-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter mercer_buckeye
- Start date
DiamondBuck
Football is 100% physical, 100% mental.
Opinion: Penn State still hasn't learned anything from the Sandusky scandal
...Penn State supporters seem aghast that Paterno and the university aren’t getting the benefit of the doubt in that equation. Which is absurd. Paterno knew about Sandusky in 2001. He told his bosses. Nothing happened. Sandusky kept abusing boys and remained free for a decade. The university has no credibility. None...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nca...om-the-sandusky-scandal/ar-BBsOQfo?li=BBnba9I
...Penn State supporters seem aghast that Paterno and the university aren’t getting the benefit of the doubt in that equation. Which is absurd. Paterno knew about Sandusky in 2001. He told his bosses. Nothing happened. Sandusky kept abusing boys and remained free for a decade. The university has no credibility. None...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nca...om-the-sandusky-scandal/ar-BBsOQfo?li=BBnba9I
Upvote
0
Delaware Buck
Heisman
That's a well written piece. Pretty much covers all the points and the writer is a PSU grad. Unfortunately, It's just a matter of time before he is outed by the cult
Upvote
0
Or added to their hit list.
By comparison, the vitriol Pedsters direct toward anyone who opposes their world view makes it looks like the Ayatollah only took Salman Rushdie off his Christmas card list.
Upvote
0
409fold
All-American
FWIW, I'll chime in. I've thought about the things that have happened the last couple days --- there are a few oddities that pique the curiosity:
(1) The CNN and NBC stories break within 24 hours of the ruling in the Penn State vs. Insurance Company case. Two big stories, BOTH within 24 hours? After the story has been very quiet (in terms of new allegations) for a few years? That's a bit odd.
(2) Barron, after remaining pretty silent on all things Paterno during his 2 years as PSU President --- speaks out himself? That's a bit odd too. Why now?
Stepping back, there is A LOT of $$$ at stakes in regards to the Penn State vs. Insurance Company lawsuit. Something like $60,000,000!!! I think it's fairly clear that Penn State's strategy as regards people who made claims that they were victimized by Sandusky was: "unless it is easy to DIS-prove that this person was a victim, pay the $$$ because a protracted fight serves nobody. Paying the $$$ helps get the case off the books, and besides, we'll turn around and make our insurance company pay things."
That's not necessarily a moral strategy (there is an element of "fuck the insurance company."). But it is pragmatic, and arguably the best strategy.
Of course, the insurance company's reaction is "Fuck us?!?!? Yeah, well, fuck you, we're not paying." And (like Penn State on the other side), they're willing to play dirty in this fight. Lots of $$$ at stake! Penn State actually won the portion of the lawsuit as regards the claims on allegations from the 1970s and 1980s.
So, my current working theory on why things have flared up over the past few days:
(1) The insurance company knew they would likely lose this portion of the lawsuit. Read the ruling, it's actually a very straightforward reading of the insurance policies as they were worded from the 1970s/1980s. Paterno wasn't a trustee or director or shareholder: if and only if those sort of folk knew about what Sandusky was doing would the policy go void.
(2) The insurance company had pre-leaked the stories to the press in advance of the ruling. Remember, the insurance company would have access to the depositions. They know what's in there. Their goal is to embarrass PSU in the press, and a shot at muddying the waters (in the inevitable appeal) as regards the actual ruling.
(3) The stories get published once the insurance company actually loses.
(4) Now Penn State is on the defense again, and in a position they have to strongly refute the stories. LOTS of $$$ at stake here.
Barron's letter is mostly about $$$. It's not really about Paterno. That said, Barron is a politician and a portion of his "constituency" are JoeBots: he threw them a bit of a bone by mentioning Joe.
Who knows. But following the $ is usually a good idea, and there's a TON of $ at stake as regards that lawsuit.
As for whether the CNN/NBC stories are true? IMO: CNN considerably more likely vs. the NBC story. But honestly, I'm kind of indifferent on their validity. Their validity/invalidity simply doesn't matter too much bigger picture.
(1) The CNN and NBC stories break within 24 hours of the ruling in the Penn State vs. Insurance Company case. Two big stories, BOTH within 24 hours? After the story has been very quiet (in terms of new allegations) for a few years? That's a bit odd.
(2) Barron, after remaining pretty silent on all things Paterno during his 2 years as PSU President --- speaks out himself? That's a bit odd too. Why now?
Stepping back, there is A LOT of $$$ at stakes in regards to the Penn State vs. Insurance Company lawsuit. Something like $60,000,000!!! I think it's fairly clear that Penn State's strategy as regards people who made claims that they were victimized by Sandusky was: "unless it is easy to DIS-prove that this person was a victim, pay the $$$ because a protracted fight serves nobody. Paying the $$$ helps get the case off the books, and besides, we'll turn around and make our insurance company pay things."
That's not necessarily a moral strategy (there is an element of "fuck the insurance company."). But it is pragmatic, and arguably the best strategy.
Of course, the insurance company's reaction is "Fuck us?!?!? Yeah, well, fuck you, we're not paying." And (like Penn State on the other side), they're willing to play dirty in this fight. Lots of $$$ at stake! Penn State actually won the portion of the lawsuit as regards the claims on allegations from the 1970s and 1980s.
So, my current working theory on why things have flared up over the past few days:
(1) The insurance company knew they would likely lose this portion of the lawsuit. Read the ruling, it's actually a very straightforward reading of the insurance policies as they were worded from the 1970s/1980s. Paterno wasn't a trustee or director or shareholder: if and only if those sort of folk knew about what Sandusky was doing would the policy go void.
(2) The insurance company had pre-leaked the stories to the press in advance of the ruling. Remember, the insurance company would have access to the depositions. They know what's in there. Their goal is to embarrass PSU in the press, and a shot at muddying the waters (in the inevitable appeal) as regards the actual ruling.
(3) The stories get published once the insurance company actually loses.
(4) Now Penn State is on the defense again, and in a position they have to strongly refute the stories. LOTS of $$$ at stake here.
Barron's letter is mostly about $$$. It's not really about Paterno. That said, Barron is a politician and a portion of his "constituency" are JoeBots: he threw them a bit of a bone by mentioning Joe.
Who knows. But following the $ is usually a good idea, and there's a TON of $ at stake as regards that lawsuit.
As for whether the CNN/NBC stories are true? IMO: CNN considerably more likely vs. the NBC story. But honestly, I'm kind of indifferent on their validity. Their validity/invalidity simply doesn't matter too much bigger picture.
Upvote
0
Delaware Buck
Heisman
Wetzel nail it. That answers most of the motivation and strategy questions. The comments are 25-1 anti cult
Upvote
0
409fold
All-American
I'm not a "cultist", but I think Wetzel swung and missed. It was a subtle miss, but it was a miss.
Barron didn't get angry about what was said in the court ruling. There's nothing to get angry about there.
Neither did Barron make reference to the Freeh Report, he made no reference to 2001.
Barron's anger and message were solely as regards Friday's CNN and NBC stories.
Upvote
0
AJHawkfan
Wanna make $14 the hard way?
Yep, and as long as they have idiots like Jay & Scott Paterno, Lubrano, Ziegler and the rest of the Joesus clowns running around trying to prove what a dead guy knew or didn't know, that is the only association people are going to make in regards to PedState.
The ironic part - the Joesus that the cult insists he was - selfless.... humble..... generous..... willing to do whatever was best for beloved Penn State...... That legacy is being trampled on by his me-first, greedy, "fuck-Penn-State-for-disparaging-Joesus" heirs & fans. In trying to protect
They are because he was..... indeed.
Upvote
0
That's an interesting take. Their validity/invalidity is pretty much the whole thing. Did Paterno know in the 70s? If so, everything after is even worse than what was originally thought.
Upvote
0
Delaware Buck
Heisman
Maybe you missed this but Barron has already disparaged the Freeh report with subtle comments about what it was and what it wasn't and he still leaves himself room for more condemnation or outright dismissal in the future should all the charges be dropped against C/S/S. Just FYI Roberto is in the process of filing that right now for Curley in the PA supreme court.
Second, Wetzel nailed the overall theme that by challenging the insurance companies, Barron made himself part of this. If you stay humble, don't cave to the pressure that people like Lubrano and the Paterno faction are bringing, you move on, the school is better off and things like this never make the news cycle. But he didn't and you have what happened. That's really the point of the story. It has nothing to do with the $ per se as Wetzel said. Yes money is involved but as Wetzel pointed out the university has a 3$ billion endowment and these cases are chump change. It has everything to do with the inability to let go of something that the rest of the world moved on from 4 years ago.
Lastly as Wetzel pointed out the school settled the cases by placing nondisclosures on every victim that got a check. But they left themselves an open door to make general statements about the relative veracity of each case which is tool used to drive public opinion. It's done all the time. They are able to call into question the truthfulness of some cases by simply saying it was easier/cheaper to just settle and not go to court but we don't really believe much of what was reported. Very slick but also very transparent in execution because they did actually deny claims outright but that won't be mentioned in those press statements.
Upvote
0
409fold
All-American
I had already concluded that JoePa was "a bad person" prior to last week.
Now some folk want to debate between "was Joe a very very very bad person", a "very very bad person", "a very bad person" or a "bad person"? Fair enough if some want to debate that, but it's an irrelevant debate IMO. The point is that he is "bad." Qualifiers beyond that, in the "big picture", it doesn't matter.
Upvote
0
The first line is a very rare take in PSU land, which is why the validity is such a big deal. Your ability to be reasonable is a welcome shift.
Nailed it. It's just so sad :(
Upvote
0