Penn State Cult (Joe Knew)

[409fold]

Who hasn't flipped over a news van or two?

Me. I only flipped over a police car and set in on fire in my youth. Part of growing up in Detroit and all. :-)

 

[BUCKYLE]

Yeah I'm crazy. You got me. You're probably right tho. Freeh probably read 3.5 million emails. Then he got ahold of Emmert and they were like "let's fuck shit up at Penn St and take that big nosed bitch down a notch".

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Well, as I said, your hypothesis is not impossible.

But, as you must admit, your hypothesis is solely a hypothesis. The Freeh Report has tangible evidence and facts. Your hypothesis has neither.

In the absence of anything tangible, I think it is fair to give folk the benefit of the doubt, ESPECIALLY when your claim is something pretty damn serious: that Emmert & Freeh & current Penn State officials are currently covering up something WORSE then what came out in the Freeh Report.

That is what your are claiming, correct? That Emmert & Freeh & current Penn State officials are currently covering up something WORSE than what C/S/S covered up? Yes or no?

I usually hate when a 3rd party jumps in to discussions like this......but I can't help myself.

It seems like you're taking the Freeh Report as if Freeh found all that there was to find and documented it. Anything wrong that Penn State football had ever done up until 2011 could be found in that report. And since so little was found, that's proof of something.

I get how the whole presumption of innocence works. And I get how the absence of evidence normally shouldn't lead to confirmation that a cover up must have happened. But we're talking about major college football. I'll never for one second believe this bullshit image some Penn State fans have of Paterno and Penn State that they're the only school that wasn't cheating. All these other big time schools are paying recruits and fixing grades and covering up crimes and winning games.....and here sits Penn State. They just win games without any of that other shit that Texas and Alabama and USC and Oklahoma and even Ohio State have to do to get players to come to their schools. Penn State just gets those dominant college athletes to decide to turn down Texas A&M's bags of money and come kick ass at Penn State for free.

I don't know how Freeh got his information....but it's not like he could force people to talk to him, right?

 

[409fold]

Because one of the most heinous crimes imaginable was allowed (if not aided/abetted) to occur multiple times in a place of "higher learning".

there should be nothing that could redeem that place now. Tear it all down, Salt the Earth and use it as a lesson.

And that's before we get into the fact that the athletic department alone was entirely not audited or controlled for decades. It's also not taking into account that the THON money doesn't do jack but line the pockets of those who run that [Mark May]ty little hospital in Hershey....

OK, cool, fair enough. Let's say Penn State is shut down before the start of the 2012-13 academic year. The immediate follow-up:

(1) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania still owns a whole bunch of buildings and research facilities and land in the middle of the state.

(2) there are about 40,000 current PSU students who have to go somewhere else to complete their studies. Other in-state public institutions like Pittsburgh, Temple, Lock Haven, et cetera could take some of them in, but not all. There is not limitless capacity available at them. And God knows about whether their major is available, transfer of credits, and 200 other logistical concerns. Many of those students will either leave the state (not good for Pennsylvania) or perhaps even give up their educational process (also not good in the long-term for Pennsylvania).

(3) there is no longer a fairly-quality academic educational facility that is somewhat affordable available to the 100,000+ Pennsylvania students who graduate from secondary school on an every-year basis.

(4) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania becomes the only state among the 50 to not have a land-grant public University.

Now what? What occurs next?

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

OK, cool, fair enough. Let's say Penn State is shut down before the start of the 2012-13 academic year. The immediate follow-up:

(1) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania still owns a whole bunch of buildings and research facilities and land in the middle of the state.

(2) there are about 40,000 current PSU students who have to go somewhere else to complete their studies. Other in-state public institutions like Pittsburgh, Temple, Lock Haven, et cetera could take some of them in, but not all. There is not limitless capacity available at them. And God knows about whether their major is available, transfer of credits, and 200 other logistical concerns. Many of those students will either leave the state (not good for Pennsylvania) or perhaps even give up their educational process (also not good in the long-term for Pennsylvania).

(3) there is no longer a fairly-quality academic educational facility that is somewhat affordable available to the 100,000+ Pennsylvania students who graduate from secondary school on an every-year basis.

(4) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania becomes the only state among the 50 to not have a land-grant public University.

Now what? What occurs next?

Should've thought of that before you allowed kids to be raped in the name of winning football games?

Only partially joking. And I've lived my entire life in PA.

 

[409fold]

I usually hate when a 3rd party jumps in to discussions like this......but I can't help myself.

It seems like you're taking the Freeh Report as if Freeh found all that there was to find and documented it. Anything wrong that Penn State football had ever done up until 2011 could be found in that report. And since so little was found, that's proof of something.

I get how the whole presumption of innocence works. And I get how the absence of evidence normally shouldn't lead to confirmation that a cover up must have happened. But we're talking about major college football. I'll never for one second believe this bull[Mark May] image some Penn State fans have of Paterno and Penn State that they're the only school that wasn't cheating. All these other big time schools are paying recruits and fixing grades and covering up crimes and winning games.....and here sits Penn State. They just win games without any of that other [Mark May] that Texas and Alabama and USC and Oklahoma and even Ohio State have to do to get players to come to their schools. Penn State just gets those dominant college athletes to decide to turn down Texas A&M's bags of money and come kick ass at Penn State for free.

I don't know how Freeh got his information....but it's not like he could force people to talk to him, right?

Fair enough, don't mind you jumping in.

Freeh and Emmert ---- for whatever reasons ---- were communicating, giving each other status reports, answering each other's questions, et cetera from December 2011 through May 2012.

Emmert was not Freeh's client. Given such, and my expectations for how a consultant should professionally act, I see two possibilities:

(1) Penn State authorized these communications.

(2) Penn State didn't authorize these communications. If so, Freeh is acting unprofessionally.

The question is "why were they communicating?" My answer to that question is because "Emmert was looking to make the strongest case possible against Penn State, and in doing so, anything additional wouldn't hurt." Fair enough if people have different answers to that question.

 

[409fold]

Should've thought of that before you allowed kids to be raped in the name of winning football games?

Only partially joking. And I've lived my entire life in PA.

Of course, (1) I am a Penn Stater (an alum), and (2) I can 100% definitively say that I did not "allow kids to be raped in the name of winning football games."

Approximately how many people associated with Penn State (alums, students, fans, admins, et cetera) do you think did "allow kids to be raped in the name of winning football games?" 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? Which number do you think is closest?

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Fair enough, don't mind you jumping in.

Freeh and Emmert ---- for whatever reasons ---- were communicating, giving each other status reports, answering each other's questions, et cetera from December 2011 through May 2012.

Emmert was not Freeh's client. Given such, and my expectations for how a consultant should professionally act, I see two possibilities:

(1) Penn State authorized these communications.

(2) Penn State didn't authorize these communications. If so, Freeh is acting unprofessionally.

The question is "why were they communicating?" My answer to that question is because "Emmert was looking to make the strongest case possible against Penn State, and in doing so, anything additional wouldn't hurt." Fair enough if people have different answers to that question.

What's wrong with it if Emmert was using Freeh's info? Unless he's making things up...why is that wrong?

I have the same issue with the case against Miami falling apart. Who cares if the info was obtained through a third party as long as it's accurate info?

 

[409fold]

What's wrong with it if Emmert was using Freeh's info? Unless he's making things up...why is that wrong?

I have the same issue with the case against Miami falling apart. Who cares if the info was obtained through a third party as long as it's accurate info?

Freeh was being paid by Penn State. Freeh was not being paid by Mark Emmert or the NCAA.

As such, unless expressly authorized by the client (Penn State), Freeh shouldn't be communicating with Emmert the NCAA while the report is being produced.

That's basic professional behavior.

I get that "the ends justify the means" to some folk (a discussion we had back here in the fall). Fair enough, but I 100% reject that belief.

There's is, of course, NOTHING wrong with Emmert using Freeh's information/report after it had been released to the public and accepted by the client.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Of course, (1) I am a Penn Stater (an alum), and (2) I can 100% definitively say that I did not "allow kids to be raped in the name of winning football games."

Approximately how many people associated with Penn State (alums, students, fans, admins, et cetera) do you think did "allow kids to be raped in the name of winning football games?" 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? Which number do you think is closest?

The universal you....not you specifically. I'd say between 10-20. Just a complete guess as to how many people it takes to make sure the image of Penn State football was protected in that specific case. I have my doubts that it's the only time a person was harmed and justice wasn't served because a member of the football program was the perp.

I don't agree that the whole University deserved to be shut down. I think the football team should have been turned off for a while to give people some perspective. They lived in that isolated bubble for far too long.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Freeh was being paid by Penn State. Freeh was not being paid by Mark Emmert or the NCAA.

As such, unless expressly authorized by the client (Penn State), Freeh shouldn't be communicating with Emmert the NCAA while the report is being produced.

That's basic professional behavior.

I get that "the ends justify the means" to some folk (a discussion we had back here in the fall). Fair enough, but I 100% reject that belief.

There's is, of course, NOTHING wrong with Emmert using Freeh's information/report after it had been released to the public and accepted by the client.

What about an employee of Penn State blowing the whistle? Say Spanier's secretary went on her own to Emmert and said they're breaking this, this, this, this, this, and this rule. She's being paid by Penn State. But she learned of information that she felt somebody needed to be told.

"Ends justifying the means" makes it sound like ANY method is acceptable as long as the right person gets punished. I wouldn't go that far. But a guy was hired to look into whether Penn State did things wrong. Was his scope limited to just legal matters? Just NCAA matters? I don't know if that changes my opinion...I'm just curious.

 

[jwinslow]

What's wrong with it if Emmert was using Freeh's info? Unless he's making things up...why is that wrong?

I have the same issue with the case against Miami falling apart. Who cares if the info was obtained through a third party as long as it's accurate info?

Particularly when the first party is almost completely powerless as an investigative body. They didn't catch Usc, the lawsuits did. They didn't catch the fab five, the fbi did. They didn't catch tatgate, the fbi did. That's the only source of most true bombshells in college sports.

The Ncaa is essentially already extinct. The power 5 allowed them to keep their title and maintain the basketball tournament, but they have next to zero authority or ability to hold anyone accountable for rule breaking.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Why did Emmert want to bury PSU? Especially with hindsight...I mean he reduced the sanctions that pretty much everyone outside of PA agreed with.

 

[AJHawkfan]

...they have next to zero authority or ability to hold anyone accountable for rule breaking.

Damn Straight.

 

[Mike80]

OK, cool, fair enough. Let's say Penn State is shut down before the start of the 2012-13 academic year. The immediate follow-up:

(1) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania still owns a whole bunch of buildings and research facilities and land in the middle of the state.

Buildings can be torn down or re-purposed.

(2) there are about 40,000 current PSU students who have to go somewhere else to complete their studies. Other in-state public institutions like Pittsburgh, Temple, Lock Haven, et cetera could take some of them in, but not all. There is not limitless capacity available at them. And God knows about whether their major is available, transfer of credits, and 200 other logistical concerns. Many of those students will either leave the state (not good for Pennsylvania) or perhaps even give up their educational process (also not good in the long-term for Pennsylvania).

And the State of Pennsylvania would be on the hook to ensure those that wanted to continue their education can find a suitable replacement. Penn State ain't Harvard....

(3) there is no longer a fairly-quality academic educational facility that is somewhat affordable available to the 100,000+ Pennsylvania students who graduate from secondary school on an every-year basis.

So? There again are other fish in the sea - at a place that doesn't have the stigma nor the attitude that nothing that bad happened and/or No Blood, No Rape cultists sitting on your Board of Trustees....

(4) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania becomes the only state among the 50 to not have a land-grant public University.

The State of Pennsylvania officers charged with running the school should have thought of that when they ignored the child rape.

Now what? What occurs next?

And when that all happens, you have an example to be referenced whenever a school ignores the heinous assaults on children to protect a myth.