Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, January 13, 2012

College Football: Postseason Thread

Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: January 13, 2012 at 07:22 AM | 892 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: community, steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 8 of 9 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 > 
   701. I am going to be Frank Posted: July 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM (#4190727)
Right, I didn't remember the exact timing but, as mentioned, at the time when all the paperwork was submitted they were ok.
   702. bunyon Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4190821)



There was pretty big worry that Nebraska would not be invited to the Big 10 because they not part of the AAU, but money trumps all.


I didn't make my point all that well (busy morning) but this was pretty much my point. Lots gets discussed about about academics and geography and history etc. But what is #1 and 2 on the list of priorities are athletics and money and everything else is way, way, way down the list.

Yes, in the system as it is currently set up, academics at PSU likely goes down some if they leave the Big 10 or jettison big-time athletics. It's just that that is a ludicrous system. The drop off would be due to stuff that is in no way relevant to academics. If PSU left the Big 10 today, tomorrow they would be just as good at everything else. That we group schools academics by their athletic conference is a sign that the tail is wagging the dog.

I'm interested in the statement that the Big 10 and Pac 10 have the highest academic standards in the country; relative to who?

Don't get me wrong, there are some very good (even great) schools in those conferences.
   703. Shredder Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4190834)
I'm interested in the statement that the Big 10 and Pac 10 have the highest academic standards in the country; relative to who?
I would assume relative to the other power conferences. I mean, they're clearly not in the Ivy League's...well...league.
   704. bunyon Posted: July 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4190842)
Shredder, cool. I thought it might be for everyone and, with the exception of Stanford, I'd take exception of that statement with respect to all the world's universities.
   705. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4190853)
Indeed. Having read Three and Out: Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines in the Crucible of College Football (admittedly written from a standpoint of sympathy toward the not-at-all-admirable Rodriguez) a couple of months ago, the whole "Michigan Man" ethos strikes me as very, very hollow.

Well, the very fact that "Three and Out" was written - by writer affiliated with the university - and consumed by most of the Michigan fanbase suggests a key difference between the culture at Michigan (at least in the post-Bo era) and the cultures at the PSU/FSUs of the world.
   706. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4190856)
Not to state the obvious, but... many conferences care about academics to one extent or another. South Carolina left the ACC once upon a time over it (standards for athletes were too high) - in recent years, overall academic standards / reputation were considerations in the admittance/non-admittance of schools like Pitt and UConn.
   707. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4190871)
There was pretty big worry that Nebraska would not be invited to the Big 10 because they not part of the AAU, but money trumps all.


Actually, Nebraska was an AAU member, until they were kicked out, which didn't happen until they were already accepted by the BIG. Apparently, this wasn't breaking news to the BIG that this might happen upon their admission. Despite all that, yes, money/football talks.
   708. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4190914)
Yes, in the system as it is currently set up, academics at PSU likely goes down some if they leave the Big 10 or jettison big-time athletics.

I'm glad you can bring yourself to admit it.

The drop off would be due to stuff that is in no way relevant to academics. If PSU left the Big 10 today, tomorrow they would be just as good at everything else.

The drop off would be partially due to reputation. But also partially due to actual, real stuff that matters. Somewhat less research collaboration. A huge drop off in institutional and administrative collaboration.

   709. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4190922)
I'm interested in the statement that the Big 10 and Pac 10 have the highest academic standards in the country; relative to who?


I'd put the ACC ahead of the Pac 10, and maybe ahead of the Big 10 as well.
   710. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 24, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4190924)
I'd put the ACC ahead of the Pac 10, and maybe ahead of the Big 10 as well.

Ahhahahahahahahahahahahaha (and I say this as an alum of a university located in none of the above conferences).

Oh, god, that's a good one. Keep plucking that chicken.
   711. bunyon Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:22 PM (#4190962)
Somewhat less research collaboration.

So if I'm a Harvard scholar with a productive collaboration at Penn State, I'm going to drop it because my collaborator's football conference affiliation changed?

The money I agree with, but that is the only way this is relevant. People that are actually interested in scholarship and academics aren't taking any of these conference affiliations into account when they decide who to work with.


I'm glad you can bring yourself to admit it.


By the way, I'm not sure why you're pissy about this. Do you have money in the game here? Worried your scholarship is at risk if your football team loses it's reputation? I really don't get the attitude.
   712. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4190994)
I'd put the ACC ahead of the Pac 10, and maybe ahead of the Big 10 as well.


I'm just going off a thing I read. The ACC is also much stronger than the SEC and Big East (so forth), but its best schools don't really live up to the Pac-10's California schools (save USC). They also don't have one that ranks as low as Colorado does in most areas.

Where the Rose Bowl conferences blow away the ACC is research dollars and average enrollment, if I recall. I'll have to look for the thing I was reading last night.
   713. jmurph Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4191007)
I'm just going off a thing I read. The ACC is also much stronger than the SEC and Big East (so forth), but its best schools don't really live up to the Pac-10's California schools (save USC). They also don't have one that ranks as low as Colorado does in most areas.


Aren't the Arizona schools, Oregon schools, and WA St dragging them down a bit? I admit I'm out of the loop on undergraduate reputations these days. Obviously (or I think this is still the case) the Florida schools are now bringing down the ACC a bit.
   714. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4191011)
While the top of the ACC compares quite favorably with the B1G, I'd say the bottom schools of the ACC -- Clemson, FSU, NC State, Miami -- are probably a good bit lower than the bottom of the B1G (Nebraska, Mich. St., Penn State).
   715. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4191019)

So if I'm a Harvard scholar with a productive collaboration at Penn State, I'm going to drop it because my collaborator's football conference affiliation changed?

The money I agree with, but that is the only way this is relevant. People that are actually interested in scholarship and academics aren't taking any of these conference affiliations into account when they decide who to work with.


You've stated you disagree with it, but at least admit that in the world of academia, whom you align yourself with and associate with does matter. Like teenage girls.

By the way, I'm not sure why you're pissy about this. Do you have money in the game here? Worried your scholarship is at risk if your football team loses it's reputation? I really don't get the attitude.

I tried to delete the opening snark and was unsuccessful. It was uncalled for and I apologize for it.

I am employed at a CIC institution and collaborate with PSU colleagues. It is a shame that the actions of 20+ people stain tens of thousands.

   716. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4191025)

I'm just going off a thing I read. The ACC is also much stronger than the SEC and Big East (so forth), but its best schools don't really live up to the Pac-10's California schools (save USC). They also don't have one that ranks as low as Colorado does in most areas.


I mean, it depends how you measure the academic strength of a conference, I guess. The ACC has Duke, but Duke doesn't really try in football. Similarly, UVA is a rough peer for Michigan or Cal, but unlike those schools, but unlike those schools UVA has been been a mediocre athletic program for a generation. The key attribute of the Big 10 and Pac 10 are that the strong academic schools are also strong athletic programs, with the exception of Northwestern, I guess.

Additionally, as noted above, the bad academic schools of the ACC are REALLY bad.
   717. bunyon Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4191026)
I tried to delete the opening snark and was unsuccessful. It was uncalled for and I apologize for it.


No problem, I was sincerely curious as to where it came from.


You've stated you disagree with it, but at least admit that in the world of academia, whom you align yourself with and associate with does matter. Like teenage girls.


Sure, the rankings matter but what goes into them is a decision of those who rank. We're probably talking at cross purposes; I, of what should be, you, of what is. The rankings matter. Affiliations matter in the rankings. It's abject stupidity that they do.


It is a shame that the actions of 20+ people stain tens of thousands.



I really don't think they do in the academic world. I know some PSU folks and the scandal does absolutely nothing to make me think less of them. Much as I don't think better of the folks I know at Alabama when their football team wins a national title. It is completely irrelevant.

Now, as people, I might think worse of them if they are defenders of Paterno but I know some outstanding scientists, people who I greatly admire professionally, who I also think are, more or less, scum of the earth.
   718. Topher Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4191027)
So if I'm a Harvard scholar with a productive collaboration at Penn State, I'm going to drop it because my collaborator's football conference affiliation changed?


Nope. Or at least not unless that Harvard scholar did undergrad work in Happy Valley.

But the CIC's grant funding is literally a billion dollar industry. A lot of those grant proposals would still be accepted/funded without CIC support/collaboration. But not all.

My understanding is that the B1G leads the way in collaboration, the Pac 12 is next in line, the ACC is a distant third, and there is essentially zero academic collaboration among SEC, Big 12, and Big East schools.
   719. sardonic Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4191028)
Schools rankings in the latest US News Top 50

5) P12 - Stanford
10) ACC - Duke
21) P12 - Berkeley
23) P12 - USC
25) P12 - UCLA
25) ACC - UVa
25) ACC - Wake Forest
29) ACC - UNC
31) ACC - BC
36) ACC - Ga Tech
42) P12 - UW

Interestingly, this came out very differently than what I expected. I'm pretty biased as a Cal alum from the West Coast, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty surprised at how highly Duke, Wake Forest and BC are ranked specifically. Sample size of 1, but for undergrad I was accepted to Duke but neither Stanford, Cal or UCLA.

This post rings true:
Where the Rose Bowl conferences blow away the ACC is research dollars and average enrollment, if I recall. I'll have to look for the thing I was reading last night.


At least when I was applying to grad schools (in 2006), Cal, for example, seemed like it had a top 3 ranking in nearly every department, and its reputation worldwide seems to stem in large part to its ever-growing stable of Nobel Laureates, which speaks more to its research than its undergrad.



   720. Kurt Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4191034)
ample size of 1, but for undergrad I was accepted to Duke but neither Stanford, Cal or UCLA.

Not surprising if you were living in CA at the time
   721. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4191043)
Interestingly, this came out very differently than what I expected. I'm pretty biased as a Cal alum from the West Coast, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty surprised at how highly Duke, Wake Forest and BC are ranked specifically. Sample size of 1, but for undergrad I was accepted to Duke but neither Stanford, Cal or UCLA.


Duke and Wake have had those sorts of rankings at least since I was looking at schools in the late '80s. I think one issue is that there are roughly three tiers to the top schools -- (1) Harvard, Yale, Princeton; (2) Columbia, Stanford, Penn, Chicago, Cal Tech, MIT; and (3) Duke, Northwestern, and the remaining Ivies (US News would also include Wash U of St Louis here). So Duke is simultaneously close and not close to Stanford.

Also, it's worth noting that when I was applying for colleges, for a North Carolina resident at a good high school it was easier to get into Duke than into UNC, mainly because at Carolina you could get 95% of the book learning for 10% of the price.
   722. Howling John Shade Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4191044)
At least when I was applying to grad schools (in 2006), Cal, for example, seemed like it had a top 3 ranking in nearly every department, and its reputation worldwide seems to stem in large part to its ever-growing stable of Nobel Laureates, which speaks more to its research than its undergrad.


Yep. Cal's undergrad is good, but not phenomenal. But if you include grad programs, Cal and Stanford are both going to blow away any school from the ACC or B1G.

USNews rankings for what they're worth:

Business:
1. Stanford
(4. Northwestern)
7. Cal

Law:
2. Stanford
7. Cal
(7. UVA)

Engineering:
2. Stanford
3. Cal

Med:
4. Stanford
5. UCSF (Can we count this as Cal's medical school? It really is.)

Biology
1. Stanford
2. Cal

Chemistry:
1. Cal
2. Stanford

Comp. Sci:
1. Stanford
1. Cal

Math:
2. Stanford
2. Cal

Physics:
1. Stanford
5. Cal

Statistics:
1. Stanford
2. Cal

Economics:
5. Stanford
6. Cal

English:
1. Cal
2. Stanford

History:
1. Cal
1. Stanford

Poli. Sci:
1. Stanford
(4. Michigan)
6. Cal

Psychology:
1. Stanford
1. Cal

Sociology:
1. Cal
(2. Wisconsin)
(3. Michigan)
5. Stanford
   723. yb125 Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4191048)
I'm pretty biased as a Cal alum from the West Coast, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty surprised at how highly Duke, Wake Forest and BC are ranked specifically.


Well you have to remember how US News does their rankings,

Reputation, Student selectivity, Faculty resources, Graduation and retention rates are the top four catagories with, Financial resources, Alumni giving, Graduation rate performance also being weighted.

Basically it is only indirectly related to academic rigor or standards or even what their students do.
   724. Eddo Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4191049)
US News rankings:

ACC:
Duke          10
Virginia      24
UNC           28
Wake Forest   28
BC            34
Georgia Tech  35
Miami         50
Maryland      53
Clemson       61
VA Tech       71
NC State      88
Florida St   102 


Big Ten:
Northwestern  12
Michigan      27
Illinois      39
Wisconsin     39
Penn State    47
Ohio State    53
Purdue        61
Minnesota     61
Indiana       71
Michigan St   71
Iowa          71
Nebraska      96
(*) 


Pac-12:
Stanford       4
Cal           21
UCLA          24
USC           26
Washington    42
Colorado      77
(*)
Arizona      102
Wash St      106
Oregon       115
ASU          121
Utah         126
(*)
Oregon     "Tier 3" 


The ACC's average is 48.7, the Big Ten's is 54.0, and the Pac-12's (without Oregon) is 69.5.

Source:US News: College rankings by athletic conference

(*) These rankings are from 2009-2010, so Nebraska and Colorado are pulled from the Big XII page, Utah from the Mountain West page.
   725. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4191050)
Schools rankings in the latest US News Top 50


The US News rankings are very suspect - like judging hitters on RBI, it almost sort of works, but not really.

I don't have a dog in the fight. Went to a small Div III school for undergrad and Div II for graduate school. Grew up in California and live in B1G territory.
   726. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4191055)
Based on what I was told by people I knew who went to Duke, it was a cakewalk compared to my college experience. But I also went to a tiny liberal arts college with an enormous endowment, no football, and no grad school.
   727. billyshears Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4191056)
I'm getting a bit lost. When we talk about academic standards, are we talking about the actual existing standards of the schools that comprise a conference (which can change as schools enter and exit the conference), or are there actually independent standards to which conferences force member schools to adhere? If it's the former, this whole conversation strikes me as largely irrelevant. If it's the latter, I'd be curious to know what the various standards are for the particular conferences.

When I was in school, the Ivy League had some arcane formula that generally restricted member schools from admitting athletes who deviated from the overall academic standards of the university by more than some percentage of some metric used to calculate overall academic credentials. I have no idea if such system or any similar system is still in place.
   728. I am going to be Frank Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4191057)
US News Rankings are skewed towards private schools because of class size, alumni giving and graduation rate.
   729. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4191058)
The US News rankings are very suspect


QFT. Reed College opted out of a lot of the reporting and is no longer highly ranked, despite being one of the most selective and academically rigorous institutions in the country.

For the record, I'm currently employed by a Big 10 school, but I don't really feel any allegiance to its sucky athletics.

are there actually independent standards to which conferences force member schools to adhere?


For the most part, it's this. It's not an occult formula, usually, but a minimum amount of money spent per student on research, number of tenured faculty, grad rates, so forth.
   730. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4191060)
Basically it is only indirectly related to academic rigor or standards or even what their students do.

The US News rankings are very suspect - like judging hitters on RBI, it almost sort of works, but not really.


These are both true. But its extremely difficult to measure academic rigor, so I can understand why its done this way.


   731. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4191064)
US News Rankings are skewed towards private schools because of class size, alumni giving and graduation rate.


If so, that would tend to overrate the ACC vs the other 2. There's only 1 private school in the Big 10, and 2 in the Pac 12. but the ACC has Duke, BC, Miami, and Wake.
   732. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4191067)
US News Rankings are skewed towards private schools because of class size, alumni giving and graduation rate.


At least in my experience, class size actually directly matters. I wouldn't call including it some sort of skewing.
   733. Kurt Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4191079)
But I also went to a tiny liberal arts college with an enormous endowment, no football, and no grad school.

Which one?
   734. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4191081)
The Times World University Rankings are much more weighted toward academic rigor and away from sports and other American "popularity" contests and other banalities. Top 5 are Cal Tech, Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and Princeton. Cambridge 6, MIT 7.

"BCS" schools in the 2011-12 top 50 are:

Stanford (T-2)
Berkley (10)
UCLA (13)
Michigan (18)
Duke (22)
Georgia Tech (24)
Washington (25)
Northwestern (26)
Wisconsin (27)
Texas (29)
Illinois (31)
Minnesota (42)
North Carolina (43)

Penn State was 51st.

   735. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4191108)
Using those rankings, here's how many schools emerge from each of the three conferences under discussion, by tier (top 25, 26-50, etc...):

SchRank ACC B10 P12
001
-025   2   1   4
026
-050   1   4   0
051
-100   1   4   3
101
-150   1   2   2
151
-200   3   0   0 
201
-250   0   0   0
251
-300   0   0   0
301
-350   0   0   0
351
-400   1   0   1
Unrankd   3   1   3 
   736. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4191111)
are much more weighted toward academic rigor

Or research, particularly research in the hard sciences and/or engineering. Which isn't much of a proxy for anything, but makes it move a little for the Chinese and Indians.
   737. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4191128)
Or research, particularly research in the hard sciences and/or engineering. Which isn't much of a proxy for anything, but makes it move a little for the Chinese and Indians.

Also makes it favorable to B10.
   738. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4191153)
Also, it's interesting how the UNaWR list differs from the TWUR version:

ACC:
U: Duke, UVA, UNC, WFU, BC, GT, Miami, UMd, Clem, VPI, NCSU, FSU
T: Duke, GT, UNC, UMd, UVA, WFU, Miami, BC, Clem; (VPI, NCSU, FSU)

B10:
U: NW, Mich, Ill, Wisc, PSU, OSU, Pur, Minn, Ind, MSU, Iowa, NU
T: Mich, NW, Wisc, Ill, Minn, PSU, OSU, MSU, Pur, Ind, Iowa; (NU)

P12:
U: Stan, Cal, UCLA, USC, UW, Colo, Ariz, WSU, Ore, ASU, Utah, OSU
T: Stan, Cal, UCLA, UW, USC, Colo, Ariz, Utah, ASU, WSU; (Ore, OSU)
   739. zenbitz Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4191258)
The times world U rankings corresponds much better with my subjective feeling about it (being a hard sciences academic). I would have thought Wisconsin > Michigan but that's probably a Biology bias. I really can't hold with any "Academic" ranking system that has USC anywhere near UCLA (except in Film, of course), although that is changing in bio/genomics.

Of course, I went to undergrad at UCLA so "no bias, bro".


   740. Tripon Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4191277)
Really? USC's academic is pretty high up there, and UCLA with the other UC systems are hurting under limited public funding.
   741. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4191294)
"BCS" schools in the 2011-12 top 50 are:

Stanford (T-2)
Berkley (10)
UCLA (13)
Michigan (18)
Duke (22)
Georgia Tech (24)
Washington (25)
Northwestern (26)
Wisconsin (27)
Texas (29)
Illinois (31)
Minnesota (42)
North Carolina (43)

Penn State was 51st.


When I went there 30 some years ago, it was the 3rd or 4th ranked Engineering school in the country, behind MIT, Cal Tech, and maybe Stanford. My wife and I both have engineering degrees, me from Illinois, she from Stanford. So naturally she is an airline pilot and I work construction part time. Life is funny.
   742. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4191316)
USC's academic is pretty high up there


I was never under the impression that USC had much of a rep, outside the law school and the grad film program.
   743. thok Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4191341)
Apparently Moody's is thinking about dinging Penn State's credit rating by a level after the NCAA sanctions. Which probably says more about Moody's then Penn State, but could have real consequences.

Similarly, UVA is a rough peer for Michigan or Cal, but unlike those schools, but unlike those schools UVA has been been a mediocre athletic program for a generation.


It amuses me that Cal's athletics program has improved to the point that it's no longer mediocre.
   744. Eddo Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4191355)
When I went [to Illinois] 30 some years ago, it was the 3rd or 4th ranked Engineering school in the country, behind MIT, Cal Tech, and maybe Stanford. My wife and I both have engineering degrees, me from Illinois, she from Stanford. So naturally she is an airline pilot and I work construction part time. Life is funny.

Nice, Misrlou. I'm a much more recent mechanical engineering grad from U of I, and of course, I do software development for a market research company. Life is definitely funny.
   745. Spivey Posted: July 24, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4191445)
I'm a mechanical engineering grad from Texas, and I do technical support for a software company. I don't think that's so weird. An engineering degree from a good school just means "I'm smart and kind of versatile! Hire me please!!"
   746. Tripon Posted: July 24, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4191450)
I was never under the impression that USC had much of a rep, outside the law school and the grad film program.


USC has spent a lot of money bringing its academic credentials up to par to other high ranking colleges in the Southern California area and in the country. It used to be if you had the money to pay for it, you were automatically accepted. That is far from the truth now. There are other reasons to fault USC, but being a bad academic school isn't one of them currently.
   747. Mike Webber Posted: July 25, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4191793)
I just got this from a friend, "kickoffs in CFB are now from the 35 yard line, not the 30, and touchbacks are brought out to the 25"

Has anyone read anything about this? I was wondering if anyone has seen a breakdown of points per possession based on starting field position.

I bet the NCAA sets a record of on-side kicks and the number of squib kicks will go crazy.
Oh, and out of bounds kickoffs I be those are through the roof as teams try to angle kick to the corner.

All of which I think will lead to a scoring rise. Though if someone wanted to argue that the lack of kickoff returns for touchdowns falls off so far that the effects will negate each other.
   748. SoSH U at work Posted: July 25, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4191813)

I bet the NCAA sets a record of on-side kicks and the number of squib kicks will go crazy.


In many of these contests, on-side kicks ought to be skyrocketing anyway.
   749. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4191845)
Apparently Moody's is thinking


Moody's recent ratings in general have seemed a bit crazy to me*.

* OK those I have seen in the news, so take with a huge grain of salt.
   750. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 25, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4192084)
Has anyone read anything about this? I was wondering if anyone has seen a breakdown of points per possession based on starting field position.


A quick Google News search confirms the touchback part, anyway. Is this a reaction to the absolutely stultifying title game?
   751. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 25, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4192211)
Kickoff changes are theoretically to reduce concussions and other injuries. Kickoffs have high injury rates.
   752. I am going to be Frank Posted: July 25, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4192219)
I don't know how any financial rating agency has any credibility left.
   753. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: July 25, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4192222)
The NCAA has also tweaked onsides kicks as well. The kicking team is no longer allowed to hit the receiving team before the ball comes down if the kicker has driven the ball straight into the ground to create a high bounce.
   754. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 25, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4192224)
Correct, it has to bounce twice before you can drill the guy. One yard halo.
   755. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 25, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4192230)
Kickoffs have high injury rates.


You can see why.
   756. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: July 25, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4192242)
Stephon Morris ? @ 12_darKnight
We have chosen to stay at PSU & other opposing coaches are outside our apartment. Was that the intentions of the NCAA # LeaveUsAlone # WeAre
   757. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 25, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4192275)
Penn State was looking at a 4 year death penalty.

Hurried discussions began almost immediately after Erickson was informed of the possible sanctions by NCAA president Mark Emmert. The report stated that had Penn State not negotiated and agreed to the sanctions they ultimately were hit with, the NCAA would have begun a formal investigation and faced a multi-year death penalty and a fine even greater than the one they will pay out.
   758. DA Baracus Posted: July 25, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4192285)
Kickoffs have high injury rates.


You can see why.


Texas A&M used to use walk on players for their kick coverage teams and have them play completely reckless. The injury rate was astronomical. Break your leg? Who cares, we've got another Aggie diehard waiting to take your spot!

Unsurprisingly, this was during the Jackie Sherrill era.
   759. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 26, 2012 at 02:58 AM (#4192458)
My old man broke his nose and ruptured his MCL, both on kickoffs, playing small-time Oregon football . . . fifty years ago.

The kind of genetic freaks who play big time sports are pretty much lethal weapons when running full bore.
   760. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 27, 2012 at 09:27 AM (#4193470)
Kickoff changes are theoretically to reduce concussions and other injuries. Kickoffs have high injury rates.

If so it seems the touchback change would have the opposite effect. It reduces the value of an unreturnable kickoff.
   761. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4193557)
If so it seems the touchback change would have the opposite effect. It reduces the value of an unreturnable kickoff.

Agreed. It seems that the optimal strategy for the kicking team is a high kick landing at the 3.
   762. Every Inge Counts Posted: August 02, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4199158)
Coaches poll came out today

Preseason Top 25


1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. USC
4. Oklahoma
5. Oregon
6. Georgia
7. Florida State
8. Michigan
9. South Carolina
10. Arkansas
11. West Virginia
12. Wisconsin
13. Michigan State
14. Clemson
15. Texas
16. Nebraska
17. TCU
18. Stanford
19. Oklahoma State
20. Virginia Tech
21. Kansas State
22. Boise State
23. Florida
24. Notre Dame
25. Auburn

Who is overranked? Underranked? Should be ranked?
   763. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4199689)
Who is overranked? Underranked? Should be ranked?

Over: Florida St. (Again!)

I think they may be jumping the gun on Georgia, but they could be good. I expect Arkansas to fall without Petrino but I don't mind them at 10 given what they did last year. I'm anxious about WVU's ranking, that defense, plus all the hype, worries me. Not sure about the Big Ten teams. But that will sort itself out pretty quickly.

Under: K-State

Boise deserves the benefit of the doubt more than 22, but they might only be that good this year. I think South Carolina is going to be a serious contender this year, I'm not sure how they end up behind FSU in the rankings. I think Stanford is going to be pretty good, despite the huge losses.

I'm guessing more Pac-12 teams are ranked by the end of the year. The influx of coaching talent over the last couple of years has been ridiculous. I'm not sure which one I would rank though. I think NC State will be in the poll at the end of the year, but I'm not surprised they didn't make the cut.

I think this is a better poll than last year's, with, IIRC, Texas A&M and FSU in the top ten. FSU of course has no business being ranked where they are, but overranking FSU is an annual tradition and everything else is reasonable, even if I don't agree with it.
   764. Every Inge Counts Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4199756)
Florida State even got a 1st place vote somehow.
   765. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4199760)
Woo-hoo! Still top 25! Complete pre-season irrelevance is delayed by yet another year!
   766. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4199791)
Florida State even got a 1st place vote somehow.

Ridiculous. I mean, how do they do this year after year so shamelessly? Would it really kill the coaches to let FSU earn a ranking for one year?
   767. Delorians Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4199915)
Obama, appearing on a Columbus, Ohio, sports talk radio show, was asked whether "the punishment fit the crime."

"I think it does," Obama said. "I mean, I have been a big admirer of Penn State football. Obviously Joe Paterno was a great football coach. But there are some things that are just more important than sports. And making sure our kids are safe is more important than sports."


Comments:
1-The president is appearing on a sports talk radio show?
2-I can't believe he made the bold statement. Yes, he followed it up with the necessary caveats, but that is a 'you didn't build that' quote out of context waiting to happen.
   768. Delorians Posted: August 03, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4199922)
I think this is a better poll than last year's,

That's easy to say now. Someone always falls from preseason to 10 out of the top 25. We just don't know who yet.

with, IIRC, Texas A&M ... in the top ten

Ugh. I had forgotten, thanks for reminding me.
   769. smileyy Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4199979)
I can kinda give Obama a pass, though as POTUS, he should know better. I might say something similar when I mean:

"I had been a big admirer of Penn State football. Obviously Joe Paterno was great at winning football games."
   770. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4200007)
joe paterno never should have raped those kids. oh, wait, he didn't.



in related news, thank ####### christ for this:

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of my clients, the Paterno family, who are the living representatives of Joseph V. Paterno and his estate, we file this notice of intent to appeal the NCAA’s consent decree entered against The Pennsylvania State University. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 32.10.1, the Paterno Family notes that the consent decree was publicly released on July 23, 2012. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 32.1.5 and 32.10.1.2, Mr. Paterno qualifies as an involved individual because he is named in the NCAA’s consent decree as well as the Freeh report, which provided the alleged factual basis for the consent decree. Finally, pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 32.10.1, the Paterno family requests the opportunity to submit its appeal in writing, and it requests an in-person oral argument before the Infractions Appeals Committee.

The estate undertakes this appeal to redress the enormous damage done to Penn State, the State College community, former, current and future student and student athletes, Joe Paterno and certain others involved, as a result of the unprecedented actions taken by the NCAA.

As will become evident in a thorough and impartial review, the NCAA acted hastily and without any regard for due process. Furthermore, the NCAA and Penn State’s Board Chair and President entirely ignored the fact that the Freeh Report, on which these extraordinary penalties are based, is deeply flawed because it is incomplete, rife with unsupported opinions and unquestionably one-sided. The NCAA and Penn State’s leadership, by accepting and adopting the conclusions of the Freeh report, have maligned all of the above without soliciting contrary opinions or challenging a single finding of the Freeh report. Given the extraordinary penalty handed out, prudence and justice require that scrupulous adherence to due process be observed and not completely ignored.

Both the University leadership and the NCAA have said that they had to take extreme and immediate measures to demonstrate respect for the victims and minimize the chance of any similar misconduct from occurring again. These goals are the right ones, and they embody objectives we fully endorse. But those objectives cannot be achieved by a truncated process that wrongly assigns blame by substituting opinion for fact.

If there is culpabability in this case, a hearing will help expose it. Due process will not hide the truth and will only illuminate the facts and allow for thoughtful, substantiated conclusions, not extreme and unfounded opinions, such as those offered in the Freeh Report and relied upon by the NCAA.

This matter may be the most important disciplinary action in the history of the NCAA, and it has been handled in a fundamentally inappropriate and unprecedented manner. To severely punish a University and its community and to condemn a great educator, philanthropist and coach without any public review or hearing is unfair on its face and a violation of NCAA guidelines.

Accordingly, we submit this appeal in pursuit, finally, of due process. A fair hearing on the merits is in the interests of justice and fairness for all involved.

We look forward to your acknowledgement of receipt of this timely appeal. In your acknowledgement, we would appreciate confirmation of the exact date triggering the 30-day period for us to submit a written response in support of our appeal.

Respectfully,

J. Sedwick Sollers III



   771. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4200079)
I don't know a lot about the NCAA's rules and procedures. Questions I have:

1. Does the family of Paterno have standing to appeal this ruling of the NCAA? My guess would be no. Paterno (a) is dead, and (b) was no longer the coach even when he was still alive; and (c) I wouldn't think he'd even be able to appeal this ruling on his own - without the backing of the school - even if he were still alive and still the coach.

2. And if the NCAA politely ignores this letter, as I expect them to, would Paterno's family have standing to bring a lawsuit against the NCAA in court? I would doubt it.

Can anyone shed some light on this?
   772. Spahn Insane Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4200101)
Heh--I checked into this thread for the sole purpose of posting almost exactly the same questions Ray just posted. (Apparently, we were both absent the day this was covered in class.)

The question of standing was the first one I had (and I also suspect the answer is, "No, they have no standing to challenge this, at least at the NCAA level"), but to these questions I would add:

How does the fact that this is a consent decree [which the University entered into--even if for purposes of avoiding an even harsher sanction], as opposed to a "ruling" factor into whether Paterno's family has any basis for challenging it? Does its being a consent decree mean, in effect, there's nothing to 'appeal'?
   773. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4200103)
"J. Sedwick Sollers III"? This is a joke, right?

If not, great to know that the family wants those wins back. That's all I could possibly see coming of it (and not even that). The corpse of JoePa has no standing to act in the name of Penn State, the Happy Valley Community, or the past and future students of PSU. Even though it's pretty ####### hilarious for a corpse to take all that responsibility upon itself.

Given that PSU accepted the NCAA decision, they should be the target of a suit ... for reinstatement.

   774. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4200111)
Sign on to the above and will add that the NCAA didn't strip Joe Paterno's wins, they stripped Penn State's wins -- further burying Paterno's already very weak claim to be an "interested individual."

The family's L'ecole, c'est moi act is getting even more embarrassing.
   775. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4200116)
The cultists at BSD are slowly moving on to the acceptance stage, but only because the best players on the team are starting to officially bail. It's finally starting to dawn on them that things aren't going to be "normal" at Penn State this fall.
   776. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4200363)
joe paterno never should have raped those kids. oh, wait, he didn't.

Correct. He "merely" enabled it.
   777. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4200366)
Worth considering that if the family decides not to pursue the case in their own name but file in Paterno's voice it will have standing.

Corpse-orations are people, too, my friend.
   778. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 04, 2012 at 12:18 AM (#4200373)
Sammy Watkins suspended for Clemson, games v Auburn and Ball State. Meanwhile the Montee Ball beating story keeps getting interesting. Reports suggest there was some sort of earlier incident involving Ball and perhaps other individuals associated with UW football. For those not following, Ball was jumped after bar time in Madison and beaten badly, and suffered a concussion. He won't practice in the near term.
   779. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 04, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4200374)
Comments:
1-The president is appearing on a sports talk radio show?

He did an entire podcast with Simmons about 6 months ago.
   780. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 04, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4200375)
W/O seeing what PSU signed off on, did they agree to waive any appeals? Don't know. As stated above, Paterno wasn't sanctioned, but the school was. Let's pretend Paterno would have standing, and let's pretend he were to be successful, how would that work. PSU vacates wins, but for the very narrow purpose of counting wins, the NCAA is forced to recognize Paterno's wins? How could you sever the sanctions? That would be some prophylactic ruling.
   781. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 04, 2012 at 01:00 AM (#4200391)
Heh--I checked into this thread for the sole purpose of posting almost exactly the same questions Ray just posted. (Apparently, we were both absent the day this was covered in class.)


In this case Retro means this nearly literally: we were in some of the same classes in law school.
   782. Spahn Insane Posted: August 04, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4200488)
In this case Retro means this nearly literally: we were in some of the same classes in law school.

I absolutely meant it literally. 'T'was my attempt at a subtle in-joke.

EDIT: Well, literally as to Ray and I attending some of the same classes. I never, in fact, took a course that covered the ins and outs of collegiate sports federation bylaws.
   783. Spahn Insane Posted: August 04, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4200501)
Anyway, without having researched the ins and outs of NCAA bylaws at all, seems to me all Paterno's family members might have standing to pursue would be a defamation suit against someone or other (to the extent any of the findings that were made public vis. Paterno could be proven false--and they'd probably have to be proven recklessly false, given Paterno's standing as a public figure, unless they alleged that they, as non-public figure relatives, had their reputations damaged by the false facts), and I'm not even sure about that. And can defamation actions be brought on behalf of the deceased, or would they have to sue on the bases of whatever injuries they themselves suffered?

Wonder if there's some financial angle to all of this...whether the financial penalties imposed on the University are causing moneys to be diverted from some other source that would've otherwise benefited Paterno's heirs. Who knows.
   784. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 04, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4200513)
I never, in fact, took a course that covered the ins and outs of collegiate sports federation bylaws.


You should have your billable hours taken away.
   785. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 04, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4200628)
Wonder if there's some financial angle to all of this...whether the financial penalties imposed on the University are causing moneys to be diverted from some other source that would've otherwise benefited Paterno's heirs. Who knows.

I would guess that they truly don't care about the money, they want to protect Joe's legacy. From their actions, they worship him even more than PSU fans. Which is somewhat understandable.


   786. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 04, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4200723)
STEAGLES posts in this thread are so sad. When hero worship leaves you defending the honor of someone who put their reputation over protecting children from a rapist....
   787. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: August 05, 2012 at 12:49 AM (#4200750)
STEAGLES posts in this thread are so sad. When hero worship leaves you defending the honor of someone who put their reputation over protecting children from a rapist....
hero worship?


i don't think joe paterno is without blame in this, but there was a criminal investigation of sandusky in 1998 that was led by the centre county district attorney, and which produced a taped recording of sandusky confessing to the molestation of a teenage boy. and yet, there was no prosecution that resulted from that. is that on joe paterno?

well, according to the NCAA, as evidenced by the fact that that is the demarcation point where the NCAA vacated all of penn state's victories, why yes, yes it was.

and regarding the 2001 incident, the mcqueary one, i find it fairly implausible that paterno would bury an incident of child rape for the sole purpose of protecting his legacy. however, considering the relatively recent revelations surrounding the institutionalized protection of pedophile priests within the catholic church, i cannot dismiss that as a possibility.



i know that the nature of sandusky's acts makes it kind of hard to view the surrounding circumstances with an open eye, but i don't think it's entirely fair to heap this amount of blame on a deceased football coach.

firstly, and most obviously, joe paterno did not rape anyone. that was jerry sandusky.

but more relevantly, joe paterno was never in a position to defend himself from the accusations against him. by the time of sandusky's arrest in november, his mental faculties were pretty significantly impaired, and i honestly just do not think that he grasped the gravity of the events that were taking place.**

**there is a counter to this, in that, at the time of sandusky's arrest, joe paterno was the (nominal) head of a major division 1 football team, and if he was lucid enough to do that, he should have been lucid enough to explain his conduct. but i think there's clear evidence that he was pretty far gone at this point.
   788. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 05, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4200806)
The level of denial in your post is astonishing. Agreed re: 1998, but how is that relevant to determining Paterno's ultimate moral culpability? You want 3 years back of wins for your hero, you can have them.

But I'm amused at your hand wave over 2001. There's documentary and witness evidence that Paterno was informed of the incident, in all it's glorious detail. 1998 establishes that Paterno knew the significance of the accusation. It's all very simple.

Paterno was not just a football coach, but the most powerful administrator of a university who built a brand on doing things "better", more honestly and ethically than everyone else. He traded on his Ivy League roots. And in the end, he was self-interested and ethically bankrupt. The juxtaposition between the image and the reality generates the disproportionate attention. I'm sure Spanier was a ####, too, but he didn't have a biographer following him around writing a book on how amazing he was.
   789. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 05, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4200811)
I was excited when this thread seemed to briefly be not about Joe Paterno, when the preseason rankings came out. But no, Paterno is far more important than any of that.
   790. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4200825)
I'm sure Spanier was a ####, too, but he didn't have a biographer following him around writing a book on how amazing he was.

his wife does biographical criticism, though.
   791. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 05, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4200921)
Okay, let's talk about something else:

I submit that Oregon is wildly overrated and will lose at least two, probably three or more games this season. Thoughts?

Furthermore, if that turns out not to be true, if Oregon and USC split the season series (one winning in November, the other winning the Pac-12 title game), there is essentially no chance that either will play for the national title.

I know nobody likes Pac-12 football but me, but I'm hoping people will indulge me.
   792. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: August 05, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4201004)
But I'm amused at your hand wave over 2001. There's documentary and witness evidence that Paterno was informed of the incident, in all it's glorious detail. 1998 establishes that Paterno knew the significance of the accusation. It's all very simple.
i'm not sure that's the case. there does seem to be some ambiguity as to what exactly paterno was told at that time.

and while 1998 should have established the fact that sandusky was a serial predator, i think the fact that he wasn't prosecuted at that time, despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt, could instead have sent the signal that the behavior was not legally prohibited.

and further, i think the fact that sandusky's victims were boys clouded the issue on campus, since people knew him as a married man who raised 5 children (some of whom were abused, some of whom were adopted), and i think there was hesitancy to out him by making his actions public.

i think a lot of people on campus knew he was doing something, but i also think the vast majority of them thought he was just a closeted homosexual as opposed to a serial pedophile, and i don't think anyone wanted to be the one to look too closely into what he was doing.


Paterno was not just a football coach, but the most powerful administrator of a university who built a brand on doing things "better", more honestly and ethically than everyone else. He traded on his Ivy League roots. And in the end, he was self-interested and ethically bankrupt.
i'm not sure that the evidence supports that jump in logic. as i said previously, following the revelations of the institutionalized coverup of serial pedophiles within the catholic church, that possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand, but i'm not sure that i see any advancement of his own self-interests. what did he personally have to gain as a result of burying sandusky's crimes?

if you're agreeing with me that joe paterno bears no responsibility for the lack of action related to the 1998 incident, then what this comes down to is one decision made over 48 hours in the life of someone who lived 86 years. this wasn't the tip of an iceberg. there haven't been new revelations that brought to light paterno's involvement with a secret underground railroad that worked to protect serial child-rapists.


paterno never had the opportunity to defend himself against the charges being made against him, so i'll grant you that it is possible that he really is the craven, self-interested enabler that went out of his way to protect his child-raping buddy, jerry sandusky, but i think it's much more likely that he was a good man, who did the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reason, and whose legacy of leadership and achievement will forever be overshadowed by his inaction at that one moment in his life.


i think it's clear that he's no longer saint joe paterno of state college, but i also think it's fairly unreasonable to paint his entire legacy as a fraud based upon an incomplete history of his handling of this situation.
   793. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 05, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4201017)
i think the fact that he wasn't prosecuted at that time, despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt, could instead have sent the signal that the behavior was not legally prohibited.

Which makes it all right, then?
what did he personally have to gain as a result of burying sandusky's crimes?

The sheen on his reputation as the last honest man in big-time college football.
i think it's clear that he's no longer saint joe paterno of state college,

That depends on whom you ask, doesn't it? I'm not even sure how much you believe it, given the caveats. Sorry.
   794. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 05, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4201031)
I'm perfectly comfortable with one bad decision eviscersting all the good Joe Paterno did. The way things tend to be, you can have a few key decisions that are wildly more important than others. In 2001, Joe Paterno faced a crucial decision: he could compel the university to, in essence, turn the Sandusky matter over to the police, likely losing his job and deeply damaging he Penn State brand (linebacker U helmed by a kiddie rapist was salacious enough as is) or hush it up and hope he died first. He almost made the "right" decision, come to think of it.

Why did Paterno lie about his knowledge of the 2001 incident prior to his death? He had the opportunity to come clean but his interview with the Wash Post is at odds with the documentary evidence. Joe may not have been as sharp as in his heyday, but in his final public words he chose to perpetuate the lie. Says something about a man who puts image over truth, even on his deathbed. It also belies this claim that Paterno isn't around to defend himself. He DID defend himself by saying "A", and then the truth turned out to be "B".
   795. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4201042)
i don't think joe paterno is without blame in this, but there was a criminal investigation of sandusky in 1998 that was led by the centre county district attorney, and which produced a taped recording of sandusky confessing to the molestation of a teenage boy. and yet, there was no prosecution that resulted from that. is that on joe paterno?


No; I agree with you there.

and regarding the 2001 incident, the mcqueary one, i find it fairly implausible that paterno would bury an incident of child rape for the sole purpose of protecting his legacy. however, considering the relatively recent revelations surrounding the institutionalized protection of pedophile priests within the catholic church, i cannot dismiss that as a possibility.


I'm not sure why it matters what Paterno's reason was, short of it being something like "Sandusky threatened that he would have my family killed if I reported the 2001 incident to state authorities," of which there is zero evidence. I mean, what other kind of reason could suffice?

firstly, and most obviously, joe paterno did not rape anyone. that was jerry sandusky.


But nobody has claimed that he did.

but more relevantly, joe paterno was never in a position to defend himself from the accusations against him. by the time of sandusky's arrest in november, his mental faculties were pretty significantly impaired, and i honestly just do not think that he grasped the gravity of the events that were taking place.**


I've seen no evidence of that, but we're capable of drawing conclusions from the facts we do know even without Paterno's defense. And Paterno did have an opportunity to defend himself, starting at least by the time he testified before the grand jury, through the November events. He could have also done so in writing.

   796. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4201049)
and while 1998 should have established the fact that sandusky was a serial predator, i think the fact that he wasn't prosecuted at that time, despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt, could instead have sent the signal that the behavior was not legally prohibited.


Failure to prosecute could plausibly indicate that there simply wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

and further, i think the fact that sandusky's victims were boys clouded the issue on campus, since people knew him as a married man who raised 5 children (some of whom were abused, some of whom were adopted), and i think there was hesitancy to out him by making his actions public.

i think a lot of people on campus knew he was doing something, but i also think the vast majority of them thought he was just a closeted homosexual as opposed to a serial pedophile, and i don't think anyone wanted to be the one to look too closely into what he was doing.


But none of this is relevant to what McQueary told Paterno and what Paterno chose to do - and not do - with that information.
   797. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 05, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4201059)
what did he personally have to gain as a result of burying sandusky's crimes?


At a minimum, the program would have been associated with a child rapist. And at a minimum, a disclosure of the 2001 incident would have prompted a pretty substantial state investigation into at least that one incident. But the question you pose is not a defense of Paterno, because we know that he knew, at a minimum, what McQueary reported to him, and we know that he didn't take that information to state authorities, and we know that there is decent evidence to indicate that he was influential in stopping the others from doing so.

You're asking why a man who did a morally bankrupt thing (not reporting it to state authorities) would have been motivated to do that morally bankrupt thing. It's similar to asking why an irrational person would behave irrationally.

if you're agreeing with me that joe paterno bears no responsibility for the lack of action related to the 1998 incident, then what this comes down to is one decision made over 48 hours in the life of someone who lived 86 years. this wasn't the tip of an iceberg. there haven't been new revelations that brought to light paterno's involvement with a secret underground railroad that worked to protect serial child-rapists.


I don't really view this as "one" bad decision, since Paterno had the opportunity to revisit that bad decision many times over the next decade.

paterno never had the opportunity to defend himself against the charges being made against him, so i'll grant you that it is possible that he really is the craven, self-interested enabler that went out of his way to protect his child-raping buddy, jerry sandusky, but i think it's much more likely that he was a good man, who did the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reason, and whose legacy of leadership and achievement will forever be overshadowed by his inaction at that one moment in his life.


Same response.

i think it's clear that he's no longer saint joe paterno of state college, but i also think it's fairly unreasonable to paint his entire legacy as a fraud based upon an incomplete history of his handling of this situation.


I think it's entirely fair. He enabled child sex abuse, and showed no compassion or interest in helping either the 2001 kid or future kids who hadn't been harmed yet but were likely to end up in Sandusky's cross hairs. That is a pretty serious moral failing. And really he didn't show much interest in the victims even after everything hit the fan in November, seeming more concerned with remaining the coach (and having negotiated a golden parachute after he had testified earlier).
   798. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 05, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4201086)
Seriously? Not ONE post about U of O football?
   799. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: August 05, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4201113)
Who did Oregon lose besides Thomas and James, Vox? Bennett did good work for them in relief last year, and the Ducks seem pretty adept at plugging in QBs and getting great production out of them.
   800. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 05, 2012 at 08:36 PM (#4201153)
For U of O to drop off, I would think the Pac has to improve elsewhere. No way will they be as prolific this season, but near the top of the Pac w USC this year no doubt.
Page 8 of 9 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(2 - 1:02pm, Dec 20)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogAmazin' Avenue - Cohen: Mets and Rockies discussing Troy Tulowitzki deal with Noah Syndergaard as the centerpiece
(46 - 1:01pm, Dec 20)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1362 - 12:46pm, Dec 20)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(317 - 12:45pm, Dec 20)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogThe 4 surprisingly quiet teams of the MLB offseason
(34 - 12:40pm, Dec 20)
Last: Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof

NewsblogAngels, Red Sox discontinue pension plans for non-uniformed personnel - LA Times
(12 - 12:40pm, Dec 20)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim

NewsblogFull Count » Source: Red Sox close to deal sending Will Middlebrooks to Padres for Ryan Hanigan
(13 - 12:39pm, Dec 20)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5075 - 12:33pm, Dec 20)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(83 - 12:32pm, Dec 20)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogThe right — and wrong — way for Mets to get Tulowitzki | New York Post
(8 - 12:24pm, Dec 20)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(98 - 12:23pm, Dec 20)
Last: Bleed the Freak

NewsblogZuckerman - Trea Turner Named Now, Plays Later
(3 - 12:18pm, Dec 20)
Last: Justin T steals bases with his bat

NewsblogPadres' faith in GM A.J. Preller leads to big week | UTSanDiego.com
(1 - 12:15pm, Dec 20)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(753 - 11:57am, Dec 20)
Last: starving to death with a full STEAGLES

NewsblogOC Register | Former Angels prospect Ryan Bolden shot to death
(6 - 11:45am, Dec 20)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.8365 seconds
48 querie(s) executed