Online Now 1580

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 944
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 1580
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

More fire on Emmert?

  • Erickson was put in a terrible spot. He's a "nice guy" and is doing the best he can. getmyjive is right on these points. He's flat out wrong that Erickson hasn't been a big part of the problem over the past 1.5 years though. The 2 points are not mutually exclusive.

    the man is simply not the caliber of leader Penn State needed in it's darkest hour. He is however, EXACTLY, the caliber of leader certain BoT members needed....

    spud358

  • We should ask for our money back from Gene Marsh too. That guy is supposed to be an NCAA expert. He was basically worthless.

    signature image signature image signature image

    JettaPSU2001 ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    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.

    Don't forget Big Rod is on the BOT. Our prez has a seat on the board (which is wrong) By the time the consent decree came about he was a trustee.

    So Erickson is a little bit more than just a puppet. If he wasn't a problem he could join with Lubrano, Clemens, Taliaferro, and McCombie on opening up a public dialogue about this mess.

    But he still doesn't have any balls to say anything against the almighty NCAA or his cronies on the BOT (albeit the board could fire him).

    BKHPSU

  • spud358 said...

    Erickson was put in a terrible spot. He's a "nice guy" and is doing the best he can. getmyjive is right on these points. He's flat out wrong that Erickson hasn't been a big part of the problem over the past 1.5 years though. The 2 points are not mutually exclusive.

    the man is simply not the caliber of leader Penn State needed in it's darkest hour. He is however, EXACTLY, the caliber of leader certain BoT members needed....

    Just to clarify, my "he's not the problem" comment was for the consent decree only. The guy is a plug-in... his real calling is as a provost, not a president. I think everyone knows that.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • BoulderFish said...

    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}).

    That's a poor analogy because:

    1) He could just fold in a poker game and live to fight another day.
    2) A decision in a poker game only would affect him and his wallet. In this (just as in my example) there are other people's lives to consider.

    Just like with a government contract, a misstep could cost people their jobs and cause irrepairable harm to the company (univeresity). There is a lot of bravado when talking about Erickson's decision... I seriously doubt that even 10% would have done things differently.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • joshlax said...

    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.

    This guy gets it.

    pennstate2012 ●

  • getmyjive11 said...

    That's a poor analogy because:

    1) He could just fold in a poker game and live to fight another day.
    2) A decision in a poker game only would affect him and his wallet. In this (just as in my example) there are other people's lives to consider.

    Just like with a government contract, a misstep could cost people their jobs and cause irrepairable harm to the company (univeresity). There is a lot of bravado when talking about Erickson's decision... I seriously doubt that even 10% would have done things differently.

    Sorry jive -- Figured you were familiar with poker.

    Not calling a bet is the same as folding. The point of the analogy is that Erickson chose not to challenge, even though the other player telegraphed their hand as not good.

    I can tell you, with 100% certainty, unless there is information that nobody except for Erickson has (i.e. something even worse that could be uncovered in the event of an NCAA investigation -- unlikely IMO given no subpena power for NCAA), I would not have taken the same course of action as that POS Rod Erickson. If the BOT would have given me the choice "make a clearly incorrect decision" or resign (as you essentially claim), I would have resigned.

    BoulderFish

  • BoulderFish said...

    Sorry jive -- Figured you were familiar with poker.

    Not calling a bet is the same as folding. The point of the analogy is that Erickson chose not to challenge, even though the other player telegraphed their hand as not good.

    I can tell you, with 100% certainty, unless there is information that nobody except for Erickson has (i.e. something even worse that could be uncovered in the event of an NCAA investigation -- unlikely IMO given no subpena power for NCAA), I would not have taken the same course of action as that POS Rod Erickson. If the BOT would have given me the choice "make a clearly incorrect decision" or resign (as you essentially claim), I would have resigned.

    My point with your poker analogy is that there is no risk involved in folding. If you fold, you just lose whatever you already committed. However, if PSU passes, that sets them up for the death penalty. You can say "oh, he was bluffing", but what exactly are you basing that on? The NCAA wanted blood. The members of the executive committee were fully supporting the death penalty. The only way to 100% be sure that we didn't get that was to take the deal.

    You can forget about what's right and what's wrong... the NCAA has shown that they don't follow their own rules and procedures. So, we turn down the offer and they do a 1 week investigation and find that we are still guilty of whatever morality clause they referenced, and we get a 4 year death penalty. Could we sue then? Sure... and we would likely win... after YEARS of the NCAA delay. At which point, maybe we end it in year 3 instead of year four... now we have to build up the program from scratch. That's a very real possibility of what could have happened.

    getmyjive11 ●

  • FItting to all of this is is the $85k raise the BoT gave Erickson back in December. Not a bad way to live just playing possum.

    PSU2001

  • getmyjive11 said...

    My point with your poker analogy is that there is no risk involved in folding. If you fold, you just lose whatever you already committed. However, if PSU passes, that sets them up for the death penalty. You can say "oh, he was bluffing", but what exactly are you basing that on? The NCAA wanted blood. The members of the executive committee were fully supporting the death penalty. The only way to 100% be sure that we didn't get that was to take the deal.

    You can forget about what's right and what's wrong... the NCAA has shown that they don't follow their own rules and procedures. So, we turn down the offer and they do a 1 week investigation and find that we are still guilty of whatever morality clause they referenced, and we get a 4 year death penalty. Could we sue then? Sure... and we would likely win... after YEARS of the NCAA delay. At which point, maybe we end it in year 3 instead of year four... now we have to build up the program from scratch. That's a very real possibility of what could have happened.

    Do you have a link quoting anyone from the executive committee as "fully supporting the DP" -- let alone something showing that the executive committee AS A WHOLE supported the DP?

    And if the executive committee as a whole supported the DP, as you say, why did they do something else? Why didn't they just say "Death Penalty for PSU?"

    BoulderFish

  • BoulderFish said...

    Do you have a link quoting anyone from the executive committee as "fully supporting the DP" -- let alone something showing that the executive committee AS A WHOLE supported the DP?

    And if the executive committee as a whole supported the DP, as you say, why did they do something else? Why didn't they just say "Death Penalty for PSU?"

    Also remember Dr. Ray said the DP wasn't seriously discussed. I believe Erickson is the only one insists on that, right?

    BKHPSU

  • BKHPSU said...

    Also remember Dr. Ray said the DP wasn't seriously discussed. I believe Erickson is the only one insists on that, right?

    Correct. Ray has explained quite well why there are what appears to be two different stories out there.

    BoulderFish

  • No one knows for sure if Emmert would have given us the DP.........but the way he's been acting I honestly think he would have. We forget at that time the amount of anger there was at PSU and how many people wanted that. It looks kind of crazy now, but I think we all can say that Emmert is an awful and arrogant leader. I fully believe Emmert could have shut the program down, and smiled while doing so.

    My biggest sticking point when people say that he never could do that, yes he could. He was given power to do whatever he wanted and to act on unilaterally. No due process, no infractions committee, no response by PSU. Nothing at all was there to help us. Emmert had all the "power" he needed to do whatever he wanted.

    Erickson is not a leader, just isn't. Maybe Spanky stands up to the NCAA if he wasn't embroiled in this mess, I don't know. Either way I do believe Emmert could have shut it down if he wanted to.

    This post was edited by PSU17 on 2/25/2013 at 2:05 PM

    PSU17

  • BoulderFish said...

    Correct. Ray has explained quite well why there are what appears to be two different stories out there.

    He did? Where is this?

    signature image signature image signature image

    JettaPSU2001 ●

  • BoulderFish said...

    Do you have a link quoting anyone from the executive committee as "fully supporting the DP" -- let alone something showing that the executive committee AS A WHOLE supported the DP?

    And if the executive committee as a whole supported the DP, as you say, why did they do something else? Why didn't they just say "Death Penalty for PSU?"

    Of course I don't have a direct quote. No one would ever offer that up. But here is an excerpt on what happened...

    "That same morning, NCAA President Mark A. Emmert called Penn State President Rodney A. Erickson and told him the majority of the NCAA's Division I board of directors -- 18 university presidents -- had coalesced around a decision: Shut down Penn State's football program for four years. "

    The reason they didn't just hand down the death penalty, per the article I have posted is that PSU's lawyer negotiated (more like pleaded) the sanctions down to what they are. Even after it seemed that PSU got the NCAA to reconsider, this happened:

    "By late Thursday, back in his home office in Tuscaloosa, Marsh and his fellow lawyers began talking about Penn State's willingness to accept a package of severe sanctions that would not include the death penalty. He felt cautiously optimistic. Then at 6:30 p.m., Marsh's office phone rang, and he was told again that a majority of the university presidents on the board still favored a multiple-year death penalty. After all of Penn State's arguments, he was stunned by the board's continued stance. "

    Even after the sanctions were agreed upon without the death penalty, the NCAA was still strong arming PSU:

    "That weekend, only Peetz and her executive committee were told about the consent decree or that sanctions were imminent. Those trustees did not tell their colleagues. This was by necessity, university officials say. The NCAA had warned Penn State that if there was a leak about proposed sanctions to the media, the discussions would end and the death penalty would be all but certain. "

    So I ask you again, putting yourself in that situation, what would you have done?

    This post was edited by getmyjive11 on 2/25/2013 at 2:44 PM

    Inside the secret negotiations that brought Penn State football to the brink of extinction - ESPN

    Inside the secret negotiations that brought Penn State football to the brink of extinction

    espn.go.com

    getmyjive11 ●

  • PSUDOG said...

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

    I actually had someone tell me that he had an affair with Triponey while they were both at UConn. I heard this months ago but never heard it from another person. Were you being sarcastic or did you hear the same thing?

    WestChesterLion

  • The NCAA has to save face. They are being hit from so many sides at this point that they can't decend all their exposed flanks. Emmert is the captain on a sinking ship and the only way to save it is to toss him overboard.

    jbilbow

  • WestChesterLion said...

    I actually had someone tell me that he had an affair with Triponey while they were both at UConn. I heard this months ago but never heard it from another person. Were you being sarcastic or did you hear the same thing?

    I think mine was more wishful thinking than anything I ever actually heard.

    In the end as with the whole other messy situation I would just love for someone to come out and tell the truth for once. It is really starting to make me sick of how these powerful almighty people can just sit around on their high horse and do whatever they want and say whatever they want. Think about all of the things that have been said about the situation with the ncaa.

    It is a pretty big deal for someone to say the Death penalty was on the table and then someone come right back and say no it wasn't. I just don't understand why people continue to lie. Either it was or it wasn't, it can't be both ways.

    PSUDOG

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Of course I don't have a direct quote. No one would ever offer that up. But here is an excerpt on what happened...

    "That same morning, NCAA President Mark A. Emmert called Penn State President Rodney A. Erickson and told him the majority of the NCAA's Division I board of directors -- 18 university presidents -- had coalesced around a decision: Shut down Penn State's football program for four years. "

    The reason they didn't just hand down the death penalty, per the article I have posted is that PSU's lawyer negotiated (more like pleaded) the sanctions down to what they are. Even after it seemed that PSU got the NCAA to reconsider, this happened:

    "By late Thursday, back in his home office in Tuscaloosa, Marsh and his fellow lawyers began talking about Penn State's willingness to accept a package of severe sanctions that would not include the death penalty. He felt cautiously optimistic. Then at 6:30 p.m., Marsh's office phone rang, and he was told again that a majority of the university presidents on the board still favored a multiple-year death penalty. After all of Penn State's arguments, he was stunned by the board's continued stance. "

    Even after the sanctions were agreed upon without the death penalty, the NCAA was still strong arming PSU:

    "That weekend, only Peetz and her executive committee were told about the consent decree or that sanctions were imminent. Those trustees did not tell their colleagues. This was by necessity, university officials say. The NCAA had warned Penn State that if there was a leak about proposed sanctions to the media, the discussions would end and the death penalty would be all but certain. "

    So I ask you again, putting yourself in that situation, what would you have done?

    You don't buy the account from Ed Ray. I don't buy this account from Gene Marsh.

    There's always the chance I'm wrong, but Ed Ray's account, to me, is WAAAAAAY more likely.

    BoulderFish

  • BoulderFish said...

    You don't buy the account from Ed Ray. I don't buy this account from Gene Marsh.

    There's always the chance I'm wrong, but Ed Ray's account, to me, is WAAAAAAY more likely.

    Emmert confirmed that the 4 year ban was on the table.

    "In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years."

    That is how it went down. PSU was strong armed and had no choice. Ed Ray was lying and has since not refuted Emmert's, Erickson's or Gene Marsh's claim that a 4 year death penalty was on the table. Neither have the 18 members on the board of the NCAA.

    Erickson is not to blame for this at all.

    Penn State Nittany Lions -- Rodney Erickson said school faced 4-year death penalty - ESPN

    If Penn State had not accepted the package of NCAA sanctions announced Monday, the Nittany Lions faced a historic death penalty of four years, university president Rodney Erickson told Outside the Lines.

    espn.go.com

    getmyjive11 ●

  • RMJ went from king of the college nightlife, to Attorney. Maybe we should let him chime in on this.....whistling

    PSU2001

  • I'm with jive here. Rod made, what appears today, a poor decision when confronted with a no win situation.

    Let's play a "what-if" game.

    Rod tells emmert to pound sand.

    Emmert and his puppet committee investigate for a couple weeks, and gives PSU a 2 year death penalty, administered by emmert under thew superhuman powers clause of the ncaa charter.

    PSU requests, and is granted a temp injunction.

    Here is the key problem--given the uncertainty surrouinding the program, all the top recruits -- hack, brenneman' sickels, etc go elsewhere.

    OB says he didn't sign on for this uncertainty, chaos and goes to coach the Iggles.

    Would things have worked out this way? I don't know. But they certainly could have.
    Sometimes, the devil you know is not as bad as the devil you don't know.

    If, and its still a big if, PA wins the suit against the ncaa, rod comes out of this looking pretty good.

    pennstatel0

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Emmert confirmed that the 4 year ban was on the table.

    "In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years."

    That is how it went down. PSU was strong armed and had no choice. Ed Ray was lying and has since not refuted Emmert's, Erickson's or Gene Marsh's claim that a 4 year death penalty was on the table. Neither have the 18 members on the board of the NCAA.

    Erickson is not to blame for this at all.

    Again, my problem is now. If PSU stands up and says we were strong armed, our prez didn't have the authority, BOT never ratified the consent decree, and would stand up now. I can't believe the NCAA would have the credibility to make a DP stick.

    I may be wrong.

    If you are correct Jive we were blackmailed/coerced into excepting this penalty. In what world is that just or even legal?

    IMO here is the order to blame for this mess:

    1) Sandusky
    2) Gricar/DPW/CYS/whoever "lost" Dr. Chambers report in 1998
    3) Raykowitz for being a trained and mandatory reporter who didn't report in 2001
    4) Select members of the BOT (of which Erickson is one)
    5) Freeh
    6) Media
    7) Emmert
    8) Vicky Triponey/Emmert

    Even with my hatred for Emmert and the NCAA they are still pretty far down the list. Everyone who is higher on the list gave Emmert the ammo he needed and yes Erickson is one of them.

    BKHPSU

  • getmyjive11 said...

    Emmert confirmed that the 4 year ban was on the table.

    "In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years."

    That is how it went down. PSU was strong armed and had no choice. Ed Ray was lying and has since not refuted Emmert's, Erickson's or Gene Marsh's claim that a 4 year death penalty was on the table. Neither have the 18 members on the board of the NCAA.

    Erickson is not to blame for this at all.

    Jive, I still don't see why you think Erickson is totally blameless. There are people who are more to blame (see last post) but he is not totally blameless either.

    I agree he was coerced/blackmailed into agreeing to this. But he was part of the BOT who let it get this far in the first place. The BOT allowed Freeh to grandstand and produce a flawed/incomplete report and slam our university leaders and just blindly accepting it.

    True leaders have to make hard decisions not just bow to public opinion.

    This post was edited by BKHPSU on 2/25/2013 at 3:29 PM

    BKHPSU

  • Wasn't it Ed Ray the one that leaked the information that after what is going to be announced Penn State would wish for the Death Penalty. Why would all negotiations be off the table if someone from PSU leaked information the NCAA Board was forcing the DP on PSU. This just doesn't sound right why the secrecy? What was the NCAA hiding behind?
    Every time Ed Ray's name is mentioned I just want to punch something, I don't wish ill will on anyone except for Ed and Mark.

    This post was edited by PSUGeddy on 2/25/2013 at 3:30 PM

    PSUGeddy

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports