The Lions' Pride

Hopefully it says that he was in a love triangle with Vickie Tripoly (or whatever her name is).

Don't give Phila ideas...

If Emmert were about to get fired, why the public "vote of confidence"? What's the point of that? I honestly don't understand how ANYONE can stand up and publicly support ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MORONS: (1) Erickson, (2) Peetz, (3) Emmert, (4) Surma, (5) Bernstein. I'm sure I'm forgetting others. These people should be banished in perpetuity to a labor camp in the desert or something.

I would add Corbett, Freeh, Frazier, Raykowitz, and most of the media to that list.

Holy crap, I'm getting sloppy. No clue how I missed that list of ASSHATS. Thanks for the append to the list.

LOL

yea, looking the other way when it comes to $$ (UNC) and just acting like he is above following the own rules of the organization

Erickson was put into that position because the BOT contracted Freeh and let him make his own opinion as to what happened. The BOT should have limited the investigation to compliance issues. By the time it got to Erickson, he was left with a decision of no football for years, or football with penalties. It is wreckless to suggest that he should have fought Emmert at that time. He was being advised by two people who supposedly were experts in going against the NCAA and both told him to take the deal.

Erickson is not the problem.

The NCAA's vote was every bit as unanimous as the BOT's vote to fire Paterno. The Executive Committee made the only move they could to attempt to prop up the organization until a change of guard can take place. No one should really be shocked by this.

So if your company had a major contract with the government, and it just went through an embarassing PR issue, and the government came back to you and said "Look, you can keep this contract for considerably less money and you will get fined, or we can look into things with the possiblity of shutting you out for awile... your choice", you would say "Oh hell with you, go do what you need to do, we will be fine"? Erickson has more to worry about than just bowl games and scholarship limits. Emmert had full power. His two advisors were telling him to take the deal. I think it's pompous to claim that Erickson should have done told the NCAA to go screw, especially given the track record of Universities that have done that in the past (USC).

Erickson's directives come from above. Same with Joyner.

All of the power at Penn State rests within the good old boys club of the BOT. No longer are there counter weights in Spanier, Curley, Paterno, etc. Penn State has shifted from a quasi top down structure with at least some checks and balances, to a top down structure void of checks and balances. And, that should scare the crap out of all alumni.

Abso-freaking-lutely.

We know how long these NCAA investigations take. Years!

Anyone with at least half a brain (which apparently excludes Erickson) knows that the public pressure RE Sandusky/PSU was never going to be more than it was that day. After 1-3 year had passed, there was going to be NO WAY the NCAA was going to drop the DP on Penn State. This is common sense of the most common kind.

Plus, think about what you're saying. So, according to you, the NCAA says to Erickson, "well it's either these really severe sanctions or the DP. Please make a choice. Oh, and if you chose the option that is not the DP, you must sign this document that relieves us of any obligation to actually investigate this matter and justify the DP." How does that even make any sense to you? If someone that you think has you by the balls give you two options, and asks you to sign something absolving them of any recourse if you take the clearly less sever option -- Aren't you going to get a bit suspicious?

A poker analogy:
That's like, when it's Emmert's turn to bet, he says, "I'm going to bet $1,000,000 (give you the DP). BUT if you promise not to call me (sign the consent decree), I'll only bet $1,000 (give you sanctions).

He's telegraphing loud and clear that he doesn't have any confidence that his hand will win.

Emmert's response: "Ummm... That $1,000,000 bet would be really scary, even though you just virtually told us that you don't have a strong hand... So, please pretty please only bet $1000. I promise not to call you, Mr. Emmert."

Ugh. What a freaking moron (Erickson, not you. {grin}).