College Football 2013 Season

[Al B. Sure!]

Should coaches reach out to recruit current Penn State players?

75%
Yes

25%
No

http://espn.go.com/

This is a parody but it's pretty funny:

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You understand that all university funding is a series of ins and outs cash flows. Prior to this PSU football and athletics in general provided enough revenue to not only cover their costs but was able to support a very large portion of the overalll PSU operating budget. Necessarily that will be reduced by the $75 M and that will no longer go to the coffers of the university. (So sure it will look like the athletic department paid out but in reality they simply didn't pay back to the university to cover what was normally counted upon) (In a much more direct manner departmentally speaking the other non profitable athletics - girls basketball, wrestling, lacrosse, baseball etc. will find themsleves on the choppping block as well. But since I don't care about the collegiate athletic dick waving, again who cares.)


Edit - Athletic department in 2010-2011 had 85.5 M in expenses and contributed 116.1 M in revenues to the school.

Thus shortfall in the university operating budget will need to be made up. On the one hand it might be an opportunity to reduce the bloat and excess of the administration of the university but I sincerely doubt it. Instead the most likely options are a request to Harrisburg for additional state funding, a reduction in funding of teaching and support of facilities, or a increase in tuition to offset lost athletic revenues. Double plus good when the civil sentences get passed out. (In reality those guys/victims have a much more appropriate claim compared to the NCAA and instead their claims likely will be most contended as opposed to this farce, where damages to the NCAA brand are tenuous at best.)


http://www.budget.psu.edu/openbudget...66&fundtype=03

[H Tower]

(In a much more direct manner departmentally speaking the other non profitable athletics - girls basketball, wrestling, lacrosse, baseball etc. will find themsleves on the choppping block as well. But since I don't care about the collegiate athletic dick waving, again who cares.)

Again, being unfamilar with the case except for your moral outrage, you don't have facts in hand. PSU is prohibited from chopping the non revenue sports as part of the NCAA sanctions.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Again, being unfamilar with the case except for your moral outrage, you don't have facts in hand. PSU is prohibited from chopping the non revenue sports as part of the NCAA sanctions.

Meaning more gets passed onto the general students/taxpayers.

It would actually be better if the non revenue sports were canceled.

[Demonbinder]

NCAA sanctions are to send a message to football program and school administration that this kind of behavior cannot be tolerated and they have to change how they do things. Football players are not really penalized since they can go to another school, if they so choose. Taking away all those wins is so that Joe Pa's name will not be at top of records so NCAA can totally remove themselves from what he did not do. I cannot believe that University has not taken his name off of the library. If you take down the statue you should take his name off of anything it is on.

[SlowwHand]

Meaning more gets passed onto the general students/taxpayers.

It would actually be better if the non revenue sports were canceled.

And you want to preach Ethics?

[SlowwHand]

Penn State needs to develop this train of thought.

QB Tate Martell, 14, commits to UW
Updated: July 26, 2012, 12:42 AM ET
By Erik McKinney | RecruitingNation

Washington made a splash in the recruiting world Wednesday, but don't bother checking the ESPN 150 for the newest Huskies commit. He won't be included in that list this year, next year or the one after that.


It's highly unlikely a single Washington player still will be on the roster by the time Tate Martell makes an appearance in purple and gold, but after receiving a scholarship offer from the Huskies three weeks ago, the soon-to-be eighth-grade quarterback committed to coach Steve Sarkisian on Wednesday, Martell's father, Al, confirmed to ESPN.com.

An Age-Old Question

With one eighth-grader committing to Washington and another receiving a scholarship offer from LSU, recruiting is spreading to the junior high ranks, writes Mitch Sherman. Story



The Washington coaching staff is not able to confirm whether it has accepted the commitment from the 14-year-old Martell. Schools are not able to offer a written scholarship until Sept. 1 of a prospect's senior season, according to NCAA rules. Martell won't be able to sign a national letter of intent until Feb. 1, 2017.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8200394/quarterback-tate-martell-14-commits-washington-huskies

LSU courts middle schooler
Updated: July 26, 2012, 12:39 AM ET
By David Helman | GeauxTigerNation

Last week, a hopeful prospect showed up at LSU's July football camp. He posted an impressive 4.46 40-yard dash, and he earned a scholarship offer from the Tigers' coaching staff for his efforts.

It's a scene that plays out on college campuses every single summer, although this offer was different for one main reason -- Dylan Moses has yet to start eighth grade.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8199497/soon-8th-grader-dylan-moses-offered-lsu-tigers-scholarship

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And you want to preach Ethics?

How is that a less ethical outcome? The claim that the non-revenue sports had some gain from the existence of the PSU football prgram is an easier case to make, than what some comp sci geek taking programming classes benefitted. Non revenue sports had access to sport medicines, training facilities, administrative infrasturure support all made possible by (and in large part used to support) the PSU football team.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Penn State needs to develop this train of thought.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8200394/quarterback-tate-martell-14-commits-washington-huskies

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...rs-scholarship

Somehow I'm thinking sending a bunch of PSU talent scouts to mingle with underage male minor 8th graders is exactly what PSU doesn't want to do at this moment in time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

NCAA sanctions are to send a message to football program and school administration that this kind of behavior cannot be tolerated and they have to change how they do things. Football players are not really penalized since they can go to another school, if they so choose. Taking away all those wins is so that Joe Pa's name will not be at top of records so NCAA can totally remove themselves from what he did not do. I cannot believe that University has not taken his name off of the library. If you take down the statue you should take his name off of anything it is on.

You will note my quibble with the sanctions are not those associated with the running of the NCAA sponsored programs, eligibility of number of scholarships, elgibility for bowl games, etc. etc.. On that matter who cares. It has everything to do with the financial penalty which will be felt by non-athletic entities who had no culpability in any of the mess.

[ColdWizard]

A lot more at the link.

If Penn State had not accepted the package of NCAA sanctions announced Monday, the Nittany Lions faced a historic death penalty of four years, university president Rodney Erickson told "Outside the Lines" on Wednesday afternoon.

In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not that it matters a whit as people have concretely come down one way or the other on these matters, more to the point if years at poly have taught me anything it is that poly minds are immutable. However:

(And for the record I am not a fan of Paterno and thought he needed to go at least 15 years ago. Apologies for the wall of text)

The case against Joe Paterno: Weak to non-existent on the current record

I haven’t followed the Penn State child molestation scandal closely. My interest in sports in an interest in sports, not investigations of crimes by people involved (or formerly involved) with sports.

Nonetheless, I am aware that a consensus exists that former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno acted improperly in connection with Penn State’s response to allegations of child molestation committed by one-time assistant coach Jerry Sandusky. This consensus led to the removal of a statue of Paterno, whose contributions to Penn State as a coach and financial contributor were enormous.

The consensus emerged from the report of Louis Freeh regarding Penn State’s actions related to the sexual abuse committed by Sandusky. But a friend of mine — a top-notch lawyer and former federal prosecutor — has carefully reviewed the Freeh Report. He concludes that the Report does not establish wrongdoing by Joe Paterno. Having now looked at the Freeh Report, I agree.

Here is what my friend wrote:

I believe the media, the Freeh Report, and many others have misrepresented Joe Paterno’s culpability in the Jerry Sandusky matter. The evidence against Mr. Paterno amounts to virtually nothing. After more than 430 interviews and a review of more than 3.5 million documents and other information, the Freeh Report concludes that three emails from other people – former Penn State President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and Senior Vice President Gary Schultz – prove that Mr. Paterno was a co-conspirator in a cover-up. I do not read the evidence in the Freeh Report that way, and I do not believe the conclusions about Mr. Paterno are either warranted or fair.

The claim seems to be that Mr. Paterno knew about a 1998 allegation and did nothing, and that in 2001, when he learned about Mike McQueary’s information, he waited a day before he reported the information to the athletic director (Curley) and the vice president in charge of the University Police (Schultz) and then did nothing else.

First, with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report says that several authorities promptly investigated and reviewed the matter, including the Department of Public Welfare, the University Police Department, the State College police, and the local district attorney’s office. Freeh Report at 42-47. A “counselor” named John Seasock issued a report that found “no indication of child abuse.” Freeh Report at 42-46. Mr. Seasock interviewed the alleged victim and determined that “there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children.” Freeh Report at 44 (quoting Mr. Seasock’s 1998 evaluation of the alleged victim). The Freeh Report adds that Mr. Seasock “couldn’t find any indication of child abuse.” Freeh Report at 45.

The police investigated and “did not question Sandusky at this time,” and the Freeh Report says that “the local District Attorney declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions.” Freeh Report at 45-46. A “senior administrator” explained that “the case against Sandusky was ‘severely hampered’ by Seasock’s report.” Freeh Report at 46. The University Police also investigatedthe matter and unlike the local police, they interviewed Sandusky. Sandusky claimed “nothing happened” (Freeh Report at 46) and the University Police concluded that “no sexual assault occurred.” Freeh Report at 47.

The only evidence of Mr. Paterno’s involvement is a passing reference in an email from Curley to Spanier and Schultz that says that Curley “touched base with the coach. Keep us posted.” Freeh Report at 20, 48. A second email from Curley to Schultz that says “Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Freeh Report at 20, 48. There is no other information about Mr. Paterno’s involvement in the incident. In fact, the Freeh Report does not even establish that the references to “Coach” refer to Joe Paterno. The most it can and does say is that “[t]he reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.” Freeh Report at 49. The Freeh Report cites no evidence to support this assertion, but even if “Coach” refers to Coach Paterno, what do these emails prove? The answer is: nothing. At most, these emails suggest that Mr. Paterno was concerned and wanted to know whether Sandusky was guilty of any wrongdoing.

Of course, if Mr. Paterno did express concern about the matter, then the question becomes: what did anyone tell him about the allegations and the investigation?

The Freeh Report provides no answer to this question. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 allegations against Sandusky. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Mr. Paterno did or said, or what anyone said to Mr. Paterno. Indeed, the Freeh Report suggests that both law enforcement and the University police agreed that nothing improper happened and that the allegations lacked merit. Did anyone tell Joe Paterno about those findings?

The Freeh Report concludes that the “record” is “not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno.” Freeh Report at 51. The Report includes many statements that assert things like “nothing in the record indicates that Joe Paterno spoke with Sandusky.” See, e.g., Freeh Report at 51. The absence of evidence or information proves only that Mr. Freeh did not find evidence. It does not affirmatively prove anything about Mr. Paterno.

Furthermore, despite the lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno’s culpability with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report accuses Mr. Paterno of “allow[ing] Sandusky to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child predator, but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy.” Freeh Report at 17. The Freeh Report’s expression of outrage may sound compelling now, with the benefit of hindsight and the evidence that now exists about Sandusky’s criminal misconduct. But given that (1) law enforcement officials and other people investigated the 1998 incident and found no wrongdoing; (2) Seasock’s report exonerated Sandusky; (3) the District Attorney declined to prosecute the case; (4) Sandusky denied the allegations; and (5) the complete lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno’s knowledge, involvement, and actions, it is difficult to see how Mr. Paterno can be subject to ridicule because he “allowed” Sandusky to retire “not as a suspected child predator.”

As to the issue about whether Joe Paterno should have done more with the McQueary information, I keep coming back to one critical missing piece of evidence: what did Curley and Schultz tell him? Schultz, in particular, is the important actor here because he was the top university official in charge of the University Police. Freeh Report at 33. If JoePa wanted to cover this up, he would never have reported McQueary’s information to Curley and Schultz within a day of receiving it. Is waiting one day on a weekend evidence of a cover-up? Mr. Freeh and others seem to think so. The Freeh Report repeatedly cites Mr. Paterno’s comments about not interfering with the weekend as evidence of some kind of evil intent. But, again, this proves nothing. Would the Report conclude differently if Mr.Paterno had spoken with Curley and Schultz on Saturday evening instead of Sunday?

Furthermore, if Mr. Paterno had reported the McQueary information to me (were I, like Schultz, the official in charge of the University Police), I would have told him to keep his mouth shut going forward and let the authorities handle the matter. Otherwise, Mr. Paterno could have tainted the investigation. And, because he was a potential trial witness (to McQueary’s prior consistent statements, see Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence613(c)), any further statements or action by Mr. Paterno could have become cross-examination fodder for the defense. Any further action by Mr.Paterno could only have damaged the integrity of the investigation and any prosecution against Sandusky.

Indeed, Mr. Paterno explained his actions before died by saying that “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.” Freeh Report at 77-78. This statement makes perfect sense, and the notion of a football coach supervising a criminal investigation is ridiculous. It is very possible that Curley or Schultz or both told Mr. Paterno to stay out of the matter; in fact, Schultz should have told him as much. But we don’t know because Schultz and Curley are under indictment and not talking, Paterno is dead, and the Freeh Report did not find any information about this issue.

Much of the case against Mr. Paterno seems to rely on (1) the theory that the Athletic Director, Curley, was JoePa’s “errand boy”; and (2) an email dated February 27, 2001 from Curley to Schultz and Spanier which says that Curley gave the matter “more thought” after “talking it over with Joe” and was “uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” Freeh Report at 74-75. But the “errand boy” evidence amounts to a reference by an unidentified “senior Penn State official” (page 75), and what does it prove anyway? That one person viewed Curley as Paterno’s “errand boy”?

There is no evidence that Curley-as-errand-boy covered up because Joe Paterno told him to do so. And the February 27 email at most suggests that Mr. Paterno spoke with Curley. It does not say what Curley and Paterno discussed, and without any explanation from either Curley or Paterno, it is absurd to read into this that Mr. Paterno was the puppet master behind a coverup orchestrated by Curley, Spanier, and Schultz.

Mr. Paterno was a football coach, not an expert in criminal law or investigations, and this notion of him as some kind of omnipotent and omniscient God who callously turned his back on a serial child molester is unsupported by any evidence.

This is a rather sorry record upon which to condemn Joe Paterno.

People are rarely as good or as bad as they seem at any given time. In Paterno’s case, however, I believe that the old, highly favorable narrative — to which some of the same media types who condemn him now contributed — is much closer to the mark than the revisionist narrative.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ent-record.php

[SlowwHand]

Evidence against Paterno amounts to nothing, and I quit reading. Paterno said that he should have said/done something. Obviously, HE thought it amounted to something.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

He had regret. Who doesn't second guess.