In partnership with CBSSports.com
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.
1) when do te trials take place?
2) are they all up for conspiracy charges as well as perjury?
3) if all 3 are not guilty on all charges what does that essentially do to a) the ncaa? b) overall perception and c) open to door for the BOT to sue particular parties)
1)They aren't scheduled, they have been postponed pending further Order of Court
3)My thoughts ... a. Nothing b. Nothing c.I don't think the BOT will touch this with a ten foot pole unless they have to.
Either this website doesn't exist or is not currently available.
If winning was easy even losers would do it.
You don't have to commit a crime to be sanctioned by the NCAA. It all depends on the strength of the Ethics Clause.
If they are found not guilty, that means that evidence shows that none of the individuals knew what was going on..because I believe that is what they stated. Which also means evidence will be produced to support that.
The most important part, in my opinion, is that the trial will be the first time actual new evidence (facts not assumptions) will be public...and this is what we all have been waiting for..one way or another...it will determine whose "allegations" are correct and who was wrong. We would hope anyway.
to question 3a) I believe that was posed in some fashion to an NCAA rep in an interview or Gene Marsh during the open board meeting. The responder said that the sanctions are not tied an individual's guilt or innocent but the culture that allowed it to happen. so IMO, nothing
3b) Lets face it, even if your not found innocent in the court of law...public opinion doesn't always change. I am sure if we did a poll of board members most would say Casey Anthony killed her kid, but she wasn't found guilty. Do we have more information than she did (I think so), but the media would have to change their narrative.
While this may be the case, the entire basis of the sanctions was that the "culture" of football is king compelled 4 men to conceal information and lie, leaving children at risk. There are no other ethical issues in question. NONE. Depending on the outcome of the trials. it may be kind of hard to justify punishment based on an ethics clause when there are no ethical violations.
“We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill
The entire thing was based on popular opinion, which still rests in the NCAA's favor. They don't have to change anything unless the courts overturn their jurisdiction that was determined by their ethics clause.
I completely agree, but do you really think the NCAA cares? The whole punishment was about Emmert showing how powerful he was. I'm sure that he couldn't care less about the kids or the truth for that matter.
And this is why people will continue to sue the piss out of them
There would still need to be a perception that came from the trials that they more or less made a "negligent" mistake in deciding not to report to DPW or hand over to police for police investigation. Basically they did not understand what they were dealing with - more than this "great" guy who seemed to have boundary issues and failing to recognize that there was a possibility that these suspected boundary issues were a lot more than boundary issues. If they are all found not guilty on the various charges and there is still a perception that this was still a cover-up type of situation rather than negligence, there would be a lot less outside presssure on the NCAA to drop or reduce sanctions.
Let's also not forget that he was sticking up for his friend and former disgruntled PSU employee, Vicky Triponey
They always have and always will, just like any regulatory body. In regards to this issue the Governor's case against them and their juridictional boundaries will decide whether there is standing for the rest.
I think people are saying/assuming that I don't think they should be getting challenged. That's wrong. There was no one on here fighting more against the sanctions. I don't think this is about due process for Joe (there is no due process in public opinion and he never woul dhave been charged), that much is true. But I do 100% believe that these sanctions are illegal due to jurisdictional over step. I do admit that the NCAA will/should fight, and this will be tough because of pass precedent for ethics clauses. But I think the Governor is in the right.
1. Trials may never happen (Baldwin issues) 2. No 3. Likely BOT does nothing....however, Paterno report + all trials dismissed would probably sway even more trustees than we've already seen and would likely bring more heat on the NCAA. We'll see.
I went back today and read the emails. Freeh is an absolute idiot to put it nicely. The vast majority of the emails talk about plans of action and who to inform. Not one email says we need to make this go away for the sake of football. It's not even hinted at or implied anywhere. To say Joe was all powerful and a part of this coverup because of a vague email containing the word coach is ridiculous looking back right now. It's absurd. When the trials come and go and the parties involved don't state Joe instructed them to make this go away or that he was involved, the University better right the wrong they did by signing that stupid decree. The sanctions clearly state that if additional information comes forward that they have the right to review it and they better.
"One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."
Momentum is building within the bot to review the freeh report's validity.
Reminder - bot never authorized freeh report or concent decree. Furthermore, erickson did not have authority to sign w/ ncaa.
If freeh, consent decree and erickson's agreement to it were based on poor conclusions and evidence -- then the foundation on which ncaa's actions were built crumble.
In this scenario, how could the sanctions / consent decree stay in place?
Reference my post above, the NCAA doesn't care about the truth, they were looking for an opportunity to show how powerful they are and PSU presented them with the perfect opportunity.
I am more on the side that it will take a mixture of political pressure & legal action for the sanctions to be overturned. I think a not guilty verdict would help the cause (heck it might even get the BOT to finally file a suit), but I don't believe public opinion will flip to PSU's side with a simple not guilty verdict.
If they are found not guilty, I bet this will be the mantra..."well of course, they were found not guilty, PSU is too powerful in central PA" Followed by the connections of each jury member to PSU.
If the three on trial are found not guilty, I also don't see media members like Golic changing their tune because I don't expect a smoking gun in the trial.
More my point is that - the NCAA won't reduce or completely end the sanctions based upon a not guilty verdict in the trial.
This post was edited by Lion_in_CBus 17 months ago
Regarding your conspiracy question, I don't recall who, if any of them, has been charged with conspiracy. But in the criminal code, generally, conspiracy is largely a tag-along charge for cases with multiple parties and not a standalone charge. I'm not saying that it's not an issue or important, but it sounds a lot worse than it is. Certainly the perjury charge is the heavy-hitting criminal charge.
Not sure why you asked, but that's my
This post was edited by GRS154 17 months ago
I could have sworn one of the charges was conspiracy to conceal endangerment of minors.
I ask because i do not remember.
When Spanier was charged, there was a conspiracy charge alleged against him and the AG added the conspiracy charges against Shultz and Curley at that time. This was either the reason or one of the reasons the January trial dates were continued.
I don't contest any of this, my point was that the the conspiracy charge is small potatoes compared to the perjury.... it's like finding out that you owe $10,000 in taxes to the government and then being told by H&R Block that their fee to fill out and file your forms is $200. Again, $200 is a chunk of money, but when considered along with the $10,000, it's small potatoes.
Here's generally what conspiracy means under the criminal code: "An agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means."
So as you can see, while "conspiracy" might sound really bad, it's just not that big of a deal when it goes hand in hand with perjury....
[Edit: And it's usually what the prosecutor settles for when he or she can't prove or get a conviction of another bigger crime.]
I had a discussion with one of my criminal law professors yesterday. We are both of the opinion that this case may not make it to trial. The issue deals with Cynthia Baldwin. She may have committed malpractice by going to the grand jury hearings and not telling Spanier/Curley/Schultz that she was there on behalf of PSU and not them. If the court determines that this testimony is tainted then it will be thrown out and the State will essentially have no case. Not saying this will happen but there is a pretty good chance.
Dominate The State
Good stuff, I forgot about that angle.
Keep in mind that we have served sanctions already...so time served should be an element of the final discussion. Furthermore, in stated agreement the sanctions could be revisited if both psu and ncaa agree to revisit.
The way things are going now, if psubot reviews freeh and consent decree..and proves that it was unfounded..combined w/ legal and public pressure..I could see that happening.
Just trying to be optimistic.
Just curious, if that happens, what happens to Baldwin?
This post was edited by LBU59 17 months ago
I think we are on the same boat. I am cautiously optimistic. I knew what you were getting at I just wanted to clarify my opinion a bit.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports