involved with the university?
~45k students
~12k full time faculty
~6k part time faculty
~3k non-student staff
That's just University Park...double those numbers if you include all satellite campuses.

Right now, we've got Sandusky, Paterno, Schultz, Curley and Spanier who clearly acted inappropriately in some fashion. The first two are in prison or passed away. The second two have been indicted and I don't believe (but not certain) are still directly involved in the university. The fifth was fired as President of the university, though he still remains on staff which I'm not particularly thrilled with. Then there's the Board of Directors who may or may not get replaced wholesale...their biggest crime was in not having adequate controls to learn about this sort of thing happening, though they likely never went along with any cover-up.

So, out of the approximately 66k people involved in University Park campus, and nearly 125k people throughout the university as a whole, there are just a bit over 50 who acted inappropriately in this manner. Only five of whom actually knew about it. Two being in prison or dead.

And your answer is that the entirety of the 125k people needs to be "brought to its knees?"

No.

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Board of Trustees just decided to keep the statue in place (during the slow news cycle of a Saturday, btw).

It wouldn't shock me at all if this decision winds up changing in time. I hope it does. I agree...it seems like a no brainer to me.

- C -

**ballhawk** · 07-14-2012, 08:02 PM

You just put a whole lot of words in my mouth PSU.

LOL

**psuasskicker** · 07-14-2012, 09:11 PM

No, actually, I didn't. Unless "the entire institution needs to be brought to its knees" is completely out of context. If you meant just the football program, that would be a different story, but that's not at all what such a statement comes off as. Penn State is not simply a football-institution. It happens to be one of the best university-institutions in the country.

- C -

**ballhawk** · 07-14-2012, 11:59 PM

psu-

I was more referring to the board, the administrators, the athletic program, etc. They need to clean house. Period. Thats what i was saying. It really sux for the students and the alumni....but this is a disgusting mess...and heads must roll.

**psuasskicker** · 07-15-2012, 12:21 AM

I don't disagree with any of that, but the BOD is the only thing left to clean (save that Spanier somehow still has tenure there, which I don't get). And the BOD wasn't in on anything, they just didn't have adequate controls. A lot of companies have that problem. When it's discovered, common action is to bring in consultants (or regulators) to figure out what's wrong, and then implement solutions. Common action is not to fire all executives and replace them with new ones. The BOD could have anything between zero attrition and 100% attrition as a result of this, and honestly I wouldn't have an issue with any of that range.

And FWIW, if that's what you meant, you should have stated it as such. Those five idiots and the BOD are not the institution. And I've heard too many complete and utter morons saying some form of "burn it all down" to think it's not possible for someone to think it's a good idea.

- C -

**PeterB58** · 07-15-2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

One of the big problems here with the school taking action right now (or anyone taking action right now) is that there simply is no agreement on what the right decision is for how to punish the football program.

To me, it is not so much about "punishing the football program" as it is about putting their priorities in the right place. It was the the overwhelming desire to protect the program, and in many aspects, Paterno himself, that led many to make the decisions that were made. And it was not just the 4 named in the report. Remember the janitor that saw one of the crimes and failed to report it because he was afraid "that they would fire us all"? I suspect there were many others that saw something, or felt something wasn't right, that failed to follow-up for fear of going against the program. That is the culture that needs to be changed.

A simple, "We are not going to play football for a year or two to let us all focus on making sure the priorities of the University are straight." would be suffice.

The death penalty likely completely kills the program for decades. Not years, decades. SMU still hasn't recovered. And the football program has played a MAJOR role in the school becoming as great as it has. Not "great" as in "great at football"...as in "such a great learning institution."

Sorry, I am having a hard time squaring the "price" of a lost football program vs. the damage that has been done to young lives. That type of argument is nonsense squared.

And SMU is ranked #62 in the US News and World Report 2010 ranking of US colleges. Seems like they are doing ok.

If temporarily removing the football program is going to impact the university to that degree, then that tells me that it truly does need to be shut-down for a while. There are many "great universities" around the world that don't revolve around a "great football team", or a football team at all. How do they manage?

**wickedsolo** · 07-15-2012, 11:15 AM

Even if they don't formally do anything to the football program I would imagine that they're going to suffer a bit anyway because it is going to be that much harder to recruit players for Penn State's program in the near future.

For PSU: (See...I can find things on the interwebs too!!!! Imagine that!)

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/co...l.html?nav=746

Holtz is the third player to decommit since Paterno's firing. Four-star Colorado guard Joey O'Connor was the first, followed by Mechanicsburg linebacker Bryton Barr. Barr was coming to Penn State as an invited walk-on but received a scholarship offer from Cincinnati around the time the Sandusky scandal broke.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...g=ycn-10897153

Given all of the circumstances surrounding the program there wasn't going to be an elite class of major recruits. Penn State had some but lost them.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ost-in-the-mix

Penn State Nittany Lions had the unimpressive 2012 recruiting class that everyone expected following the turmoil in Happy Valley this season.

The Nittany Lions managed to sign 19 players, with just one 4-star prospect among them.

Penn State's new arrivals are projects for the most part, outside of Eugene Lewis.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9...usting-scandal

The effects can already be seen in this tweet by prized recruit Noah Spence.

"@nspence94

um psu might be a no no for me ewww"

According to Scout.com, Spence is the No. 1 rated defensive end recruit in the nation.

**psuasskicker** · 07-15-2012, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by PeterB58

To me, it is not so much about "punishing the football program" as it is about putting their priorities in the right place.

A simple, "We are not going to play football for a year or two to let us all focus on making sure the priorities of the University are straight." would be suffice.

Sorry, I am having a hard time squaring the "price" of a lost football program vs. the damage that has been done to young lives. That type of argument is nonsense squared.

You haven't really made a compelling case for WHY shutting down a program that Forbes estimates to be worth $100MM would allow for the school to completely refocus itself and ensure that the football program is entirely realized to be not all that important. Why is death penalty - self imposed or not - the required step that must be taken in order to ensure something like this doesn't happen again?

I also don't think you understand just how much such a thing would impact the school. It's hard to describe, but the cost of shutting down the football program for even a year would be dramatically more than simply the lost income for a season. The football program brings in approximately 100k people to the area in the weekends where there is a game. Take out the stuff they buy at football games (tickets, food, beer, etc). If each of these people on average spend $20 per person per weekend they're in town, over seven home games, you're talking about a $14MM hit to the local economy, and that $20 estimate is frankly extremely low. I think the overall economic impact to the university and the surrounding town's economy would be $100MM just next year if they shut down the football program, and would be probably half that ongoing for however many years it would take for the school to fully recover.

And while SMU isn't terrible right now, they simply aren't what they once were. Big football programs - like it or not - bring a lot more to a school than simply great football. National recognition as a powerful football school brings in students, brings in funding, and brings in a lot more than just general football-related income.

Take the hospital/clinic piece out of the 2012-2013 income budget for the school, and the $50MM-$75MM that the football program is expected to earn for the university represents 1.6% - 2.5% of the entirety of the school's revenues. That includes all satellite campuses, not just University Park. If you talk just University Park, the football program is about 3%-5% of its revenues. That's a gigantic impact. And that also assumes there are absolutely no other impacts as a result of removal of the football program, which is not a good assumption to make.

Your suggestion is not so simple as to just put aside football and it won't really have that big an impact on the university. Shutting down the program for a year has a massive impact on the welfare of the school and the community around it. And it is arguable how much of a positive impact it would make to reset peoples' priorities. If it were black and white, such that you could say "If you don't shut the program down, this sort of thing could continue; but if you do shut it down, everyone will realize this can't continue and it will never happen again," then it's a pretty good argument to make.

But it's NOT that black and white. Why would the solution of shutting the program down work better than, say, eliminating ten scholarships for the program for the next two years, and/or making them ineligible for a bowl game for the next two years, and/or any of some other far less drastic actions would would have nowhere close to the negative impact shutting it down completely would have on the school? How exactly would shutting it down completely ensure that everyone takes your attitude and realizes the football program isn't that important and guarantees nothing like this would ever happen again?

And so, like I said, this is not such an easy answer, and I don't think anyone should be rushing to come to judgment on what should happen as a result of this situation.

- C -