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.
NastyNatiBuck;2175622; said:From what I have heard talking to PSU alums, everyone hated her while she was there. While unsurprising, the motivations behind the hatred were interesting. Apparently, any student who came under legal issues off-campus were subject to being suspended from school until all legal issues were resolved. That alone would make her unpopular amongst students.
I won't discuss the merits of her time at PSU, but it seemed like she had a history of trying to antagonize people.
ant80;2175652; said:I read somewhere that PSU blatantly opposed and fought against a congressional law that would put information of the university under the RTI law. Does anyone know the article that said that? I tried to search for that, but didn't find it.
ORD_Buckeye;2175656; said:They fought tooth and nail to prevent JoePed's salary from being made public. You know how he liked to insinuate that he wasn't paid any more money than an Dean or senior Professor.
Since Paterno really wasn't paid much relative to his peers (though more than he liked to let on), one has to wonder what they were really trying to protect from the open records laws. Well, now we have a pretty good idea.
http://www.ydr.com/ci_19337132
ORD_Buckeye;2175631; said:I read that she was hired with a mandate to reign in the off-campus party culture which was getting out of control. I think anyone put in that position is going to become the focal point for student hatred, so that doesn't really surprise me. I won't speak to how well or poorly she was at that or whether she reached too far. I just think student/alumni perceptions of her are going to be biased regardless due to the task she was asked to perform.
Where she obviously ran into trouble was in believing that her mandate extended to the football players. There, she butted up against the real power at that university, and it cost her her job. Regardless of whether she was a power hungry bitch or a saintly public servant, it's her experiences here that are quite relevant in determining whether there was an out of control football coach and a culture of zero institutional control over his program at Ped Aggy.
The cultists are obviously going to try and tear down the messenger, but she needn't have been good at her job to be telling the truth about the power dynamics at Ped Aggy. They're not mutually exclusive.
But he's old and doesn't know what Twitter is.....remember?Paterno made $ 1.2 Million in Salary. This was released last year. Recently it was disclosed in his retirement package that he received $900K annually in TV and Radio income. What is not public was his Nike deal. This was rumored to be between $ 3 M and $ 5M. He was an original stock owner in Nike IPO (1980) and was a hero to Nike Chairman Phil Knight. Joe made more than 98% of Coaches in NCAA D1. Why did he fight to keep this private? He wanted to preserve his image as an everyman. His net worth is rumored to be well north of $ 200M. Go figure.
Will emails from Penn State VP of Student Affairs about Paterno trigger NCAA?
By Bruce Feldman | Senior College Football Columnist
July 9, 2012 11:58 am ET
The issue of whether the NCAA should get involved in the Penn State scandal connected to the school's handling of the Jerry Sandusky situation is an intriguing one. Many have reasoned that no matter how distasteful the actions of Penn State's leadership may have been, this still is not an NCAA matter or that these were real-world crimes, which are above the NCAA's head.
On Monday, CNN reported that part of the investigation run by former FBI Direction Louis Freeh is examining how Joe Paterno pushed to handle scandalous issues internally and that could spark the NCAA's entry point into this matter. In focus: the university e-mails explicitly illustrating the level of power and influence the long-time football coach had that extended far beyond just football at Penn State.
These emails show that the university had a chain of command, but how the head football coach tried to manipulate it. And in light of everything else that has since come out about Penn State, how might these emails now be viewed by the NCAA since this is related to the Sandusky case, yet it's also not directly connected because it goes to the heart of something beyond that? And, do these emails resonate even more now than when they first came to light because the culture of Penn State football and Joe Paterno is viewed in a much different way than it was a year ago?In a 2005 e-mail from Dr. Vicky Triponey, then vice president of student affairs in charge of disciplining students, to athletic director Tim Curley and others, she summarizes a meeting she had with Paterno in which he tells her that he wants to be the sole disciplinarian of his players. She criticizes Paterno for wanting to limit the Campus Code of Conduct to incidents that take place on campus and keeping disciplinary matters involving his players private. "Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code -- despite any moral or legal obligation to do so," according to her e-mail.
In the same e-mail, Triponey, also refers to calls her office was receiving from coaches and others. "I must insist that the efforts to put pressure on (Student Affairs) and try to influence our decisions...simply MUST STOP," she writes.
Curley, in a subsequent e-mail, acknowledges that Triponey's take on the conversation with Paterno is accurate.
Triponey replies to Curley, "I know you are caught in the middle of a very difficult situation," an apparent reference to appeasing Paterno.
In a subsequent e-mail to then-Penn State President Graham Spanier she is more blunt: "I am very troubled by the manipulative, disrespectful, uncivil and abusive behavior of our football coach," she writes.
"This could definitely be perceived as an extra benefit and yes, it could bootstrap into LOIC (Lack of Institutional Control) without even having to address Sandusky," says Dr. David Ridpath, Assistant Professor of Sports Administration at Ohio University. "It would set a precedent, but that is normal for the NCAA. I told a reporter it would have to be something other that Jerry Sandusky -- this is it for the NCAA if they want to do something and it does give them a bit of cover.
"I think the more it is not Jerry Sandusky, the better and they can certainly go this route. The Freeh report will be the tipping point."
Keep in mind, this wouldn't be the first time the NCAA created a precedent tied to a high-profile case. It did that with both the Reggie Bush and Cam Newton investigations. As I wrote a few weeks back, the NCAA's lists of acts that demonstrate a lack of institutional control are tied to violation of NCAA rules, not real-world crimes -- but the NCAA brass is on record as saying it would be keeping an eye on how things unfolded with the Penn State investigation. Well, now we're getting into the investigation of the culture at Penn State...
ucfknight;2176066; said:When does the Freeh report come out?
Posted on Tue, Jul. 10, 2012
Penn State awaits Louis Freeh's report on Jerry Sandusky scandal
Anne Danahy | State College - Centre Daily Times
last updated: July 10, 2012 07:31:36 AM
BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- ]
The criminal trial is over. Now, the community is waiting for the second verdict.
Penn State hired former FBI director Louis Freeh to complete what trustees have said is an independent investigation into the university's response to the Jerry Sandusky scandal and whether it included a cover-up of behavior that turned out to be a pattern of child sex abuse.
That report is expected soon, possibly as early as this week, and is expected to include not only a look at what happened, but recommendations for steps the university should take going forward. The investigation had included more than 400 interviews, as of May, of current and former employees, trustees and others.
While speculation has been rampant about where the report's findings could be focused and what they could mean for the university, many people say they are taking a wait-and-see attitude and are hopeful that the report will help the university move in the right direction...