In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 614
Online now 1474 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.
Ray did NOT say that the DP "was not on the table." He maintained all along that it was technically "on the table."
And from your own link: "Erickson said if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun...."
See? This was not a severe sanctions, or "death penalty" scenario. This was a sever sanctions, or "we do an investigation and everything is on the table" scenario.
I don't know how much more clear that could be.
Erickson is, by far, the most to blame for this. The buck stopped at him.
Sure, he deserves some blame for that, but let's be real here... the BOT is run by a handful of people and Erickson is not one of them. But yes, I shouldn't have said he is blameless, but the blame is very small.
This post was edited by getmyjive11 14 months ago
Come on Fish, a formal investigation by the NCAA? You know what the outcome would have been. Gene Marsh knew what that meant (death penalty). Let's not pretend that we would have gotten a fair shake from the NCAA. It would have been a 2 week dog and pony show ending with PSU having no football team a huge fine and we would likely have been booted from the Big Ten.
Getting back to the original topic...
Is there any chance Emmert gets fired? Or the NCAA gets overhauled?
I don't know what the outcome would have been, but I'm as sure as I can be about anything that I don't know with 100% certainty that there's just no way on god's green earth we would have gotten the DP after time passed.
If they didn't stick to the DP then (and I don't even think they were seriously considering it then, but lets say they were), there is NO WAY they were going to go with the DP long after the time of the investigation passed.
IMO, any athletic sanction (even a weeks probation) would have been not a "fair shake" from the NCAA, so I agree with you there. But I just do not understand how anyone could possibly think that if the NCAA was willing to go less than the DP at the time of the PEAK amount of blood was in the water, they would go DP later when there would be much less, if any, blood in the water.
That just makes NO sense.
Because the "investigation" would have been them going "oh look, here is a report that was paid for by Penn State and said that PSU failed. Investigation over... penalty... hmm... death penalty!". It would not have been a traditional investigation that took a year or more. And why would it... the info was right there for the whole public to see.
There is just way to much to risk. Getting kicked out of the Big Ten alone would have been devastating.
Erikson shouldve stuck up for the FN university like Donna Shalala. So many wrong decisions and PR since the start of this mess, starting with cancelling Joe's PC. By accepting the consent decree, we basically just told the world "yes our football culture is out of control that we need to be fined $60 fn million dollars, and have the harshest sanctions since SMU." He shouldve said bring on the death penalty as it clearly states in your bylaws that it is only for repeat offenders. They give us the death penalty, then we come out swinging and fighting it in court, which we would have most likely won.
Gene Marsh wasnt even in freaking state college when this happened. He was in some little cabin in Maine or somewhere.
Man, I wish we still had Spanier. At least he had the balls to come out as soon as this happened and release a statement refuting the alleged claims against Curley/Schultz. Spanier, while many people didnt like him, would fight for this university. Erikson has no fn backbone and it is sickening.
Also, Erikson is the Secretary on the BOT which is completely illogical to have the president of the university on the BOTs.
This post was edited by tmaluchnik 14 months ago
"Whoever’s trying to kill me isn’t getting the job done. But one day, I’m going to punch that f___r in the face."
Ok you lost me there, becuase that's pretty much what happened. If they wanted to give us the death penalty based on the Freeh report they could have without threatening.
I think the NCAA knew the DP wouldn't stick in court because in Emmert's own words "no NCAA rules or bylaws were broken". And we certainly weren't repeat offenders.
Our punishment was and still is a made up overreach of their authority. Forcing us to sign the consent decree was the ONLY way ANY punishment would stick in court.
Erickson being the wimp he is and the BOT being the slime they are didn't fight a case they could easily win.
With all that said... fighting it would've have taken time and we would have lost recruits. We probably are better off than fighting it if we got the DP. The problem is ANY punishment is unjust in this manor.
This post was edited by BKHPSU 14 months ago
Maybe Emmert will get fired over the phone while he is on his vacation in Hawaii. Nice to be able to get away when the "company" you run is in turmoil.
Your argument is based on the fallacy that a ban on competition (i.e. death penalty) requires the university to be a repeat violator. The NCAA manual gives them power to enforce a ban on competition under major violations in NCAA bylaw 126.96.36.199. (j)
"188.8.131.52 Disciplinary Measures. In addition to those penalties prescribed for secondary violations, among the disciplinary measures, singly or in combination, that may be adopted by the committee (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2) and imposed against an institution for major violations are:
(j) Prohibition against an intercollegiate sports team or teams participating against outside competition for a specified period."
This bylaw does not require repeat-violator for major infractions and does not limit the period of the ban on competition. The repeat-violator bylaw often quoted for the death penalty is in NCAA bylaw 184.108.40.206.2 (a)
"220.127.116.11.2 Repeat-Violator Penalties. In addition to the penalties identified for a major violation, the minimum penalty for a repeat violator, subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions on the basis of specifically stated reasons, may included any or all of the following:
(a) The prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation for one or two sports seasons and the prohibition of all coaching staff members in that sport from involvement directly or indirectly in any coaching activities at the institution during that period."
So in essence the repeat-violator bylaw requires a 1-2 year death penalty unless the Committee on Infractions specifically states why this "minimum penalty" would not be enforced. However, the NCAA can still ban competition under any major violations for any number of years under 18.104.22.168. (j). Given that the rumor was that the death penalty was for 4 years, this penalty would have been enforceable under 22.214.171.124. (j), but not under 126.96.36.199.2 (a) since this is only for 1 or 2 years.
Not only is it possible, but it also has happened twice in the last decade for schools that did NOT have prior major infractions, although at lower divisions. In 2003, the NCAA banned Morehouse from competing in men's soccer in 2004 and 2005. They also banned MacMurray College from competing in men's tennis from 2005 - 2007.
I'm not saying that PSU would have got a 4 year ban on football competition, but the NCAA bylaws clearly permit them to do so and there is recent precedent for them taking this action against schools that were not repeat offenders.
If Erickson would have made this argument to Emmert, then Emmert would have laughed at him...
If that argument was even close to legitimate, you can be sure that Gene Marsh would not have advised PSU to take a consent decree.
What's the minimum penalty for not breaking any NCAA rules or bylaws?
Thank you. Erickson is a puss. +1
He put Penn State football at the head of this issue and made our football program/Paterno the scapegoat for the entire Sandusky situation. In doing so he also made the Univeristy as a whole look pathetic because the blame is now squarely on the Universities shoulders. All so we can "move forward". I have nothing nice to say about that guy.
This post was edited by NevadaNittany 14 months ago
BacardiBuckeye: "But in all honesty I like Penn State, I want to see Penn State do good that's why I check this board everyday." 4/2/14
I opened this thread hoping he would actually be on fire. Deep down I knew that wasn't the case, but my hope is all I have...
"PSU a 3 to 4 win team" - New-era, September 2012
We were inches away from the DP. The only reason we didn't get it is because PSU pleaded and kissed ass. If they would have fought it, we would have received the DP (according to all reports out there). To say we wouldn't have is just false bravado.
The problem with assuming that we would have fought this and won is that while the case was going on, a dark cloud would have been over the program and it would have been severely damaged. And that is assuming that a stay would have been ordered by the courts. Remember, this went down in mid-July. The process to get a stay before the season would have had to be lightning fast... I have serious doubts it would have happened in time. And if it doesn't happen in time, the program is gone. Even if it would have been in time, how many current players would have already left? I'm thinking nearly all of them.
For all the high-minded talk of reform and accountability, a 19-member group of college presidents, athletics directors and conference commissioners went all-in with a failed president and, by association, a broken system.
Its not Erickson's fault that the BOT let Freeh feed the public and NCAA the premise that the head coach and AD were concealing a pedophile.
He was part of the BOT that created that narrative. So, yes it is partially his fault.
The only BOT members that don't share in the blame are Lubrano, McCombie, and Taliaferro. Everyone else is guilty by association.
Erickson was "promoted" into the BOT and a very bad situation. He does bear some responsibility for his decisions afterwards, but to be fair I believe the wheels for the Freeh investigation were set in motion before Erickson could have much influence.
Erickson is the problem. He's got no guts. He's taking orders from bot. And lets not forget, he is the one that approved Sandusky unlimited access at the schiool. If all of the sanctions wrre done b/c no one stopped Sandusky, why would the guy who let him roam free get promoted to President.
This Donna Shalala argument is such a straw man. Do you honestly think she woud be so vocal if the NCAA hadn't royally F'd up their investigation of UM and had it all play out in the media? Its a public relations issue plain and simple. The NCAA had the entire public on their side and Erickson was backed into a corner. Shalala came out and said what she said only after it was clear that public opinion had done a 180 and the NCAA had fallen completely out of favor. There was absolutely zero risk in her making that statement. In fact she is a complete NCAA conspirator in past dealings and clearly was only pandering to the masses with her actions. Sure she was standing up for her school but she only did it because she was not at risk. Erickson had so bargaining chips whatsoever.
This post was edited by CZ148 14 months ago
What reason would he have not to give Sandusky that access in 1999?
Let's see... Liability for one. And the 1998 investigation for another... Oh that's right only Joe knew about that investigation but the Provost didn't.
Why would the provost know? What proof does anyone have that he did? And even if he did (or if Joe did), Sandusky was cleared, so again, what's the issue.
The same things that people say are unfair in regards to Paterno are now being used against Erickson. It's ridiculous and hypocritical, IMO.
Please stop with this ridiculous blabbering. The NCAA was going to cancel Penn State's games a few weeks before the season? Horseshit. You think Virginia, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue and Nebraska would have stood by while they were stripped of a home game against a marquee opponent just weeks before the season started?
This post was edited by psumichael 14 months ago
Agreed. The NCAA bluffed, Erickson folded. I hope it comes out in the discovery process.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports