iamshack

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) Credit rating agency. Basically they evaluate the level of trust-worthiness of companies, institutions, governments etc. that issue bonds. It's a sign that they're seeing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ liabilities lining up. Which is insane, considering PSU's endowment fund is in the 10 figure area ($1.5 billion).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 06:24 PM) It doesn't have to be logical, but "Keeping the football program winning games" is one other way you can make it work. They covered it up to protect the program. They ignored it because he could help them recruit to win games. They got McQueary to shut up to protect the program. They turned a blind eye when he kept bringing kids along to protect the program. The problem with this theory is that it assumes Sandusky was some super-amazing asset to the program. Yes, he was a good football coach. Yes, he probably recruited well. But are you really going to risk having a child molester on campus for his recruiting skills? If that was the case, they would have just kept him on the coaching staff. What's the difference between having him on the coaching staff still and allowing him access to all facilities and having him officially recruit on your behalf? I'm not buying it. Something else was at work here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 06:09 PM) Sandusky's leverage involves him going to jail for life, where he'll be treated harshly, to put it mildly. I can't make good sense of this mess right now. Yeah, but maybe they were just too afraid to call his bluff. I agree though, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to try and cover something up but then give this guy access to the University and the football program. They would have been better off keeping him on as a coach so at least they could account for his whereabouts for half of the day.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) If Sandusky was really recruiting, we arent even talking cover up. This is just mind blowing stupidity. The investigation has been going on for months, at minimum you suspend the guy during an investigation. That's what I am confused about. If you read everything that's out there, you can see a series of events where it was realized Sandusky was abusing children, the University found out, but was too afraid to report things correctly due to the impending fallout, both legally, and of course, to their reputation. So instead, they force Sandusky to retire, and supposedly ban him from bringing children to campus. They admit in the GJ report however, that this ban was unenforceable. They did however, make him a Professor Emeritus, and guarantee him access to the campus while he is retired, as well as a parking spot, and other fringe benefits. What doesn't make sense is, if they did indeed want to cover this all up, why would they give anything to Sandusky at all? Why not kick him out on the street and disallow all access to the University altogether? Did he threaten to go to the press and incriminate himself and the PSU coverup without these benefits the University gave him? I just can't make any sense of it at all, except that PSU covers this up and Sandusky then blackmails them into giving him access to the campus, and this tug of war goes back and forth until Sandusky finally gets busted for the final time and all the facts come out, exposing everyone.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) You think he'd just be doing that on his own?! Almost impossible. The most amazing thing about this is McQueary is their recruiting coordinator. So he knew the guy he saw rape a child in the shower 9 years ago was still recruiting for the school, if this recruit in South Carolina is telling the truth. And what motivation would he have to lie? I didn't say I think he'd be doing it on his own. But if he was really recruiting for PSU, with McQueary working alongside him, then that absolutely means that not only did everyone at PSU cover this up, but it means that they actively used him for their benefit, meanwhile, placing him around other male minors. Up until now it's only been stated that he has been seen around campus, etc., but nothing where you could really say PSU continued to use him in their employ. And not only did they use him in their employ, but they continued to do so in a way so as to place him near more minors. That is a pretty huge nail in their coffin, if you ask me, and yet this news station seems to have no clue of the importance of the story they are breaking. Which is really the only reason I questioned whether Sandusky was actually recruiting on behalf of PSU in an official capacity still.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 04:01 PM) http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/prospect-san...r-in-2011-29898 The idiots in this local news broadcast don't seem to have a clue how big of a part of this story they are breaking.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) Look at the source in that article. That is an actual recruit, by name, on the record, saying that Sandusky was part of him being recruited. That's as clean-cut of a sourcing as you'll ever get. The kid has no motivation to lie there, and he's on the record so if somehow he was lying, that'd be a bad thing for him as a future football player. Gee, whiz, thanks Balta. My point was I want to see someone actually point out that Sandusky is representing PSU and not just out on some perverted trip of his own. Just because he's paying HS kids a visit and asking them to go to PSU doesn't mean he's recruiting for PSU.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) So you're alleging what here, that no one has read the easily available grand jury report, or that the grand jury report is lies created by a grand jury determined to destroy Joe Paterno? He's pointing out the information in the report is unreliable.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:54 PM) I dont think its fair to the kids or the fans, but yeah, I think everyone is going to be rooting for Nebraska. And I know the Big Ten is going to be rooting for PSU not to make it to the title game. More and more details are going to come out. Sandusky also adopted 6 children, was his sexual crimes limited to other people's kids? I'm just confused as to how there is not any outrage by the student or the student's father that Sandusky was actually recruiting for PSU still. Did you not find that odd? They were more upset that he had to cross the school off their lists, seemingly. If true, Paterno and the rest of the staff, as well as the Administration and President, etc., really have absolutely no defense at this point. I'm going to wait to see if this gets picked up by anyone else before I fully believe it though.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) Badger, if you don't think it's morally wrong to not call the cops after being informed of a child being raped, I think you are a piece of s*** human being. And if that's how you think, please say so. I'd gladly take a suspension in order to clarify exactly what I'd think of you in that case. Yeah, you've pretty much made this clear. And yet you are the one making light of the actions taken by Sandusky against the children, using slang that might be mildly appropriate when discussing your latest conquest with your buddies near the water cooler, but certainly not in regards to the acts done by a sick pervert to children. You've now gone from making moral judgments about everyone involved in the case, to those of us here offering commentary in opposition of your own. I know things have gotten a bit emotional in this thread, but seriously, accept the fact that not everyone agrees with you, nor will you convince them to agree with you. And when they don't, it's not acceptable to label them as a "piece of s*** human being."

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) I don't like that characterization much. It makes it sound like the people who are angry have no right or reason to be so. I don't think these people being fired as "sacrifices to a mob" as much as "people that deserved to be fired that are only being fired due to the actions of a 'mob'". Well I don't like your characterization of Franco's comments much either, Milk. But the fact is, we disagree on the fundamental point of culpability here, which means I see the majority calling for everyone's heads to fall immediately as an angry mob, whereas you see someone defending Paterno and begin fuming.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) It's certainly plausible that he could fail, for any number of reasons, but the dude has flat out earned a chance to start next year for this team. You cannot ask for a player to do more to earn a spot than to come up late in the season, play good defense, and destroy the baseball, after having done exactly that at AAA. But it's just as easily plausible that a Japanese player could come over here and fail. So all things being equal, why spend the vastly larger sums of money required to take the same gamble?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) Journey. Firing or not firing McQueary wont reduce their liability to the victims at all. Its completely irrelevant to whether or not an abuse occurred years ago and what the damages are. If they dont care about being sued for wrongful termination, the are idiots. They should care about everything. Yeah but they have to rebuild the image of the school, SB. And whether or not it is fair, or even legal in this case, to fire Paterno or some of the others, the amount of money spent on settling those cases is far exceeded by what it could cost them to not make the appropriate sacrifices to the mob of angry public here. They've got to think about being able to rebuild their program again, and there are not going to be a lot of parents wanting to send their children to Penn State if you still have people who were involved in this scandal coaching the team.

I can't see giving him more than 4/$48....let him walk if need be...we simply can't afford to have another huge contract hanging over our heads here...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) It wouldnt have ended the world. But if these allegations all end up being true, and the last image of JoePa is one of him being carried off the field with everyone cheering him on, The University would look even worse than they do right now. The right thing was to clean house, and I really dont think Curley and McQueary are going to be recieving PSU checks for very much longer, and let the investigation take its course and let the university and football team start to rebuild themselves. I agree...this is one of the reasons that I think Paterno had to be fired, regardless of whether one places much of the blame on him or not. This entire thing is one sick mess. You can't seem flippant about it by juxtaposing these grisly and horrible details next to some last big celebration and sendoff for Paterno. It just can't happen that way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 10:23 PM) How many times have I said this exact thing to you? SS, if you'll notice, I wasn't really trying to argue with you about your point of view...it seemed like you were replying to my posts to others... Either way, it's just viewing culpability differently I guess, or having different levels of outrage about Paterno's culpability. I just found it odd that for years and years, people have been joking about Paterno's senility in regards to running his football team, and now suddenly, all those opinions have vanished, and Paterno is now the equivalent of Alexander the Great on the Penn State campus. I've never particularly cared for Paterno, and I've thought he should have been gone a decade ago. The way this was handled by him (or how we are speculating he handled it) is probably just one more manifestation of why he should have been gone a decade ago.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 07:01 PM) I've wasted two days on this I agree that Paterno isn't at the top of the list, but he's on there. The VP or whatever under whose auspices the police fall is higher up there, but I don't think the police can be to blame from what we know so far. Police can do their jobs to perfection and still not have enough for a case, and I see how that can easily be the case for the 1998 incident. They had something, but not anything strong enough to take it to court or at least to get the DA to allow to get to court. They had an incident where a man admitted that he showered in an open locker shower and bear hugged a child. It's weird, but I seriously doubt it was enough to take to court, especially since the child said that nothing else happened, the man apologized for it, his reputation, etc. And if they continued to keep tabs on him, he very easily could have just waited long enough between molestations that the cops had no choice but to give up the investigation. Fair enough.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:47 PM) First of all, I hardly think "calling the police" or "ensuring that the police are called" is a very high standard to hold anyone to. Now, back to the investigation. They seemingly found out that the initial child that brought suspicion was not raped. According to the Grand Jury report (which I'm still not sure you've read), he had plenty of children under his care at various times. It is quite possible that they interviewed other children and he happened not to have molested those ones. It seems that he would pick a child from each generation of the charity's members and molest that child, with some occasional overlap. So, perhaps this was his prey for that current time and therefore none of the other children had anything to tell them. And then let's remember that many children don't come forward with their allegations. And to drive this point home again, they did not find out that he raped the child in 1998. He never did. So why would they have this incredibly in-depth investigation when it was already decided that nothing happened here? Milk, I don't deny the entire thing is one big clusterf*** of failings on the part of multiple people within multiple different organizations, including the football program, the University, the campus police, the local police, the DA, the charity, and on and on and on. I guess I just don't find Paterno to be particularly high up on that list, considering the circumstances. Everyone can disagree with me as much as they want. I really don't have the time, nor the strength to argue about it anymore. I've already wasted the entire day.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:39 PM) The 1998 was reported, which is the shower bear hug. This whole things seems to stem from the fact that the 2002 raping went unreported. The DA did not prosecute the 1998 case for probably any number of the reasons I already put out there. And how long would you expect an investigation to continue? They looked into it, heard his story admitting that he showered with the boy, and the DA probably decided that it was too weak. Do they follow Sandusky for the rest of his life? A few weeks? Maybe they followed him for a couple of months and he didn't rape a child in that span, so the case was dropped. Again, such a low standard for the police, and yet this is exactly what you expect the football coach to do...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:34 PM) HOW WOULD THEY KNOW ABOUT THE INCIDENT IN 2002 IF THE HIGHER UPS AT PSU DIDN'T INFORM THEM? That's what I'm asking. How many other incidents were there besides the 2002 incident? How many other victims were there, Milk? Could they have not done some detective work here? Could they have not interviewed some of the children he was in contact with? Just because the incident in 2002 was not reported by PSU, does not mean that they couldn't have bothered to investigate the guy further, especially considering he was well known in the community to work with children. How can you have such a low standard of responsibility for the police, who actually exist for this sort of thing, and such a high standard of responsibility for a football coach, who's job it was to win football games?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:33 PM) You've never heard someone say "I wish I were dead" because they're so embarrassed at themselves? That could easily be construed as what he was saying to a person listening in. And we don't know that the campus police didn't report this to the local or state authorities, or whether or not it would even seem necessary after such a seemingly (at the time) innocuous incident. I believe they did report it, which was why the DA knew of it. The point is, the DA did not prosecute him. Sometimes a case is not there, legally, for whatever reason. But there was plenty of evidence here for them to have continued to investigate. Seems as if they did thoroughly investigate it, they would have caught him fairly easily.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:28 PM) How would they if they weren't told about the situation? So the police can't prosecute a crime unless someone comes to the police department and tells them about it? Oh boy.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:27 PM) Sounds like he has good reason to believe he will be taken to court. I'd imagine that means he's a little more guilty than some would like to contend. Oh man. So now the fact that he's hired an attorney means he's guilty. It's absolutely the most prudent thing to do.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:25 PM) Seriously, you cannot understand how it can be perceived as simply that? If a grown man showers in the same room as a child and a mother confronts the man afterwards about it, I think it's highly likely that the man would apologize and feel really bad about exposing a child to that. Granted, this is weirder because he bear hugged the kid, too, but an apology can easily be seen as him regretting a faux pas and not apologizing for the intent to rape the child. Milk, come on. He said "I wish I was dead." It was clear that he knew he was guilty of a heinous crime, and he vocalized that. At the very least, the campus police should have reported this to the local and state authorities and they should have been interviewing all kinds of children and parents that were involved with this guy through charitable functions, etc. Had they done that, they would have had kids stepping forward, either to their parents, or to the authorities, and the guy would have been stopped.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 06:22 PM) You're lumping together two separate incidents here, I think. I don't think the DA or police were involved at all after 1998. But they should have been! It's called "policework." Joe Paterno is not a police. His job does not include policework. He is a football coach. Thus the difference in culpability.