2011 NCAA/BigTen Football Thread

[BH]

Shocking news, PSU knew about Sandusky all along. I am waiting for Jay Paterno's response though, to see how it plays out.

[Saul Goodman]

Shocking news, PSU knew about Sandusky all along. I am waiting for Jay Paterno's response though, to see how it plays out.

I'm having trouble hearing ya. I've never heard of rape and a man.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/
http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/Press_Release_07_12_12.pdf
http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

[Internet Apex]

http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/
http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/Press_Release_07_12_12.pdf
http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

Which one of those is the Cliff Notes version?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/
http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/Press_Release_07_12_12.pdf
http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

Which one of those is the Cliff Notes version?

The second link is a 7-page press release containing Louis Freeh's full prepared remarks from today's press conference. Pages 4-7 cover their findings and recommendations.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

From Freeh's remarks:

Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky's victims until after Sandusky's arrest.

In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20th of this year, we see evidence of their proposed plan of action in February 2001 that included reporting allegations about Sandusky to the authorities. After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno, however, they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities. Their failure to protect the February 9, 2001 child victim, or make attempts to identify him, created a dangerous situation for other unknown, unsuspecting young boys who were lured to the Penn State campus and football games by Sandusky and victimized repeatedly by him.

Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child's identity, about what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001.

The stated reasons by Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley for not taking action to identify the victim and for not reporting Sandusky to the police or Child Welfare are:

(1) Through counsel, Messrs. Curley and Schultz have stated that the "humane" thing to do in 2001 was to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations.

(2) Mr. Paterno said that "I didn't know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn't work out that way."

(3) Mr. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that he was never told by anyone that the February 2001 incident in the shower involved the sexual abuse of a child but only "horsing around." He further stated that he never asked what "horsing around" by Sandusky entailed.

Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky's victims.

The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno's. At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley also failed to alert the Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.

...

[Saul Goodman]

From Freeh's remarks:

Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky's victims until after Sandusky's arrest.

In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20th of this year, we see evidence of their proposed plan of action in February 2001 that included reporting allegations about Sandusky to the authorities. After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno, however, they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities. Their failure to protect the February 9, 2001 child victim, or make attempts to identify him, created a dangerous situation for other unknown, unsuspecting young boys who were lured to the Penn State campus and football games by Sandusky and victimized repeatedly by him.

Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child's identity, about what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001.

The stated reasons by Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley for not taking action to identify the victim and for not reporting Sandusky to the police or Child Welfare are:

(1) Through counsel, Messrs. Curley and Schultz have stated that the "humane" thing to do in 2001 was to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations.

(2) Mr. Paterno said that "I didn't know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn't work out that way."

(3) Mr. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that he was never told by anyone that the February 2001 incident in the shower involved the sexual abuse of a child but only "horsing around." He further stated that he never asked what "horsing around" by Sandusky entailed.

Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky's victims.

The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno's. At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley also failed to alert the Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.

...

Load the napalm. Fuel up the aircraft.

[CT III]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

The NCAA...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/07/ncaa-statement-penn-state-freeh-report/1

Like everyone else, we are reviewing the final report for the first time today. As President Emmert wrote in his November 17th letter to Penn State President Rodney Erickson and reiterated this week, the university has four key questions, concerning compliance with institutional control and ethics policies, to which it now needs to respond. Penn State's response to the letter will inform our next steps, including whether or not to take further action. We expect Penn State's continued cooperation in our examination of these issues.

So the NCAA has written letters.

[SKO]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

The NCAA...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/07/ncaa-statement-penn-state-freeh-report/1

Like everyone else, we are reviewing the final report for the first time today. As President Emmert wrote in his November 17th letter to Penn State President Rodney Erickson and reiterated this week, the university has four key questions, concerning compliance with institutional control and ethics policies, to which it now needs to respond. Penn State's response to the letter will inform our next steps, including whether or not to take further action. We expect Penn State's continued cooperation in our examination of these issues.

So the NCAA has written letters.

Yeah, well for chrissake, I mean, no kids traded their own jerseys for tattoos or anything. Not their problem. How do YOU define institutional control?

[Saul Goodman]

Nothing to see here, you guys.

[Brownie]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

The NCAA...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/07/ncaa-statement-penn-state-freeh-report/1

Like everyone else, we are reviewing the final report for the first time today. As President Emmert wrote in his November 17th letter to Penn State President Rodney Erickson and reiterated this week, the university has four key questions, concerning compliance with institutional control and ethics policies, to which it now needs to respond. Penn State's response to the letter will inform our next steps, including whether or not to take further action. We expect Penn State's continued cooperation in our examination of these issues.

So the NCAA has written letters.

I am going to be optimistic here and suggest the NCAA decided just to save money and have the Freeh panel do their work for them. If I was a scholarship athlete at Penn State, I'd be making some phone calls to schools that might have some extra scholarships available for the fall, and if I'm Jim Delaney, I'd be on the phone with any remaining Big 12 teams to make the Big 10 12 again.

[Quality Start Machine]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

Maybe the fact that Penn St. commissioned the Freeh report helps them avoid the DP. Maybe.

But I'm thinking they're toast, but the athletes can skip the one-year waiting period to enroll elsewhere. It'll be like college free agency.

[Brownie]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

Maybe the fact that Penn St. commissioned the Freeh report helps them avoid the DP. Maybe.

But I'm thinking they're toast, but the athletes can skip the one-year waiting period to enroll elsewhere. It'll be like college free agency.

Isn't that pretty much what was going on after SMU was 86'd? All the top players landed somewhere, and all the mediocre guys sort of got screwed.

I wonder if the Big Ten could make a statement by expelling Penn State from the conference. I'm sure there are some major legal considerations, but it might be fun to see what Penn State realistically could do about it in the court of public opinion. Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

Well, the Big10 is gonna need to get to 16 somehow.  Who are the candidates?

Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Louisville
West Virginia
Rutgers

Texas controls its own fate. Oklahoma would probably follow Texas.  The rest?