ABSENCE OF A "CONTRIBUTOR"

[FAIRTIDES]

Has anyone else noticed that a particular high-volume contributor has been mum on the PSU punishment. He's probably on vacation with no access. Or, it could be that he started writing immediately after Emmert's press conference and has yet to finish.

In any event, I hope everything is okay.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

No need to kick a man while he's down. Let it go for a few days, imo.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think it's crystal clear what happened, and Mike Tranghese, somewhere, is sitting in a corner and telling whoever will listen "I told you so!"

 

[pj]

I think it's crystal clear what happened, and Mike Tranghese, somewhere, is sitting in a corner and telling whoever will listen "I told you so!"

You think Tranghese knew about Sandusky?

 

[Carl Spackler]

You think Tranghese knew about Sandusky?

OMG no. Tranghese bellyached, non-stop, about how college athletics was on the road to ruin in 1990, when university presidents took control of everything.

With what just happened with the NCAA, and Penn State, and the culture of PSU in general, it's hard to argue that he was wrong. Very few people have actual direct knowledge of what actually happened b/w the NCAA and PSU last weekend, but it's crystal clear to me, that the only reason that PSU is still playing football this fall at home, is because the university presidents that make up the board of directors of the NCAA, weren't going to punish the new PSU president that way, and allowed for a negotiation on punishment.

Really?

Since when, does a person, or oganization, when having committed punishable transgressions, get to negotiate the terms of punishment?

And make no mistake, to come to a mutual - consent - signed - involved negotiation.

 

[mattp]

criminals plea bargain all the time, and that's really what this was. it saved the time and energy of a "trial" so they settled. personally i care more about whether those who were derelict in their duty (including local police, DAs, whoever else turned their head) be prosecuted. the NCAA trying to punish the pro-sports culture of college is like McD's trying to punish kids for eating poorly. it's hypocritical and won't accomplish anything.

this is not just a sports issue and people in all walks of life need to realize there's serious consequences to looking the other way while children are abused. i think having a law punishing people with up to a year in jail for looking the other way and calling it the PennState Rule would be a better deterrent and more fitting punishment than losing scholarships.

there was an opportunity to really use this to teach the public what their responsibility is b/c for every time this happens on a sports team it also happens in church, scouts, within family , etc., and instead of trying to convey that message they went for the public slap on the wrist

 

[SubbaBub]

OMG no. Tranghese bellyached, non-stop, about how college athletics was on the road to ruin in 1990, when university presidents took control of everything.

With what just happened with the NCAA, and Penn State, and the culture of PSU in general, it's hard to argue that he was wrong. Very few people have actual direct knowledge of what actually happened b/w the NCAA and PSU last weekend, but it's crystal clear to me, that the only reason that PSU is still playing football this fall at home, is because the university presidents that make up the board of directors of the NCAA, weren't going to punish the new PSU president that way, and allowed for a negotiation on punishment.

Really?

Since when, does a person, or oganization, when having committed punishable transgressions, get to negotiate the terms of punishment?

And make no mistake, to come to a mutual - consent - signed - involved negotiation.

A strong arm move by the NCAA that was on very weak legal footing combined with a University leadership eager to isolate the guilty, avoid more investigations, and move on.

I'm sure there was a little negotiation at the fringes (4yrs vs 5) but the NCAA got everything it wanted, as did the Big Ten.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Carl Spackler]

You've got the chairman of the board of university presidents that governs the NCAA, saying up on the podim "We (the presidents) are in charge", when asked what signal is being sent by this whole PSU/NCAA mess. Spanier himself, was the chair until recently.

THe NCAA is not an organization that should be run by university presidents, and this whole NCAA punishment of PSU, was most definitely, and interaction of that good old president's club. The NCAA is an organization that should be governed and controlled and managed by athletics people, not university presidents that are responsible for the fiscal operations of their entire colleges.

I have a problem with it and I'm sure Mike Tranghese did too.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think the sanctions and decrees given by the NCAA for PSU are warranted, proportional, punitive, and corrective. I don't like the method by which it was achieved, and I think the NCAA is in a very dangerous place because of it. The NCAA had plenty of ground to act, and the actions taken outside of normal procedures, were within their right to do so.

There was no need to get a consent, signed decree. Terrible precedent to set. All the presidents, protecting themselves. Same kind of culture that led to PSU leadership protecting their own reps.

 

[ZooCougar]

Carl,

Pretty sure the NCAA vetted the punishment through the heads of the five families first. They probably consulted Tranghese and Marinatto in turn.

I think the sanctions and decrees given by the NCAA for PSU are warranted, proportional, punitive, and corrective. I don't like the method by which it was achieved, and I think the NCAA is in a very dangerous place because of it. The NCAA had plenty of ground to act, and the actions taken outside of normal procedures, were within their right to do so.

There was no need to get a consent, signed decree. Terrible precedent to set. All the presidents, protecting themselves. Same kind of culture that led to PSU leadership protecting their own reps.

 

[weyuo]

mattp wrote: " i think having a law punishing people with up to a year in jail for looking the other way".

Throwing people in jail for that again punishes the wrong people, the tax payers. You take everything these guys own(and put it into some kind of fund for victims) and then garnish their wages for the amount of time they turned their heads and did nothing and believe me that will be much more of a deterrent than having them lie on a cot for a year in some Club Med jail with free meals, ac/heat, medical and probably legal counsel. Hit them where it hurts the worst, the wallet.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

mattp wrote: " i think having a law punishing people with up to a year in jail for looking the other way".

Throwing people in jail for that again punishes the wrong people, the tax payers. You take everything these guys own(and put it into some kind of fund for victims) and then garnish their wages for the amount of time they turned their heads and did nothing and believe me that will be much more of a deterrent than having them lie on a cot for a year in some Club Med jail with free meals, ac/heat, medical and probably legal counsel. Hit them where it hurts the worst, the wallet.

Nonsense. I'd gladly pay a couple of pennies more per year to ensure kids are protected to fullest extent of the law. What would you do to poor people who don't report child rape?