-
http://www.freep.com/article/20120921/SPORTS06/120921067/ncaa-mark-emmert-dave-brandon-michigan
I hate this guy..
"As for the criminal case against Sandusky, he said if the school had brought it forward in 1998 and separated itself at that time, the NCAA never would have been involved."
.. He obviously did NOT read the Freeh report.
-
Joesocal said...
“As for the criminal case against Sandusky, he said if the school had brought it forward in 1998 and separated itself at that time, the NCAA never would have been involved. The ensuring years of cover-up, he implied, caused the NCAA action.”
I’d like to see an exact quote of what Emmert said because that sentence makes no sense. Penn State reported the 1998 incident to the proper authorities. Sandusky was fully investigated and cleared. What more does he think Penn State should have done regarding 1998?
It would not surprise me at all to find out that all he read were the summaries. It wouldn’t be the first time he popped off without being fully informed. After the USC sanctions were announced, he declared that the COI “got it right.” He later had to admit that he hadn’t read any of the papers filed in that case. Apparently, Mr. Emmert doesn’t need facts to know what’s right or wrong.
The rest of what he said is just a repetition of the same BS he’s been spouting since day one.
“Freeh Report was far more comprehensive than anything the NCAA could have done and was completed in far less time. Wrong. The NCAA could have vetted the Freeh report for accuracy and also could have used it to supplement its own investigation. And since when did time matter to the NCAA? (Hint: Since Emmert cared about PR.)
“They didn’t say, 'Fine' -- that would be an exaggeration -- but they said (it was) the least worst direction for the university and it will be best for the university, relative to all the other options available for us.” That sentence there shows that Erickson was threatened with something much worse – a sign or else situation. Something Emmert has been denying.
“The current president and the leadership there are working extremely hard to get this behind them and move on and fix their culture problem.” He continues to talk about the culture problem and just makes stuff up.
“You can’t have part of an organization that’s so revered and so powerful that not only can you not control it, you can’t even ask a question,” he said. “You can’t (even) go in there and say, 'So what happened here?' Well, the NCAA didn’t even try, did it? It makes the lie that much easier to tell.
He is such a dishonest, disingenuous, publicity-seeking, snake-oil selling megalomaniac I can’t even stand to see his picture or hear his voice.
-
Psu2011 said...
http://www.freep.com/article/20120921/SPORTS06/120921067/ncaa-mark-emmert-dave-brandon-michigan
I hate this guy..
"As for the criminal case against Sandusky, he said if the school had brought it forward in 1998 and separated itself at that time, the NCAA never would have been involved."
.. He obviously did NOT read the Freeh report.
-
Joesocal said...
Emmert’s claims that “the Freeh report was far more comprehensive than anything the NCAA could have done and was completed in far less time” are both a lie and a red herring.
The claim that the Freeh report was more comprehensive than anything the NCAA could have done is a lie because the NCAA could have used the Freeh report, and the underlying interviews and documents as a supplement to its own investigation.
If Emmert actually read the report as he claims (and I am skeptical that he read anything more than the summaries), he should have had some questions. Like “where is the evidence of an NCAA violation” or even “where is an allegation of an NCAA violation?” Or, “Most of the principal parties weren’t interviewed – maybe they’ll talk to us.” Or, “Mike McQuery wanted to talk to the Freeh group, maybe we should give him a call.” Or, “how does a group interview 430 people and review 3.5 million pieces of paper and then write a 267 page report without a single dissenting opinion?”
So clearly, the NCAA should have had questions after reading the report and absolutely could have done an investigation and wound up with a far more comprehensive and accurate picture than the Freeh report painted.
Next, Emmert mentions that the Freeh report “was completed in far less time” than an NCAA investigation could have been done. This is a complete misdirection.
Time has never mattered to the NCAA and was completely irrelevant (except for one reason) in this case. Why was time irrelevant? Paterno was dead, McQuery was gone, Sandusky was in jail, Schultz, Curley and Spanier had been separated from the university and there was no student-athlete on the campus that was there in 2001. So any punishment meted out by the NCAA was not going to fall on what they considered the principal actors. It was going to land on the university, the athletic department and innocent student-athletes. Given that, and the NCAA’s willingness to punish the innocent, taking a year to investigate would have made no difference at all.
Except to Emmert. He had an opportunity to grandstand and by the time the trials were over, the media frenzy about Joepa would have abated. So he had to act quickly in order to get maximum publicity for his sanctimonious media tour. That’s the reason time mattered.
Why has some journalist not challenged him on those 2 simple points? They just ask about the sanctions, he spouts the same BS and they let it go. You’d think that at least there would be reporters from Pennsylvania that would challenge him.
Hamilton Lion
- 4 stars Rating: 76
4381 votes total - (7992)
- 33 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Psu2011 said...
http://www.freep.com/article/20120921/SPORTS06/120921067/ncaa-mark-emmert-dave-brandon-michigan
I hate this guy..
"As for the criminal case against Sandusky, he said if the school had brought it forward in 1998 and separated itself at that time, the NCAA never would have been involved."
.. He obviously did NOT read the Freeh report.
If you havent signed up for premium 247 yet..take my word for it...its worth it!
-
Joesocal said...
“As for the criminal case against Sandusky, he said if the school had brought it forward in 1998 and separated itself at that time, the NCAA never would have been involved. The ensuring years of cover-up, he implied, caused the NCAA action.”
I’d like to see an exact quote of what Emmert said because that sentence makes no sense. Penn State reported the 1998 incident to the proper authorities. Sandusky was fully investigated and cleared. What more does he think Penn State should have done regarding 1998?
It would not surprise me at all to find out that all he read were the summaries. It wouldn’t be the first time he popped off without being fully informed. After the USC sanctions were announced, he declared that the COI “got it right.” He later had to admit that he hadn’t read any of the papers filed in that case. Apparently, Mr. Emmert doesn’t need facts to know what’s right or wrong.
The rest of what he said is just a repetition of the same BS he’s been spouting since day one.
“Freeh Report was far more comprehensive than anything the NCAA could have done and was completed in far less time. Wrong. The NCAA could have vetted the Freeh report for accuracy and also could have used it to supplement its own investigation. And since when did time matter to the NCAA? (Hint: Since Emmert cared about PR.)
“They didn’t say, 'Fine' -- that would be an exaggeration -- but they said (it was) the least worst direction for the university and it will be best for the university, relative to all the other options available for us.” That sentence there shows that Erickson was threatened with something much worse – a sign or else situation. Something Emmert has been denying.
“The current president and the leadership there are working extremely hard to get this behind them and move on and fix their culture problem.” He continues to talk about the culture problem and just makes stuff up.
“You can’t have part of an organization that’s so revered and so powerful that not only can you not control it, you can’t even ask a question,” he said. “You can’t (even) go in there and say, 'So what happened here?' Well, the NCAA didn’t even try, did it? It makes the lie that much easier to tell.
He is such a dishonest, disingenuous, publicity-seeking, snake-oil selling megalomaniac I can’t even stand to see his picture or hear his voice.
This post was edited by wideout on 9/22/2012 at 7:37 AM
Emmert spewing more nonsense