Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sports letters to the editor
December 9, 2012
The Altoona Mirror
Save |
I understand that some may view my comments as inappropriate given my position as a Penn State trustee. However, I feel so strongly about this issue that I believe I have a responsibility and a moral obligation to comment on Cory Giger's recent column regarding the position of Penn State athletic director.
First, I do not believe Dave Joyner deserves the job on a permanent basis as was suggested by Giger. In fact, I do not believe Dave Joyner should have ever been placed in the role of acting athletic director. And I am not the only one.
Auditor General Jack Wagner's recently issued special report, called "Recommendations for Governance Reform at The Pennsylvania State University," details the issue of insiders moving back and forth between the Board of Trustees and university staff.
One year ago, the Penn State board allowed Joyner, then a trustee, to seamlessly and quietly move into the lucrative position of acting athletic director, thus creating a cast of influential insiders with the potential to impair objective and independent thinking. The perception of impropriety was very real, for good reason. Openness and transparency be damned.
Second, at the time Tim Curley was placed on administrative leave, then Associate Athletic Director Mark Sherburne was named the acting athletic director. A seasoned administrator, Sherburne served as acting athletic director for only 10 days before being suddenly and questionably replaced by Joyner.
A 21-year employee of the university, Sherburne was widely respected by coaches and athletic department staff, in addition to university administrators with whom he had worked his entire career. Joyner's controversial firing of Sherburne in April of this year led many to question his motives, again with good reason.
Third, on November 17, 2011, NCAA President Mark Emmert sent Penn State President Rod Erickson a three-page letter in which he asked four specific questions. A Penn State staff member contacted Joyner in December of 2011 recommending the immediate hiring of special counsel for this NCAA matter, in order to protect the best interests of Penn State. The staff member was told that this was unnecessary and the matter was under control.
Penn State did not engage such counsel until July 11, 2012. Consequently, we were needlessly caught flat-footed, unprepared to address the unprecedented sanctions imposed by the NCAA. Furthermore, the recent additions of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten were made without any member of Penn State's administration, including athletics and the Board of Trustees, knowledge of the financial impact to Penn State.
Fourth, the hiring of an athletic director should not be based on the successful hiring of one coach, even if that coach is Bill O'Brien. Penn State athletics encompasses so much more than 31 varsity sports. The athletic director is responsible for more than 300 staff and 800 student-athletes, in addition to all club sports and branch campus athletics. The operating budget exceeds $118 million.
Finally, when the time for a permanent replacement to Tim Curley arrives, if there is a serious commitment to eschewing Penn State's historically insular leadership culture, we should all expect - and, in fact demand - that the Board of Trustees take note of the specific recommendation in the Freeh Report to "conduct national searches for candidates for key positions, including head coaches and Associate Athletic Directorand above."
Tim Curley's dynamic and passionate leadership has been the driving force behind the Nittany Lions' tremendous level of athletic and academic achievement since his hiring in 1993. Great care, attention and expertise must be invested in a transparent and comprehensive process to ensure that standard of excellence is solidly in place for Penn State's next generation of student-athletes and fans.
Anthony P. Lubrano
ORD_Buckeye;2276359; said:Should anyone run into John Ong, Les Wexner, Robert Schottenstein or any other member of The Ohio State University board of trustees, buy them a drink, look them in the eye, shake their hand and thank them for knowing that you NEVER GO FULL RETARD.
A letter to the editor.....seriously, a FUCKING LETTER TO THE EDITOR. You're a trustee at your state's alleged (I'd make the case for Pitt) flagship university, and you can't even pull down an op-ed piece?
Jaxbuck;2276360; said:Is he an enormously fat [censored] or something?
What does this have to do with Baby Huey up in AA?
ORD_Buckeye;2276364; said:Wrong thread. You needn't ever buy me a drink, look me in the eye and shake my hand. I went full retard.
TDunk;2276370; said:Fat [censored] vs Fat [censored] up... Seems appropriate enough.
ORD_Buckeye;2276377; said:Please, I'm 6'1" and a buck-ninety. I'm far from fat.
They forgot to point out Mr Hoke's primary qualification ... he is a Michigan Man.Hoke is a good coach and a great recruiter and in time he very well may experience a ton of success at Michigan, but as it stands, he's nowhere near Meyer's level .... side-by-side and evaluate both programs, Meyer's presence as head coach gives the Buckeyes a tremendous advantage over Michigan.Meyer is 116-23 record as a head coach going back to 2001. Hoke, on the other hand, is 66-56 since becoming a head coach in 2003. Even more telling is their winning percentages. Meyer's win-loss percentage is .835, while Hoke's is .541.
maximumblitz;2276688; said:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...state-have-best-shot-to-flip-4-star-from-ucla
They forgot to point out Mr Hoke's primary qualification ... he is a Michigan Man.Meyer is 116-23 record as a head coach going back to 2001. Hoke, on the other hand, is 66-56 since becoming a head coach in 2003. Even more telling is their winning percentages. Meyer's win-loss percentage is .835, while Hoke's is .541.
Not sure how those winning percentages are more telling than their records, unless Bleacher Report just assumes the average reader is too dumb to realize they're the exact same thing.
rock454;2277035; said:Not sure how those winning percentages are more telling than their records, unless Bleacher Report just assumes the average reader is too dumb to realize they're the exact same thing.
rock454;2277035; said:Not sure how those winning percentages are more telling than their records, unless Bleacher Report just assumes the average reader is too dumb to realize they're the exact same thing.
OHSportsFan;2277039; said:
Thought the same thing.
MililaniBuckeye;2277047; said:BleacherReport: Coach A's record is 100-25, while Coach B's record is 75-50.
AverageBRreader: Duh, I don't see who's better.
BleacherReport: Coach A's winning percentage is .800, while Coach B's winning percentage is .600.
AverageBRreader: Oh, now I understand. Herp...