In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1057
Online now 788 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I fully support the MWC, but honestly, where do they think this is going?
The sec, pac12 and big ten are where?
Counting their money!
@ScottPaterno: Having looked at Ken Frazier's "apology" it is hardly one. He was anti-Semitic when he demeaned Bill. He needs to genuinely apologized.
Thoughts on this? Anti-Semitic? His comment appeared racially driven. Any Anti-defimation members on here?
Clearly Mr. Frazier has Caucasian issues but I can't make the leap to antisemitic based on the audio I heard.
Agreed. I'm Jewish and I am missing the anti-semitism there. There is certainly a racist-edge to the comment, but I don't get the anti-semitism.
I just don't understand why the board can't implement Freeh's recommendations but denounce his baseless conclusions. Is it really better for the university to let everyone think our leadership covered up child rape because of football? Makes no sense to me.
Because the BOT paid Freeh upwards of $12 million. They're not going to rebuke anything in it. At least not Frazier, Peetz, Surma and ones like them.
Tara Merry And The Two Young Men At The BOT Meeting
Although it was interesting to see the stark contrast between the comments of the Penn State lettermen and those of the three young PSU alums at the BOT meeting on Friday, it was hardly surprising. When my wife and I were walking around campus the evening before the first Rally For Resignations event last September, we talked to dozens of students, and the general reactions to the impending event were either tepid interest or honest indifference. This was in sharp contrast to the clear interest expressed by most alums that we talked to—in fact it seemed that the older the Penn Staters were, the angrier they were about the “leadership” at the University.
I think the explanation for the disparity is pretty simple. Older alumni have had an “investment” in Penn State for a long time. They developed a loyalty to the University and its programs, athletic and otherwise, and had believed in its decency and legitimacy for decades, sometimes many decades. Most had developed a strong connection to Coach Paterno: I was a freshman when Joe began his tenure as head coach. When the NCAA declared that Penn State had fostered a sick culture which affirmed football at the expense of everything else—a view affirmed by Louis Freeh at the behest of the Board of Trustees—Emmert smeared Coach Paterno, Penn State athletics, and much of the history of Penn State. And when Erickson makes public statements which suggest that he and the BOT are FINALLY raising the standards of the University, his denunciation—and renunciation--of the proud history and traditions of the University is clear. Current students and recent graduates haven’t been a part of that history and those traditions. They haven’t spent large portions of their lives invested in Penn State. It is so easy for them to be indifferent to the past because they’ve experienced so little of it.
Ultimately, we need to focus primarily on the present and the future of Penn State. The past has been lived and cannot be made over. Ensuring that more effective governance at Penn State is possible must be our highest priority—that we can do something about. However, many of us take the insults of the current “leadership” at Penn State personally, and that gives our desire for better governance an even greater urgency.
Posted this on twitter, the full Lettermen press conference:
Watch: Penn State Lettermen Press Conference: http://ow.ly/j67kk
Sounds appropriate. Freeh knows plenty about keeping innocent people in prison. He's under investigation for doing just that when he worked for the FBI.
This post was edited by Itzsessil 13 months ago
Yudichak Questions PSU BOT Members at Senate Committee Hearing
HARRISBURG, March 18, 2013 – - State Sen. John Yudichak (D-Luzerne/Carbon/Monroe) issued the following statement at the conclusion of today’s Senate State Government Committee public hearing that featured testimony from members of the Penn State University Board of Trustees.
“Throughout Senate Appropriations Committee budget hearings and again today at the State Government Committee hearing, I had an opportunity to question members of the Penn State Board of Trustees about the questionable actions taken before and after the Sandusky scandal. As a proud member of the Penn State family, I remain disappointed that the Board of Trustees appears more committed to ‘moving on’ than it is to fully assessing the scandal, deliberating on recommendations from all quarters, and ultimately “getting it right” for the Sandusky victims and the University.”
“I appreciate the Board members’ willingness to participate in today’s hearing and the recent work of the Board’s Committee and Governance and Long-Range Planning to advance governance reforms. However, the Governance Committee has side-stepped critical issues related to the size of the board and the selection of Building & Industry trustees. Furthermore, the proposed reform that would allow the majority of the Board to remove a trustee who speaks out against board actions is a very troubling sign that the Board of Trustees has not heard our concerns about the insular nature of board control.”
“We must continue to have open and honest conversations about the mishandling of the Sandusky scandal and the glaring missteps taken in the commission and use of the Freeh report. We need to continue to demand more answers from the Board on how they will address the shortcoming of the Freeh report, its cost to the University and the broad implications of the harsh NCAA sanctions.”
“As we move forward and discuss legislation and proposals to change the structure of board governance at Penn State University and all other state-related universities across the Commonwealth, we need to make certain that the nature and size of all boards does not again lead to an issue where the ultimate power is delegated to the university president. It has been proven time and time again that certain board structures lend themselves to failure and as we deliberate changing this structure, we must avoid those structures and ensure that all decisions made and contracts entered by all boards of governance protect the best interests of the university and its students.”
You would also have to think some kind of other lawsuit must be around the corner from the latest tweet from Zig. He bsaically says that something will be announced next monday morning. I would say the letterman are going to sue the NCAA but that is juts my guess.
I actually wondered if anyone could sue the BOT. I have no idea if that is even possible but thought with all of their moving on speeches that someone wouldn't mind getting them in front of a court of law.
In the end though I think nothing will really happen until a few years from now and by then the sanctions will be over. Maybe in a year or two the NCAA will tell them to finish the sanctions and they will reinstate the scholarship number to the original number it is allowed to be.
Who knows. All I know is I have never seen the NCAA get smashed around like they have the past month and yet nothing will happen to them. They seem untouchable.
I had not heard this. How sad is it that the board is so insecure that they feel a need to vote any dissension off the board. Everyone must agree with the BS the executive committee wants or get off the bus. Fighting bull $hit
Yeah its called the "Lubrano Rule" by some. Its to make sure alumni don't get fair representation and keep the titans of industry in firm control.
Is this going to happen - did the rule pass that they could possibly vote out somebody like Lubrano??
Wow, How could this possibly be a good policy for PSU? Make the powerful more powerful? That is the very last thing our University needs right now. I dont care if everything Lubrano says is eventually proven to be wrong, at least somebody is checking and balancing the system.
I believe it is part of the proposed changes to be voted on at the May meeting.
Oh, and if you are not aware, there is a serious power issue on the BOT. It is thought that all of the proposed changes will pass.
This post was edited by RR4PSU 13 months ago
Thanks - well they have the board majority so I am sure it will get passed ....SMH
So, do we the alumni have no power to stop this?
That has been the problem. Lubrano is the voice right now, thats why the other members want to shut him up.
I watched the hearing yesterday and the Senate panel reserves the right to legislate the changes they think need made. It seemed they agreed with a lot of what Lubrano was saying.
Lubrano killed it yesterday. The Senate panel seemed really concerned with the many issues he raised. In particular, they found it very disconcerting that the BOT might attempt to institute the "Lubrano Rule," especially for members who were elected (and serve only a three year term).
The PA legislature is our only hope. If the governance committee's reforms go into effect basically it's over. There will be no transparency. The board will be able to get rid of anyone who speaks against the "company line".
Please everyone in PA write your legislators. They have the power to truly reform the board. We need this for many reasons other than JoePa, sanctions, and Freeh.
For decades the PSU BOT has been a sham. The B&I positions were offered as rewards for donations or political favors, the Alumni seats were filled will people who wanted to pad their resumes and were more than happy to let the power players do all the work, and the rest of the members did next to nothing. People want to claim that Joe had too much power, but the truth is that the BOT, who has ultimate control over the university, was managed by a very small group of corporate politicians that cared more about their pensions than they ever cared about Penn State.
If it takes legislation to get changes, so be it. It would be best if they could do it themselves, but it's just not in their nature to admit anything they did wasn't right. At this point and at no point in the past was this ever about Penn State to them. It's been about themselves. Now, everything that has happened has just polarized their stance even more. Now it's an "us versus them" mentality and they will dig their heels in just out of spite like too many US politicians. We need to get these self-serving cowards out and get people who will actually follow through on their fiduciary duty to PSU in. I'm not sure anything other than a full cleaning can right this mess at this point. The Governor shouldn't "own" as many seats as he does, the B&I process needs to be MUCH more transparent. The way it stands, the B&I folks get to pick the new B&I folks so it has become a good ol' boys club and nothing more. so much corruption...
This post was edited by spud358 13 months ago
Telling The Candidates Apart...
It's fascinating to watch alumni processing information about the various candidates, weighing the importance of endorsements--or rejecting their relevance entirely. Athletic backgrounds seem important to some; others seem to feel that being a financial wizard or a CEO of a corporation matters a lot. A lot of people seems to be having difficulty distinguishing between and among the myriad of candidates. Perhaps I can help with that last problem. Voting for me can provide two things: a strong statement and a vocal advocate. Many alumni believe that the current board members need to hear a strong statement from the alumni. One such statement would accompany the defeat of the two incumbents. Another would be my election by the alumni. I organized two rallies on campus last fall encouraging the resignations of most of the trustees, and Karen Peetz called our demands—without mentioning our names--“anarchy.” Imagine her shock if she saw Suhey and Deviney voted out, and the organizer of those rallies elected to the board.
What do we know for sure?
*I am the only public activist candidate on the ballot.
*I am the only candidate discussing the importance of an alumni trustee caucus on the BOT.
*I am the only candidate who has pledged to have a listening tour of every alumni group I can visit between the election and the beginning of the new trustee term.
*I am the only candidate who has proven himself to be willing to speak publicly in defense of Penn State.
*I believe I am the only candidate to contact every PSU chapter with a valid email address in the entire world.
Ask yourself this question: "Where has that person been, what has that person done since the scandal broke over a year ago?" Is it simply election time, or has that candidate done anything to be an advocate for Penn State?
I am asking for the opportunity to serve Penn State and the alumni of the University.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports