The Penn State Aftermath Thread *Penalty Post #403*

[JBS]

I have looked up several different news sites and blogs. They all reference that Pen State will be limited to 65 scholarship players per season. The normal limit is 85.

Dallas East = OWNED!

Definitely not true

 

[joseephuss]

This is from the NCAA's own web-site.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/20120723/21207232

Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year, the NCAA imposes a limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 25 allowed) and for a period of four years commencing with the 2014-2015 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2017-2018 academic year a limit of 65 total grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 85 allowed) for football during each of those specified years. In the event the total number of grants-in-aid drops below 65, the University may award grants-in-aid to non-scholarship student-athletes who have been members of the football program as allowed under Bylaw 15.5.6.3.6.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I understand this entirely. These are totally realistic possibilities which might play out. It will not change my opinion that it would be a 'truer' death penalty if Penn State were forced to void seasons.

Well, I look at it as a "slow death" penalty.

It's going to be years before the program will be able to field a team that will be competitive for the Big 10 title.

In the mean time there are going to be several 3-5 win seasons to be lived through. Dealing with that and the Joe Pa losing the all-time coaching win title will create hurt at Happy Valley for a long time to come.

 

[kimrose]

This is from the NCAA's own web-site.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/20120723/21207232

Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year, the NCAA imposes a limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 25 allowed) and for a period of four years commencing with the 2014-2015 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2017-2018 academic year a limit of 65 total grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 85 allowed) for football during each of those specified years. In the event the total number of grants-in-aid drops below 65, the University may award grants-in-aid to non-scholarship student-athletes who have been members of the football program as allowed under Bylaw 15.5.6.3.6.

Good grief, this is confusing. Is the max allowed 25 or 85?? But it certainly does look like up to 90 with it spelled out so clearly in the official report. It is completely different than what Emmert said in the news conference, though. Thanks for digging this up, joseephus. It can't get anymore spelled out (or confusing lawyer-speak, lol) than this.

 

[joseephuss]

No, doubt. It is confusingly written. It also goes into much more information than what Emmert did during his press conference, which I just heard for the first time a few minutes ago.

 

[kimrose]

Yeah, lol, he may have to hold another presser to be more specific and clear up the confusion he has created. lol.

 

[WV Cowboy]

How unbelieveably sad to think that many many boys would not have been sexually abused, and none of this would be happening to Penn St. right now if grown men would have just done the right thing.

Hard to believe that they made the decisions they made, and came to the conclusions that they did back when they originally found out.

All of this could have easily been avoided.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

How unbelieveably sad to think that many many boys would not have been sexually abused, and none of this would be happening to Penn St. right now if grown men would have just done the right thing.

Hard to believe that they made the decisions they made, and came to the conclusions that they did back when they originally found out.

All of this could have easily been avoided.

..and not just three or four men, but hundreds of men and women alike.

 

[TNCowboy]

What i want to know is why the school has not purged the board; they are as much to blame for what happen.

Perhaps, but I would guess there are a # of board members who weren't there in 1998.

 

[TNCowboy]

This is from the NCAA's own web-site.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/20120723/21207232

Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year, the NCAA imposes a limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 25 allowed) and for a period of four years commencing with the 2014-2015 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2017-2018 academic year a limit of 65 total grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 85 allowed) for football during each of those specified years. In the event the total number of grants-in-aid drops below 65, the University may award grants-in-aid to non-scholarship student-athletes who have been members of the football program as allowed under Bylaw 15.5.6.3.6.

That's a crippling penalty. 10 players per year may not seem harsh, but when people look at the effect 2-4 years down the road, it's devastating. They'll be a perennial 3-4 win team for years.

15 scholarship per year limit is huge. Bottom line, 4 years from now, PSU will have a football team with about 50 or so recruited, scholarship players, going up against OSU/Michigan types with 80+ scholarship players. Further, the quality of players they can get will be in decline as well. If you're a 4 or 5* player with Michigan and Florida offering you as well, you aren't going to PSU, with no possibility of being competitive or getting a bowl game.

One thing PSU's new coach will have to do is put a premium on players with good grades, no history injury, and no history of off-the-field trouble. He loses a guy, he loses that scholarship, and can only replace him with a non-scholarship player. They can't afford to miss on many recruits if they hope to keep the program out of the gutter.

 

[WV Cowboy]

..and not just three or four men, but hundreds of men and women alike.

Hundreds ??

Who are you referring to?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Hundreds ??

Who are you referring to?

I don't know about hundreds but there were other employees that admitted to seeing or hearing about things but afraid to say anything as they were afraid they would lose their jobs...The janitors testimony comes to mind.

 

[Joe Realist]

I don't know about hundreds but there were other employees that admitted to seeing or hearing about things but afraid to say anything as they were afraid they would lose their jobs...The janitors testimony comes to mind.

All the coaches had to know. How about Tom Bradley? He knew too.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

All the coaches had to know. How about Tom Bradley? He knew too.

Well I considered the other coaches as a given and nowhere near a hundred or hundreds so I was talking about any possible people outside of the coaches or those in the chain of command at the university.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Hundreds ??

Who are you referring to?

Well there was the PSU janitor who knew and said nothing, McQueary, PSU officials and administrators, university police, local police, state police, state government officials, the state dept of public welfare, and our own state governor of PA.

Hundreds..

 

[RS12]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=173382#.UA2HOWGe66U

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Im not saying there arn't facts in the report, just saying the major damning conclusions drawn are simply his opinions. Again, punishment based on opinion is a scary precedent to set, that's all im saying.

Good Lord. :bang2:

Those conclusions are based on evidence and facts involving the case. Freeh and his company have stellar credentials and are experts with decades of experience. They get the facts and the evidence, then use their expertise and experience to draw conclusions.

It goes along with any other type of investigation that law enforcement does. While it would be great to get a clear confession or irrefutable proof in a case, often times solid evidence with conclusiions drawn from experts with years of experience and an excellent track record is more than enough to convict a person.

They never found the murder weapon for the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders. They never had any actual witnesses to them being murdered. But, the evidence pointed to the conclusion that OJ murdered the two. Same with Rae Carruth.

Freeh's report is rock solid.







YR

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Just chiming in quickly, but I now understand what media people were talking about when they said the death penalty might be preferable. PSU football is done for a long time.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Good Lord. :bang2:

Those conclusions are based on evidence and facts involving the case. Freeh and his company have stellar credentials and are experts with decades of experience. They get the facts and the evidence, then use their expertise and experience to draw conclusions.

It goes along with any other type of investigation that law enforcement does. While it would be great to get a clear confession or irrefutable proof in a case, often times solid evidence with conclusiions drawn from experts with years of experience and an excellent track record is more than enough to convict a person.

They never found the murder weapon for the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders. They never had any actual witnesses to them being murdered. But, the evidence pointed to the conclusion that OJ murdered the two. Same with Rae Carruth.

Freeh's report is rock solid.


YR

And considering PSU isn't fighting any of it... Well, that speaks volumes too.

They know something very bad happened.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

..and not just three or four men, but hundreds of men and women alike.

Hundreds is going too far. If it were hundreds, then the NCAA should have eliminated the program all together.

And the janitors didn't come forward because only 1 janitor actually witnessed it and he was afraid that he would lose his job. The others talked about it, some saying he should come forward. Others were afraid all of them would lose their job.

Guess who they were afraid of?

Joe Paterno.

If it were hundreds, then I would imagine that Jay Paterno knew as well as well as Paterno's wife. And if that's the case, the DA should look to prosecute them as well.








YR