Author Topic: Penn St's AD Tim Curley charge with perjury: sex abuse (Read 251140 times)

DOOM_Catz · « **Reply #1650 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:20:30 AM »

From my understanding they received the following:

Four year post-season ban.

$60 million fine.

Loss of 10 scholarships this year.

Loss of 20 scholarships for the following four years.

Pretty bad, eh?

ben ji · « **Reply #1651 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:21:21 AM »

Thanks LUKE_Catz

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1652 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:25:22 AM »

Is the Nittany Lion Club a separate corporate entity from the athletic department?

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #1653 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:25:47 AM »

Quote from: catzacker on July 23, 2012, 08:14:35 AM

Quote from: Pete on July 22, 2012, 10:02:49 PM
Quote from: catzacker on July 22, 2012, 08:55:21 PM
Maybe I missed it but where is penn state cool with ncaa penalties? You can't just disregard policies and process. The ncaa has no basis whatsoever to investgate penn state. Still haven't seen the rule they violated or the precedent for an investigation.

What precedent is there to criminal actions, such as in the case at hand, taken with the intent to bolster an NCAA program? That's what we have here. We have perhaps the most heinous crimes on earth, covered up, to preserve the standing of an NCAA program.

How on earth does that fail to fall within area in which the NCAA can act?

Penn State can still play football outside of the NCAA. They can still stage football events at their 80K stadium. The NCAA is merely saying that if you choose to wantonly fail to report child rape to protect the image of your program, then you have to pay if you still want to be in the NCAA.

Don't like it? Leave the NCAA. Problem solved.

yeah, get all that. just questioning whether the ncaa is the correct authoritative body to hand down punishment for this. seems like a court (civil or criminal) and possibly the DOE should be. I just kind of want it to come from a different organization than the one that said "oh, well, ya know, auburn and cam didn't really break any rules, cause, like Cam didn't know and stuff."

Well the CIA isn't getting involved and a civil court may tap their money but the football team churns along as if no children were raped.

dmartin · « **Reply #1654 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:26:54 AM »

I think it's only 10 a year for the 4 years. So total of 40 over 4 years. Was misquoted a few times as 20 a year.

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #1655 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:29:09 AM »

Quote from: "storm"nut on July 23, 2012, 08:19:57 AM

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:16:03 AM
Now the big question becomes . . . does Penn State just accept this, or are they going to challenge this in court??

I think the general thought is that they would have already had to have agreed to these sanctions for the NCAA to announce them in the manner they are (not going through the normal channels)

Alum want to sue the NCAA however so we shall see.

I pray those idiots do sue. Will be high theatre.

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #1656 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:29:31 AM »

Was hoping for the death penalty. But in the end it might actually be more fun to just watch them lose to Indiana for 10 years.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1657 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:30:25 AM »

Yeah it will be high theater because a good set of lawyers could easily make a great case that the NCAA has way over stepped their authority.

WildcatNkilt · « **Reply #1658 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:31:15 AM »

As stated before, the release of any PSU player without having to sit out a year is going to kill the football program. Package that will the inability to recruit high caliber players due to limit of scholarships and bowl ban and you have yourself SMU 2.0.

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #1659 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:32:55 AM »

I don't know. I still don't think it's as bad as the Death Penalty, but only time will tell.

"storm"nut · « **Reply #1660 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:33:03 AM »

Them losing $60 million for that one year may force them to shutter other Olympic sports. Tittle 9 will force this to be done in pairs.

slimz · « **Reply #1661 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:34:24 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:30:25 AM

Yeah it will be high theater because a good set of lawyers could easily make a great case that the NCAA has way over stepped their authority.

The NCAA has whatever authority members schools agree to. Penn State agreed they have the authority to impose these sanctions. So there's really no authority argument to be made, whatsoever. And I'd love to see an alumni group try to show they have any sort of standing to challenge penalties imposed against and agreed to by the school.

If Penn State had not agreed, then there could be a "great case."

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #1662 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:34:55 AM »

Emmert just said the $60M must not come at the expense of other programs, I thought. Will be interesting to see.

"storm"nut · « **Reply #1663 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:35:17 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:30:25 AM

Yeah it will be high theater because a good set of lawyers could easily make a great case that the NCAA has way over stepped their authority.

NCAA is just a big club of schools that play sports together. They are not formed by any governmental agency other than the schools themselves. They make the rules, no laws made there rules for them.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1664 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:36:32 AM »

Quote from: WildcatNkilt on July 23, 2012, 08:31:15 AM

As stated before, the release of any PSU player without having to sit out a year is going to kill the football program. Package that will the inability to recruit high caliber players due to limit of scholarships and bowl ban and you have yourself SMU 2.0.

Know you don't. SMU was/is a small private school that barely moves the needle in Dallas trying to buy their way into football relevance on the back of a small group of boosters/alums.

Penn State is not the same thing on any level. For starters, until further notice Penn State can still raise millions of dollars in private money . . . SMU went from crowds of 45,000 at Cowboys Stadium to nothing for a year, and then crowds of 8,000 playing in their old tiny on campus stadium. Penn State will still be putting 80,000 plus people in the stands easy.

slimz . . . alumni have brought suits against the NCAA, I believe some Alabama boosters/alums did about 10 years ago or so, and that involved areas of clear cut NCAA oversight.

"storm"nut · « **Reply #1665 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:38:24 AM »

Quote from: SkinnyBenny on July 23, 2012, 08:34:55 AM

Emmert just said the $60M must not come at the expense of other programs, I thought. Will be interesting to see.

So, unless some how Penn State is the only school that makes money from there other sports like Lacrosse or Gymnastics I don't see how they can keep those programs going.

slimz · « **Reply #1666 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:38:45 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:36:32 AM

Quote from: WildcatNkilt on July 23, 2012, 08:31:15 AM
As stated before, the release of any PSU player without having to sit out a year is going to kill the football program. Package that will the inability to recruit high caliber players due to limit of scholarships and bowl ban and you have yourself SMU 2.0.

Know you don't. SMU was/is a small private school that barely moves the needle in Dallas trying to buy their way into football relevance on the back of a small group of boosters/alums.

Penn State is not the same thing on any level. For starters, until further notice Penn State can still raise millions of dollars in private money . . . SMU went from crowds of 45,000 at Cowboys Stadium to nothing for a year, and then crowds of 8,000 playing in their old tiny on campus stadium. Penn State will still be putting 80,000 plus people in the stands easy.

slimz . . . alumni have brought suits against the NCAA, I believe some Alabama boosters/alums did about 10 years ago or so, and that involved areas of clear cut NCAA oversight.

Sure, people can file whatever lawsuits they want against whoever they want. Doesn't mean the lawsuit has any good argument or won't get kicked out for lack of standing.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1667 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:39:25 AM »

Yeah Penn State agreed to the ruling I guess . . . were probably coerced into signing, but the only actual NCAA rules giving the NCAA authority here is some very cryptic, open ended language in the LOIC guidelines/rules.

You're not very smart if you don't think that Penn State wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a court of law if they choose to do so.

Thanks Slimz, you win the Captain Obvious Award of the day.

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #1668 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:40:35 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:36:32 AM

Quote from: WildcatNkilt on July 23, 2012, 08:31:15 AM
As stated before, the release of any PSU player without having to sit out a year is going to kill the football program. Package that will the inability to recruit high caliber players due to limit of scholarships and bowl ban and you have yourself SMU 2.0.

Know you don't. SMU was/is a small private school that barely moves the needle in Dallas trying to buy their way into football relevance on the back of a small group of boosters/alums.

Penn State is not the same thing on any level. For starters, until further notice Penn State can still raise millions of dollars in private money . . . SMU went from crowds of 45,000 at Cowboys Stadium to nothing for a year, and then crowds of 8,000 playing in their old tiny on campus stadium. Penn State will still be putting 80,000 plus people in the stands easy.

slimz . . . alumni have brought suits against the NCAA, I believe some Alabama boosters/alums did about 10 years ago or so, and that involved areas of clear cut NCAA oversight.

Had Alabama agreed to the sanctions prior to the lawsuit? Penn State signed off on this thing, probably because they don't want the NCAA digging around and finding even more crap to punish them for. Any lawsuit that douchebag alumni talk about isn't getting off the ground.

And I agree that Penn State would recover from this (or even the death penalty) way, way faster than SMU did. Mainly because they have such a large fanbase of fiercely loyal idiots.

slimz · « **Reply #1669 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:41:41 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:39:25 AM

Yeah Penn State agreed to the ruling I guess . . . were probably coerced into signing, but the only actual NCAA rules giving the NCAA authority here is some very cryptic, open ended language in the LOIC guidelines/rules.

You're not very smart if you don't think that Penn State wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a court of law if they choose to do so.

Thanks Slimz, you win the Captain Obvious Award of the day.

You showed me, dax. Thanks for your excellent legal analysis.

slobber · « **Reply #1670 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:41:57 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:36:32 AM

Penn State is not the same thing on any level. Penn State will still be putting 80,000 plus people in the stands easy.

[/quote]
They will put 80 in the stands for the first year or two, but if they go 3-11 three or four years in a row, they won't put 80 in the stands.

Edit: This is why I should just quote the whole damn thing. I am too stupid to bbs.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1671 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:42:58 AM »

skinny . . . a huge portion of K-State fans would have acted the same way many Penn State fans are acting right now.

Yeah they will Dobber, they already put over 100,000 in the stands now, and consistently did that even when they had pretty mediocre teams.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #1672 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:43:53 AM »

Quote from: slimz on July 23, 2012, 08:41:41 AM

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:39:25 AM
Yeah Penn State agreed to the ruling I guess . . . were probably coerced into signing, but the only actual NCAA rules giving the NCAA authority here is some very cryptic, open ended language in the LOIC guidelines/rules.

You're not very smart if you don't think that Penn State wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a court of law if they choose to do so.

Thanks Slimz, you win the Captain Obvious Award of the day.

You showed me, dax. Thanks for your excellent legal analysis.

Your legal analysis consisted of saying people can file lawsuits and the courts can decide if they have merit. Brilliant.

steve dave · « **Reply #1673 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:46:29 AM »

they should also make a rule that the players that transfer have their scholarship go against Penn State's scholly limit and not the school they transfer to so we can get some

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #1674 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:49:03 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on July 23, 2012, 08:30:25 AM

Yeah it will be high theater because a good set of lawyers could easily make a great case that the NCAA has way over stepped their authority.

And any lawyer would destroy idiot alumni on standing, let alone getting to do more discovery on the 25 years of child rape that the school assisted in.

The alumni would get just wrecked