Tim McG

Money is a big deal this is true, but sports as a community outreach goes a long way in getting support and name recognition. It also attracts students....non-athletic students. More to college life than just academics. Kids chose schools for the culture and legacy as well. Sports aren't just about the money otherwise there would be no other sports than football and basketball. The only money losers would be sports which typically don't have big gate fees. The bigger sports support them.

No worries.

Where are the Mods?

He finally sees the light Boo, hiss.

On this point, we completely agree, JetMan. Well put. As to hockey, well...if slashing an opponent or beating the crap out of somebody after a hard chuck against the glass is humble and law abiding, then perhaps we are at cross purposes. That stuff is punishable by arrest/jail on the street, but hockey gets a free pass. I have a real hard time with that. Well, there could be a couple of reasons you feel that way. SF isn't exactly a hockey town, ya know? Checks against the boards are well within the rules of the game. There have been a few hockey players, btw, who have been prosecuted for actions clearly outside of the rules of the game -- but still taking place on a rink, NOT in a public place where the rest of us reside! This is a key point. Hockey players in general are more humble because a) many come from humble beginnings and b) most have a respect for the sport which far exceeds the respect they have even for themselves. Try teaching these things to football, basketball or even baseball players. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html Has the NCAA's actions gained so much respect from you that you actually believe everything that it says? Good point. There is a respect for the hockey game which far outstrips football or basketball. However, I would argue that those aggressive behaviors are satisfied on the ice by way of the penalty box. BTW, I only wish I could live in SF. Sadly, I couldn't afford to buy a door knob in that town

On this point, we completely agree, JetMan. Well put. As to hockey, well...if slashing an opponent or beating the crap out of somebody after a hard chuck against the glass is humble and law abiding, then perhaps we are at cross purposes. That stuff is punishable by arrest/jail on the street, but hockey gets a free pass. I have a real hard time with that.

Jail time and lawsuits would be a great example to show other programs this is what will happen. Punishing kids is arbitrary and utterly spiteful.

Again, you have too many moving parts here, JetMan. Because schools give scholarships to attract the best athletes, are you saying students shouldn't take advantage of those scholarships in order to go to college? Is the only plausible answer a nefarious one and not a benevolent one? Do you honestly believe the only reason athletic scholarships are given out is to create monolithic football programs? Your "nobody's minding the store" point is way off base and completely without merit. Are there abuses? Of course. Just like in society there are those who will circumvent the rules. I think the NCAA sanctions and punishes schools who do this, don't they? But your answer to that was to broadstroke all student athletes as entitled, self-involed Plaxico's. That would be the same thing as saying all computer tecnology majors are nerds. Nothing is 100%, my friend. Sports programs are many times corrupt pieces of athletic shit. The ACC/SEC manipulated BCS should tell you that much. But if that is the case, are you also advocating for the elmination of college sports all together? Football isn't the only system that does this kind of under handed crap. So I did address that issue. Do I think all students should gain equally in scholarship monies offered? In a perfect world, sure. But like I tell my whiney students who loudly proclaim I'm not being fair: Life isn't fair. Get used to it. However, that does not extend to the arbitrary punishment of Penn State football players who had absolutely NOTHING to do wth the adult's inability to do the right thing. Oh, and for the record, I paid my own way through college by way of student loans. I, if anyone, should be pissed about the athletic scholarships. However, I tell my own students that the playing field isn't level, but do anything/use anything [like race, gender, ethnic background, socio-economic status, and sports etc.] to get that degree. Even a partial scholarship will help. Because here's the deal: There may be only a small window of opportunity to get that degree, but once you have it, nobody can take it away. Punishing those athletes would be an epic fail and a slap in the face to innocent victims of a system gone wrong. Abuse should not begat abuse and if dropping the Penn State football program is the answer to a completely unrealted tragedy then that is exactly the message being sent. Some things are wrong and they are always wrong. Punishing more innocent kids because of the abuse of a pediphile is, IMHO, absolutely absurd.

I seriously doubt anyone on a football scholarship at Penn State would have that much of a problem finding another school to take them... At a Big 10 school? The competition is unbelievable for the few spots available! I have two former students playing for Pac-12 schools and even as good as they are [one on a full ride who wasn't a starter until his sophomore year] there were several other guys better than they were coming in. One might try to go pro, but the other is looking at a couple academic options. Not only that, but you dump all those Penn State football players on the Big 10, that means the competition has become abitrarily tougher. Many will need to go to other schools at a smaller program where their degree field may not be offered. And what of those who might go pro? Do we also assume it will be no trouble for them to get into the draft without the Big 10 exposure? The NFL is a job/career choice, too. This a Jazz BBS, right? How many musicians would tell you if a school shut down its music program, that wouldn't make it that much tougher to get into another college on a music scholarship? Who gets punished then? It sure as hell isn't the school's administration. Easy, it is not, my friend.

What happens if that creates a financial hardship [via scholarships or distance traveled to school, etc.] or, more to the point, there is a degree major at Penn State they want? The crime was not perpetrated by them or for any athletic benefit to them. TBH, punishing the students is not the solution to the administration's idiocy. Lawsuits and jail time, however, would be. With all due respect, I think you need to rethink this point of view. Likewise, JetMan. I would ask: How so? Many of my students wouldn't be able to attend college without the help of an athletic scholarship. Punishing them would be an epic mistake. All that does is make the list of victims even longer. Look at it this way: If you had a problem with your neighbor, would you take it out on his kids? Neither would I and neither would most reasonable people. The same logic applies here: Sandusky [and those who allowed him to continue his abuse] are the problem, so why take it out on the student athletes? In short, the self-entitlement of the few is more damaging to society than the ignorance of the many. The longer answer: 1. Are students with God-given athletic talents more deserving of a free ride than students without? 2. Do Division I schools hand out an amount in academic scholarships which at least totals the amount handed out in athletic scholarships? (THESE are supposed to be learning institutions after all!!!) 3. How do I feel when a guy like Plaxico Burress happens to accidentally shoot off his gun in a club I happen to frequent on the night I am there, and the bullet hits me? OR How do I feel when a guy like David Diehl happens to get pasted while watching a soccer game at his favorite Croatian Club and "accidentally" hits my car head on while I'm driving my children to wherever? Get FUCKING real! These idiots are getting free scholarships (ie., a salary) to attend universities and learning nothing about how to behave when unleashed upon society! Is THAT not the bigger problem? Yes, Sandusky is a "damaged" human being. But, I can guarantee you that he's also contributed to the damage displayed by many of his football proteges. Think things through before you say some of the things you're saying. With all due respect, don't pressume I haven't thought this through...I have, numerous times. OK? For starters, you have too many issues going on here. Some, like the Plaxico example, which are totally unrelated to the original premise of students getting into college who otherwise would not be able to afford it and on an athletic scholarship. One idiot does not predispose the entirety of student athletes Nation wide to piss poor behavior. That is endemic to society, not sports. A former student of mine [one of several dozen I could refer to] is attending a University of California campus on a full ride for tennis. Probably one of the brightest and best behaved students I have had who wouldn't be able to attend college without that scholarship. Is she planning on turning pro? Nope. She is going into the medical field. A Plaxico she is not and neither are the vast majority of other student athletes on scholarship. Most of whom will be going into academic fields of endeavor and use sports as a way into college. Secondly, if you have a problem with a student athlete getting a scholarship to college, should they abandon the scholarship process for all students? Think of what you are saying here: Because a kid is good at a sport he shouldn't be rewarded for that by a university which will make bucket loads of money from that/those athletes? Further, is it fair that one kid is better at Biology vs. a kid who hasn't decided on his major? Should that Bio student not be rewarded either? So, only the elite few with money enough to attend college should be given access to higher education? The scholarship program is designed to reward entering under grads for their excellence in either academics and/or sports. Where, one might posit, does that scholarship money come from? Donors is one way, but sports gate sales is a larger sum of money and a lot of it is used for general college scholarships. It is also used to help keep costs down relative to tuition...especially at the larger schools. Lastly, as was the case with my own son [who EARNED an 80% scholarship for his musical prowess; also a "God-given" talent], in order to keep that scholarship the student must keep a 3.0 GPA, perform on the playing field/stage and at the highest levels. It's like having a full time job in addition to the student's academic responsibilities at the unniversity. Who, BTW, charge a gate fee to all their concerts and performances to help pay for scholaships. Now if you are seriously saying all student athletes are all junior Plaxico's then, with all due respect, you need to think things through before you respond. Fair?

What happens if that creates a financial hardship [via scholarships or distance traveled to school, etc.] or, more to the point, there is a degree major at Penn State they want? The crime was not perpetrated by them or for any athletic benefit to them. TBH, punishing the students is not the solution to the administration's idiocy. Lawsuits and jail time, however, would be. With all due respect, I think you need to rethink this point of view. Likewise, JetMan. I would ask: How so? Many of my students wouldn't be able to attend college without the help of an athletic scholarship. Punishing them would be an epic mistake. All that does is make the list of victims even longer. Look at it this way: If you had a problem with your neighbor, would you take it out on his kids? Neither would I and neither would most reasonable people. The same logic applies here: Sandusky [and those who allowed him to continue his abuse] are the problem, so why take it out on the student athletes?

He would've been if he had learned a knuckleball. Yer killin' me, Jim

Cool! Then bring on the next 81 games

What happens if that creates a financial hardship [via scholarships or distance traveled to school, etc.] or, more to the point, there is a degree major at Penn State they want? The crime was not perpetrated by them or for any athletic benefit to them. TBH, punishing the students is not the solution to the administration's idiocy. Lawsuits and jail time, however, would be.

I agree: Bud Selig is full of shit regarding the W-L in the All-Star Game vs home field advantage in the WS. However, if you are interested in winning baseball games, emotional favorites are not who you go with. Here's the line on Dickey: 1H, 1K, 1.00 WHIP in one inning pitched. Cain's the better pitcher today....and with good reason. LaRussa made the right call, IMHO. They both gave up no runs and had an ERA of 0.00. THIS is the only stat that matters for pitchers. An increased WHIP means nothing at the end of the day if it doesn't translate to an increase in runs scored. Appearance in an All-Star game is supposed to be based on performance during that year, not during one's career. Like it or not, flash in the pan or not, Dickey is having a better year than Cain, period. LaRussa's always been an idiot! If status in an All-Star game WERE based on career stats, Seaver would've started damn near every one during his NL career. Cain also pitched two scoreless innings vs Dickey's one inning. I used the WHIP as a tie-breaker. Dickey is a very good pitcher, no doubt. But I would take any of the four picthers who went to the mound before him in a heartbeat. W-L records and one good year don't tell the whole story, my friend. Proven reliability and longevity, however, do. For the record, I'm not by any means a LaRussa fan. His Cardinals have done plenty of damage to the playoff hopes of my Giants. No love lost here. Cain has still not done it for years and years and years. Read what I said about Seaver! That's not a fair comparison, JetMan. See me in 10-15 years when Cain retires and then you can make that claim. Cain has be in the NL for 8 years and has had three [so far] pretty successful seasons, W-L wise. Dickey, at 38, has had one breakout year. Though I am very happy for the man, Cain was more deserving of the All-Star start, IMHO. Besides, Seaver wasn't available But the decision shouldn't be based on a career, but rather the year. Dickey was the dominant pitcher in the NL this year. Maybe LaRussa was parked at a red light again... If that's the case then maybe the All-Star team needs to be chosen without the input of fan voting. And if that were the case, LaRussa still gets to choose the pitching rotation. Maybe only Mets fans should vote then? There is no way to assure Dickey gets the nod unless only New Yorkers get to choose the team.

Dan -- The problem for me here is to establish the category "sickos" or the like in such a way as to imply that the line between them (and/or their needs/desires/impulses) and the rest of humanity were at once crystal clear and as broad as the Grand Canyon. No, we don't behave that way, thanks be, but we are IMO not of another race/wholly different order of being; we just managed to grow up more or less in one piece and not in significantly f---ed-up fragments. Careful, Larry. You are running the risk of expecting people to believe everything isn't contained in nice, neat little packages and that there just might be a need to acknowledge that life isn't black and white; that there are many shades of gray. It is the battle I fight almost daily. Ay, there's the rub

I agree: Bud Selig is full of shit regarding the W-L in the All-Star Game vs home field advantage in the WS. However, if you are interested in winning baseball games, emotional favorites are not who you go with. Here's the line on Dickey: 1H, 1K, 1.00 WHIP in one inning pitched. Cain's the better pitcher today....and with good reason. LaRussa made the right call, IMHO. They both gave up no runs and had an ERA of 0.00. THIS is the only stat that matters for pitchers. An increased WHIP means nothing at the end of the day if it doesn't translate to an increase in runs scored. Appearance in an All-Star game is supposed to be based on performance during that year, not during one's career. Like it or not, flash in the pan or not, Dickey is having a better year than Cain, period. LaRussa's always been an idiot! If status in an All-Star game WERE based on career stats, Seaver would've started damn near every one during his NL career. Cain also pitched two scoreless innings vs Dickey's one inning. I used the WHIP as a tie-breaker. Dickey is a very good pitcher, no doubt. But I would take any of the four picthers who went to the mound before him in a heartbeat. W-L records and one good year don't tell the whole story, my friend. Proven reliability and longevity, however, do. For the record, I'm not by any means a LaRussa fan. His Cardinals have done plenty of damage to the playoff hopes of my Giants. No love lost here. Cain has still not done it for years and years and years. Read what I said about Seaver! That's not a fair comparison, JetMan. See me in 10-15 years when Cain retires and then you can make that claim. Cain has be in the NL for 8 years and has had three [so far] pretty successful seasons, W-L wise. Dickey, at 38, has had one breakout year. Though I am very happy for the man, Cain was more deserving of the All-Star start, IMHO. Besides, Seaver wasn't available

Exactly. Get the facts, get at the truth. Just what I have been saying all along, Chuck.

It changed my mind. If Paterno was a part of the cover-up as stated in the Freeh report, then he is as guilty as sin of protecting and subsequently enabling Sandusky. I find that to be utterly disgusting.

Does this mean you're now one of the stunned former ardent supporters? Niether. I just needed to have some tangible evidence and the Freeh investigation was exactly that. And, if you recall, my whole contigency centered around the protocol necessary for a conviction and that facts, not high-charged emotional language, will [and did] put that Sandusky bastard behind bars for life.

I agree: Bud Selig is full of shit regarding the W-L in the All-Star Game vs home field advantage in the WS. However, if you are interested in winning baseball games, emotional favorites are not who you go with. Here's the line on Dickey: 1H, 1K, 1.00 WHIP in one inning pitched. Cain's the better pitcher today....and with good reason. LaRussa made the right call, IMHO. They both gave up no runs and had an ERA of 0.00. THIS is the only stat that matters for pitchers. An increased WHIP means nothing at the end of the day if it doesn't translate to an increase in runs scored. Appearance in an All-Star game is supposed to be based on performance during that year, not during one's career. Like it or not, flash in the pan or not, Dickey is having a better year than Cain, period. LaRussa's always been an idiot! If status in an All-Star game WERE based on career stats, Seaver would've started damn near every one during his NL career. Cain also pitched two scoreless innings vs Dickey's one inning. I used the WHIP as a tie-breaker. Dickey is a very good pitcher, no doubt. But I would take any of the four picthers who went to the mound before him in a heartbeat. W-L records and one good year don't tell the whole story, my friend. Proven reliability and longevity, however, do. For the record, I'm not by any means a LaRussa fan. His Cardinals have done plenty of damage to the playoff hopes of my Giants. No love lost here.

http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1201716.html Thank you, Pete. Had you done this to start instead of attempting to insult me, things would be just fine. Why you chose to be a jerk about it baffles me. That is all I needed to know. I will accept this in lieu of the apology you owe me.

] Why do you think in the immediate wake of Sandusky's conviction Penn State tried to get the victims to come forward for a quick settlement of claims? Personally I hope no one accepts an offer and it goes to trial, with huge awards for pain and suffering. As for Goodie, this is going to be tough for him, as Freeh's investigation brought out clear evidence of Paterno's deep involvement in an active cover-up of Sandusky's actions, and even worse, from the text of the emails, there was an agreement that Sandusky should be confronted and things should be handled properly, until the President spoke to his employee who happens also to be the legendary coach, and the legendary coach told him it should be handled quietly and without outside involvement. That alone makes Paterno potentially liable, and it tells us precisely why he transferred ownership of the house to his wife's name exclusively. I read the e-mails, Dan. Maybe I missed it, but the employee was in reference to Sandusky. Perhaps I am wrong here and if you could pull out the e-mail [or the part in the Abuse Inquiry which clearly expresses Paterno's involement], I'd sure appreciate it.

No it won't. He won't accept the findings. When there is proof, yes. My first post on this thread I clearly stated I would be the first to acknowlege Paterno's guilt in the cover up. Right now, all we have is supposition. I don't recall reading anything which directly links Paterno to anything along those lines. Perhaps you could point it out to me? Don't dial up the rhetoric, Pete.

Cheap shot, Pete. I mean seriously, I don't do this to you, so why is it you feel justified in blindsiding me like that? Personally, a flame like that has no place on this BBS and I believe the Moderators have sated as much. I think an apology is in order here. I really do, Pete On Point: Ultimately, this proves Paterno knew about the 1998 case [which I had already acknowledged], but clearly the "did nothing about it" is the opine of the author. And I quote: "Local prosecutors ultimately decided not to charge Sandusky, and Paterno did nothing." Here is where it all falls apart for me. If the legal authorities decided not to prosecute what else is Paterno supoosed to do? That is not at all suggesting that there may have been further involvement by Paterno in the cover up, but this reporter's statement is not prove, it is his interpretation. Does the Abuse Inquiry state this in its report? Because every article I have read points to Shultz and Curley as the perpetrators and power brokers behind the cover up. So do the realeased e-mails of about a week ago. Personally, I think the press is attempting to back pedal and justify their rush to judgement. If it is proven Paterno was participant in the cover up, I will be the very first to acknowledge that. Until then, I think we can remain gentleman about this and respect differing views without the insults. OK?