OT: Thursday at 9 a.m., the Freeh Report is available. . . | Page 5 | The Boneyard

OT: Thursday at 9 a.m., the Freeh Report is available. . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
THe culture that you identify at fault....the members of the BOT, the President. These are people that get their positions as elected officials, elected by PSU alumni, and appointed by the elected governor of the state.

(i'm not sure exactly who elects who, and appoints who, so please don't crucify me on that)

My point is that the culture you identify to be at fault, is a leadership culture that is elected/appointed.

How do you ensure that the culture that appointed that leadership changes? It is my understnading, that the corruption that is present in the relationship between PSU leadership, the local government, and the state government is dug in deeper than an Old Lyme, CT tick.

Please go to the lengthy discussion on the football board b/w myself and a fellow called 'upstater' for the details on that.

A detailed assessment of the potential collateral damage is warranted in choosing to inflict damage to a culture, and the culture here to inflict damage to, is most definitely the leadership structure at PSU, and to me, the way to do that, is to go through voters.

THe voters are going to want the heads of anyone that had anything to do with the shutdown of their football at State College in the fall. They're not going to care what else their involved in.

FWIW - when this initially came to light, how the football program was tied to this serial child sexual predator, and was actually enabling him, I was NOT in favor of a death penalty.

THe thing is - when a culture of leadership is capable of handling an individual liek Sandusky, the way it's described it was handled in the Freeh report, it's only logical that culture of leadership is corrupt in any number of other ways, and as layers of the onion peel away, this indeed appears to be the case.

The quickest, surest, way to ensure positive change, is to inflict damage in that culture, where it hurts the most and will cause the must activism for positive change from the ground up.

In Pennsylvania, shutting down PSU football, is the way that happens.

That's my opinion.
 
I get that shutting down Penn State football could affect elected positions, and yes, Icebear - who knows and hears far more than we outsiders - has indicated that the Governor (current / past / both??) has some involvement.

That said, the governorship of the state is likely to turn on a lot more than Penn State or athletics - lots of Pitt fans and otherwise in the state too, FWIW.

I don't think the trustees are selected in the way you imply - there does need to be pressure that some of them need to go, but I think penalties short of the death penalty for football should be sufficient.

I don't have an answer for this nasty mess, I assure you. I don't think the trustees are quite "getting it". Ultimately, getting the proper controls "in place" can prevent an opportunity for another Sandusky, but doesn't necessarily change the culture. [I do also think the current students - for the most part - now get it. Those who don't won't take a football ending the right way.]
 
Now having read the Freeh report through three times I will say that I think it does a decent job laying out a way forward for PSU. The recommendations per restructuring, OHR, and accountability are clear, as definable as is reasonable at this point, and address the central issues of oversight and control. They sometimes have the feel of industrial or professional boiler plate but that is somewhat to be expected given the pace at which things have moved since November 11th. The report, also, notes numerous changes that have already taken place to address the shortcomings of the past, including the events involving Sandusky and other responsibilities like those required by the Clery Act.

I completely disagree with Carl Spackler that destruction of all things present is the only way to move the culture forward. Rereading the Freeh report overnight I believe that such destruction would even inhibit the process of reformation.

Some other observations.

For all the anger being laid at the doorstep of JoePA it is amazing how little he is identified or involved in any of the events, meetings, etc. involved over the timeline. If one is to take William Rhoden piece for the NYT and similar stories and columns as an accurate description of JoePA's involvement one would have expected far more presense on the pages of this material. Most often the infrequent references are simply ones of informing Joe of the status what was happening. There are NO reports that JoePA made specific recommendations as to what should or must be done nor do we know how fully Curley informed JoePA. What Curley says in the most central note is that after talking with Joe he had questions about what he and Schultz had intended to do. No clear reason for that doubt is expressed. Some folks seem to be assuming far more knowledge of how things "were" or "must have been" than is present in any of the records gathered after 400+ interviews and review of over 3.5 million emails. There may be more there but Freeh and his professional researchers did not find it. Most of the anger aimed towards JoePA is parallel to that of Sandusky's spouse. It is based in a belief of he should have known or how could he not know.

I have said from the beginning that Curley and Schultz were at the center of the actions and information that was or was not shared and that, too, is very clear in the Freeh report. At times they seem to leave both Spanier and JoePA in the dark.

Before one assumes that the governor who was AG was dragging his feet on the investigation for JoePA, one should know that there are reports of little love lost between the two because JoePA did not endorse the governor in his run for office. It is more likely that for reasons of the campaign that the governor slow boated the investigation.

More to follow. I am getting ready to head to the hospital with a parishioner.
 
Icebear said:
As and the very argument you are making is one that was used in Germany and in Stalinist Russia to argue for the extermination of the Jews. The essential core argument was that it was better that the Jewish population be exterminated to "free" the people from the various manners in which they were "supposed" to have been dragging down and undermining the larger societies than to value individuals independently.
Expand ...

My first thought when I read Carl's post was that kind of thinking is used to justify genocide.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
 
You got to be kidding right? you think I'm going down the road of a thought process that advocates genocide?

IN about 60 or 70 years, when another generation has passed, the truth about the U.S. bombing of the chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 will become declassified. What will probably be found, is what's suspected, that the U.S. strategically targeted a civilian institution, in a foreign country, that was neutral territory of a different country.

Innocent people died.

Two things happened after that. The CIA released a copy of at Chinese text, written by two highly respected chinese military theorists, that laid out a clear, and powerful plan to destroy the United States, through what translated to: Unrestricted Warfare. The discovery of that text, changed United States military thinking, and defense strategy. it's all about information security now, rather than exercise of force. Tthat text had been circulated among the military strategists of the enemies of the united states, and it was the blue print for the Al Quaida 9/11 attacks, which had been planned years in advance of september 2001. It had been acquired by covert operatives some years prior, but kept secret in the U.S. It was released to the public, after the backlash in China over the bombing, and soon after the release, the Chinese, basically shut up about the bombing.

The second thing that happened, is that a guy named Milosevic, and his military commanders, who had been under investigation, and looking to be punished for genocide, for years prior, but had been getting help in evading, and dodging from countries like China, and indeed Serbian military officers that were being hunted, were given shelter in that embassy... - that were opposed to NATO forces, were going to be brought to justice. That embassy was also being used to transmit signals across a network that was informing people about NATO military activity, that shouldn't have been knowing about NATO activity.

An order was given by peopel in charge, of other people, and charged with things like national security - charged with protecting millions of innocent people, charged with bringing the perpetrators of Genocide to justice....

that order was given, and a B2 bomber took off from an airfield in Missouri, refueled over the Atlantic ocean, penetrated European airspace, and detonated the most precise weapon in the U.S. arsenal, in the Chinese Embassy.

Innocent people died.

I suppose the people here, that I'm oppsosing, think that order, was wrong? THat the lives of the janitors, and clerks, in that embassy outweighed the rest of it?

THe reason that the U.S. spends so much money on precision technology in weapons, is to minimize collateral damage. Our enemies, have no such intentions.

That was 12 years ago. THe enemies of this country that would see the U.S.A. destroyed still exist, and are active.

Again, I go back to what I said before. It is the luxury, of educated people in this country, living in the largest, most free thinking, most prosperous, highest quality of life, and secure society in the history of humanity, to engage in the very discussion that exists here, regarding the absolute concept that no action should ever be taken that harms innocent people

It is this very fact, that also erodes teh mechanisms by which the security of that culture has been achieved.

The case of PSU is much different, collateral damage of social and economic punishment of innocent people, to achieve a goal of change is far different than condeming an innocent person to die, because of the actions of other people.
 
When we speak of the Culture of Penn State and in the aftermath of this extraordinary debacle. how fast we forget that the same symptoms; from the Joe Pa's indifference, to the Athletic Director's and President's avoidance of honest decision making, to the boards lack of oversight, indeed total passivity in the face of repeated protests, accusations, even a lawsuit.

No, I am not speaking of the Sandusky affair but that of Renee Portland.

But Mechelle didn't forget... when Sandusky was indicted she wrote:

To me, the almost casual way Penn State handled its defense and support of Portland throughout her career signaled that the school didn't take any allegations against her very seriously. What I wrote in October 2006 reflected the frustration many outside observers had about the school's attitude regarding complaints about Portland: It took a quarter-century of people not speaking out, or looking the other way, or rationalizing that led to Portland having complete belief in her dictatorial power.

So what is the answer to the problem at Penn State; the NCAA was cowardly in avoiding taking sides in that previous matter; should they avoid involvement now? Or is the whole athletic establishment and atmosphere so sick (I am reminded of the concept of the military, Industrial complex), that it warrants a total shutdown of all programs and rethinking alongside a new Board and Administration.

There are no perfect answers as Ice has made eloquently clear.

But the utopian in me dreams that this horrific incident spurs a total reconsideration of the place of athletics in our Public Universities and the adoption of a new code based on good, old-fashioned amateurism and the re-emegence of the scholar-athlete of the sort that Tara, Geno, Pat and Muffit have advocated.
 
.-.
I'm not familiar with Renee Portland - do you have a good link?

FYI: Utopia is the equivalent of heaven to me. Heaven, hell, purgatory. Assurance of salvation, despair, fear. All the same. I'm sure Icebear would agree.
 
msf22b said:
Carl, you can start with the article I quoted: http://espn.go.com/womens-college-b...tate-nittany-lions-again-deficient-leadership

But just Google her name and Penn State and the whole sad, familiar story comes up
Expand ...

OMFG!! This is for real folks. THat culture at PSU is fubar. Absolute power corrupted to the core.

I apologize to the all lady huskies fans, I'm really not a close follower of lady's hoops. I enjoy seeing the successes, and the banners hanging in the gyms on campus and at the civic center, but I confess to my sin. I really don't follow closely.

Goodness sakes, how many more things have to come to the surface in teh pool of knowledg, for it to become clear to everyone that change of this PSU culture is not going to come from within, internally?

We all seem to agree that change is necessary - it's a question of where it comes from, external influence or internally?

It's got to be an external source of pressure, influence to create change in that culture I think, as each day passes, as I gather more information, it's crystal clear.

THe only question is how that external pressure is applied. What targets you select and how you're going to influence those targets.

My target is the PSU alumni, and all the voting population of PA that are the people that would be affected by shutting down all home football games for the fall. Good lord, one year might not be enough, icebear is probably right, shutting down football home games for only one season would only anger the people in charge and make the corruption stronger.

I do not believe that creating change through non-forceful methods is the best course of action. I do believe this is one of those situations where the exertion of force to inflict damage is necessary.

It's realm of decision making, that many people, simply are not willing to go into, because of their feelings about the collateral damage.

But, when it comes to being in position of power over others, this type of decision making, is reality. So you better know what you're doing, and better not be acting foolishly, reactive, emotional...

Like the NCAA did with SMU in 1986.

In the case of the military, if you're oging to take that action, and innocent people will be put in harms way, you better be damn sure you've got good intelligence and are choosing your targets well, to create the most impact, with the least amount of collateral damage (although there are times, as indicated in history, when collateral damage - is indeed the desired outcome)

I believe that to be the case, here in this socio-economic, cultural situation. It's not about life and death. People won't die because they can't make money off of 8 football games in the fall. But the target, all those fans, all those people that will be economically impacted, will be motivated to make the necessary changes from within, from teh ground up.
 
Carl Spackler said:
I'm not familiar with Renee Portland - do you have a good link?

FYI: Utopia is the equivalent of heaven to me. Heaven, hell, purgatory. Assurance of salvation, despair, fear. All the same. I'm sure Icebear would agree.
Expand ...
Never was a utopian, too much of a realist for that and besides Lutheran theology doesn't support the idea of humans having any ability to build the kingdom of God. We leave that to the Christian Dominionists. We are all saints and sinners, you know. Utopianism bears a certain expectation that you and I create or build Utopia.

The realist in me recognizes that we cannot build perfect systems and that the Jerry Sanduskys of the world will always lie close at hand. Truth is that if 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys has been sexually abused then all of us have numerous abusers in and around our lives. All of us are blind to who they are. That is why I have a great distaste for those who get high and mighty about it couldn't happen here and we need to stop those bastards.

That present reality of child sexual abuse in CT, as well as, here in PA is one of the reasons I despise the suggestion of a death penalty for PSU football or even the university in your broader destroy the community imaging. Doing something like that will do nothing to alter the reality and the forces that lead to child sexual abuse. Mostly what it does is soothes our own conscience (a selfish and meaningless endeavor) that we have done something and shown all those evil people. One problem they aren't evil people except in the sense of original sin and with that is our mark let us all just stay home until we can blow the whole world away.

Blowing all the world away doesn't solve the problem because the problem is within us. That is the exact point of the Noah story. God wipes out the world except for the one family God finds to be his joy and obedient to his will and no sooner does the first crop of grapes come in after the flood has receded and Noah is found naked and drunk in his tent and a judgment falls on Ham and his descendants because he sees his father naked. And the story of humanity doesn't get any better going forward from there.
 
Carl, you may think that force creates greater change and quicker but Gandhi, King, and Jesus of Nazareth would broadly reject you assertion that it will be healthy or enduring.

Having been in and around the issues at PSU and having counseled a number of folks who suffered under Portland I can say to you that change, real change is possible without violence but it takes clear and direct punishment of the guilty. If the punishment is not focused on the proper targets then no sense of justice will emerge only distrust and with distrust the problem will only repeat itself. At PSU or somewhere else. Who will ever report someone for behavior like Sandusky if they believe doing so will destroy their whole world.
 
.-.
Icebear said:
Never was a utopian, too much of a realist for that and besides Lutheran theology doesn't support the idea of humans having any ability to build the kingdom of God. We are all saints and sinners, you know. Utopia bears a certain expectation that you and I create or build Utopia.

The realist in me recognizes that we cannot build perfect systems and that the Jerry Sanduskys of the world will always lie close at hand. Truth is that if 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys has been sexually abused then all of us have numerous abusers in and around our lives. All of us are blind to who they are.

That reality that in CT, as well as, here in PA is one of the reasons I despise the suggestion of a death penalty for PSU football or even the university in your broader destroy the community imaging. Doing something like that will do nothing to alter the reality and the forces that lead to child sexual abuse. Mostly what it does is soothes our own conscience (a selfish and meaningless endeavor) that we have done something and shown all those evil people. One problem they aren't evil people except in the sense of original sin and with that is our mark let us all just stay home until we can blow the whole world away.

Blowing all the world away doesn't solve the problem because the problem is within us. That is the exact point of the Noah story. God wipes out the world except for the one family God finds to be his joy and obedient to his will and no sooner does the first crop of grapes come in and Noah is naked and drunk in his tent and a judgment falls on Ham and his descendants because he sees his father naked. And the story of humanity doesn't get any better going forward from there.
Expand ...


I don't believe that anywhere in my discussion, I've said that my analysis involves any measure that would prevent future child abuse. I believe I've actually said the contrary in at least one post back here. Nothing I'm writing is meant to be a measure to prevent future child abuse.
 
Then what were your comments about threat deterrence?
 
Ice, I'm with you until original sin; sorry, just don't buy into that.
But it is undoubtedly true that the supervision of Penn State Athletics was deficient.
It may yet turn out that other aspects of the University were handled as cavalierly.
Ultimately, I find myself with you in opposition to the "death penalty."
But the people in charge must be held to the strictest accountability from this moment on.
 
Icebear said:
Carl, you may think that force creates greater change and quicker but Gandhi, King, and Jesus of Nazareth would broadly reject you assertion that it will be healthy or enduring.

Having been in and around the issues at PSU and having counseled a number of folks who suffered under Portland I can say to you that change, real change is possible without violence but it takes clear and direct punishment of the guilty. If the punishment is not focused on the proper targets then no sense of justice will emerge only distrust and with distrust the problem will only repeat itself. At PSU or somewhere else. Who will ever report someone for behavior like Sandusky if they believe doing so will destroy their whole world.
Expand ...

I've never read Ghandi's biography, but I'll go with your assertion there as right on, because I am familiar with King, and I have read Jesus of Nazareth's biography. None of those three are in position of influence over the culture of PSU though.

To me, it's a simple matter of the citizens of the PSU culture, to take up arms and become what one of my mentors defines as a citizen warrior, (in the metaphorical sense, the pen is mightier than the sword, and the power to vote and hold your leadership accountable for their actions, in creating a culture worth defending. You might have a different label for it, but the concept is most likely the same.

I think we agree that change is warranted, and that pressure must be exerted somehow to create it.

Where we clearly differ is how we would motivate that change, where, and how that pressure would come.

You have much more faith in humanity, in an entire cultures, to do the right things, than I do. A product of life's experiences I suppose.

I will go back now and address some of things you wrote back to me initially. It should make for an interesting day!
 
msf22b said:
Ice, I'm with you until original sin; sorry, just don't buy into that.
But it is undoubtedly true that the supervision of Penn State Athletics was deficient.
It may yet turn out that other aspects of the University were handled as cavalierly.
Ultimately, I find myself with you in opposition to the "death penalty."
But the people in charge must be held to the strictest accountability from this moment on.
Expand ...

Original sin in Lutheran understanding is the self-centeredness that we all enter the world bearing. From the moment of birth a child's nature is demand and securing attention for self and one's needs or desires as life. Mom feed me, mom change me, mom hold me. From the beginning a child has no sense of other. Bill Cosby tells a great story about about one of his children wanting a cookie before dinner and Cosby told him, "no." Five minutes later the child is back as asks again and Cosby again refuses because it will be supper time soon. Another five minutes and the child tries yet again. Cosby gives a stern warning this last time and that seems to be the end of it. Except ten minutes later and Cosby recognizes there is too much silence in the house and he goes looking for the child. He finds the child in the kitchen with a chair pushed against the counter and the phone book on the counter with the cabinet door open, hand in the cookie jar on the top shelf. Suddenly the child realizes that Cosby is watching and withdrawing her hand with the cookie looks at him and says, "I got a cookie FOR YOU." in that fraction of a second the child's self-interest shifted from "my" desire for a treat to "my" desire to avoid suffering. And that is the best story about original sin that I have ever heard. Sin is simply turning away from what is good for our relationship with God and neighbor and towards our personal desires and will. This self centered sin is what leads us to sin by what we have done like Sandusky and what we have left undone like Curley and Schultz.
 
.-.
Icebear said:
Then what were your comments about threat deterrence?
Expand ...

It was an abstract. Popped in my head last night. Threat deterrance, meant defense by threat of aggression. Security from attack, because the result of attack would be so awful that you simply don't choose to take a certain course of action. I got called immediately on it that the NCAA has no teeth currently (but that can change)

It was simply meant as a potential to reach common ground. I don't think that's possible, we will differ, although you haven't really answered me yet, regarding the question I asked if you think that the principle of never harming any innocent people is an absolute. (not sure how I exactly worded it - have to read back)

Burke's orginal plan for threat deterrance, was a finite model. Meaning that the U.S. would have X number of submarines, with nuclear weapons on board, and the ability to strike Y number of targets. Everybody on all sides would know the submarines were there, and everybody would know how many targets they could hit, and not only that, - what targets were in the sights. If Russia was doing something to threaten us? Well, we let them know we've got a nuclear weapon ready to fire at Moscow. WIth what Obama wants to do with the nuclear arsenal, this model is clearly the best approach now, six decades after the first nuclear weapon was discharged in battle.

What did eventually happen though, was the Eisenhower plan, the army guy that became president went with what he knew - which was land and air, and the three pronged methoed of threat deterrance defined as "massive retaliation" was the way the defense plan of the U.S. went, and it led to the cold war with Russia.

Anyway, enough of that. You bring up original sin, I brought up free will earlier. Now, that's interesting.
 
Carl Spackler said:
To me, it's a simple matter of the citizens of the PSU culture, to take up arms and become what one of my mentors defines as a citizen warrior, (in the metaphorical sense, the pen is mightier than the sword, and the power to vote and hold your leadership accountable for their actions, in creating a culture worth defending. You might have a different label for it, but the concept is most likely the same.

I think we agree that change is warranted, and that pressure must be exerted somehow to create it.
Expand ...


We do agree on the need of the PSU culture to change, we disagree on how to motivate it. The PSU culture is already changing as the Freeh report suggests. There is vastly more that needs to be done but with accountability to standards set from outside I believe the broader community deserves the opportunity to make right it's own house addressing the sins and issues it was largely unaware of until November last fall. My suggestion still stands as a process for five to ten years of probation under the NCAA with regular reports to be made and specific goals to be achieved. I am not naive as to believe that this will achieve perfection or eliminate the possibility of abuse ever again but hopefully it will create a culture in which such an act is immediately confronted, stopped and punished under the law.
 
Icebear said:
Original sin in Lutheran understanding is the self-centeredness that we all enter the world bearing. From the moment of birth a child's nature is demand and securing attention for self and one's needs or desires as life. Mom feed me, mom change me, mom hold me. From the beginning a child has no sense of other. Bill Cosby tells a great story about about one of his children wanting a cookie before dinner and Cosby told him, "no." Five minutes later the child is back as asks again and Cosby again refuses because it will be supper time soon. Another five minutes and the child tries yet again. Cosby gives a stern warning this last time and that seems to be the end of it. Except ten minutes later and Cosby recognizes there is too much silence in the house and he goes looking for the child. He finds the child in the kitchen with a chair pushed against the counter and the phone book on the counter with the cabinet door open, hand in the cookie jar on the top shelf. Suddenly the child realizes that Cosby is watching and withdrawing her hand with the cookie looks at him and says, "I got a cookie FOR YOU." in that fraction of a second the child's self-interest shifted from "my" desire for a treat to "my" desire to avoid suffering. And that is the best story about original sin that I have ever heard. Sin is simply turning away from what is good for our relationship with God and neighbor and towards our personal desires and will. This self centered sin is what leads us to sin by what we have done like Sandusky and what we have left undone like Curley and Schultz.
Expand ...

Ha. There's another point Cosby made in that story, is that children haven't learned yet that sound travels. That's why the child had no idea he'd caught, making all that racket in the kitchen building that elaborate ladder.

THe point of that, is that as both knowledge and power is acquired with every life's experience.... the depth of what goes into decision making will continue to grow. Had that child known that sound travels, the child might have come up with a different, more elaborate plan to get that cookie, no?

Which brings me to free will. That child's choice to go get that cookie, and that child's choice to deflect punishment by lying. The child knew he'd be punished, so he chose a course of action to avoid punishment.

I believe free will is an illusion. It's a core matter of faith, and how you approach faith and define your interpretation of God. Because to believe in the concept of free will as it's taught, as I was taught, is to believe that the human mind is separate and distinct from the defined boundaries of our real existence.

In truth, the human mind, is the holy grail of neurology. The great unknown of science. If you ever want to stump a neurologist, or a psychologist, just ask them what a thought is. How it works. The real energy that is the human mind, that can be measured in brain activity, but is absolutely not one bit understood, is the link between the real world and theology.

The concept that people can make any decision they want, separate from everythign that's happened to them in their lives up to that moment, is an illusion.

Neurosurgeons btw? They don't care.
 
Icebear wrote below in part of a response: (don't know how to quote without putting the whole thing up - just wanted to address one part at atime - too much at once otherswise)....

"The theological and philosophical concept of free will, good or bad, has little to do with the present situation. Within the present there is only penultimate freedom nothing more. Each agent is not captive to determinism in any sense. There is only action and inaction. There is "sin" by what I have done and what I have left undone as is said each week in the confession of the church tradition (Lutheran) in which I minister. Sandusky's actions were those of things done and Curley and Schultz are examples of the sin of things left undone."

I disagree. I believe the concept of free will is at the heart of the matter. At the heart of the matter. THe people that had the ability to take action to stop Sandusky, that could have spoken out to anyone and everyone that would listen, chose to be silent. Only one man, had the courage to continue to pursue it. Somethign in Mike McQueary's life, something made him strong enough to make the choice that others were not free to make.
 
I do not think the "death penalty" is the way for the NCAA to go and I can't imagine that they could practically consider doing it at this very late date. So I think it is off the table.

In a post yesterday (several pages ago in this thread), I presented a batch of penalties and remedies that I thought would be worthy of consideration. I posed this key question:

"How difficult would it be to demand the resignations of all members of the Board of Trustees?"

There are 32 of them, some recent appointees, some "ex officio," all selected or elected by various constituencies. I don't think it would take very long to enlist an entire new roster and start from scratch.

And I believe it would work.
 
.-.
Kibitzer said:
I do not think the "death penalty" is the way for the NCAA to go and I can't imagine that they could practically consider doing it at this very late date. So I think it is off the table.

In a post yesterday (several pages ago in this thread), I presented a batch of penalties and remedies that I thought would be worthy of consideration. I posed this key question:

"How difficult would it be to demand the resignations of all members of the Board of Trustees?"

There are 32 of them, some recent appointees, some "ex officio," all selected or elected by various constituencies. I don't think it would take very long to enlist an entire new roster and start from scratch.

And I believe it would work.
Expand ...
Kib, if the Board of Trustees are to resign there must be some type of orderly process created. It could well be a disaster for the school to be left without anyone having experience on the board. On the other hand I do not think that it is inappropriate for the Board to be asked to resign for their failure to maintain vigilence over the President and executives of the university. I do think that keeping those newest to the board who would not have been involved in as place to begin with a new structure in place.
 
Icebear said:
Kib, if the Board of Trustees are to resign there must be some type of orderly process created. It could well be a disaster for the school to be left without anyone having experience on the board. On the other hand I do not think that it isinappropriate for the Board to be asked to resign for their failure to maintain vigilence over the President and executives of the university. I do think that keeping those newest to the board who would not have been involved in as place to begin with a new structure in place.
Expand ...

With over a half million alumni and several million citizens in Pennsylvania, the waiting list would immediately be a mile long for membership. As for the experience factor, I once again invite your attention to Mark Twain's thoughts:

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."​
 
Kibitzer said:
With over a half million alumni and several million citizens in Pennsylvania, the waiting list would immediately be a mile long for membership. As for the experience factor, I once again refer you to Mark Twain's thoughts:

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience consists of bad judgment."​
Expand ...

LOL, I always loved that thought of Twain but I hadn't thought of it for awhile. If that is the case then no one on the board should be replaced because no one has a more thorough experience of bad judgment the the present board.

Quite honstly, a documentary of PSU's process of working through this whole mess might be a useful tool for many places. Let the flaws and errors be shown in the light of day and full scutiny be applied to everything.
 
Some have advocated that PSU be required to play all games away from home. While I endorse a bowl ban for a few years I have several misgivings about the "all away" schedule. Let me cite but two:

The opener is vs. Ohio U. on September 1, just 44 days away. Ohio U. is a cupcake that will play on national tv and pick up the biggest paycheck they ever saw. Why punish innocent Ohio by having them play at home, probably not on tv?

On September 15, PSU will play Navy (ABC and ESPN2) at home. It will be "Military Appreciation Day," and you can bet that PSU will go all out to honor our service men and women. A great opportunity for some redemption.

You tell me what the USNA would do beyond their customary routine to commemorate Military Appreciation Day. And would ABC show up at Annapolis?
 
Flawed argument. You assume that a 20,000 seat sellout at Ohio's stadium (we've been there recently) small venue, smallest in 1-A football I believe.....would bring in less revenue than playing an away game at PSU. I don't know that to be true, and th eonly reason your argument has a chance, is because Ohio's venue is so small, every other program on PSU's schedule with a large venue would be in for millions of unexpected dollars over what they projected for the year.

If you're worried about TV revenue hurting other programs, you keep PSU on TV, and have them forfeit their share of the take to the opponent that day.

As for the USNA? I bet they would be happy to have the opportunity to kick the out of PSU football on their home field on national television, and then keep PSU's share of the TV money.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,421
Members
10,466
Latest member
agiglax


Top Bottom