ADVERTISEMENT

Freeh Resolution

My kids are out of state (MA). I can afford to pay whatever insane tuition they throw at me.
Both of my boys are high achievers at ages 12 and 10, respectively, and although there's a long way to go between now and their college decision date, I foresee their educational choices to be amongst the Harvards, MITs and Browns of the world, rather than the PSUs ... but they also have some athletic prowess, so, if that results in a balancing of interests, we'd be looking at Stanford, Vandy or like-kind institutions before considering PSU.
pulp_fiction+big+brain+brett.jpg
 
Whereas, no reasonable person gives a poop about this;

Whereas, this has no bearing on the continuing education of current and prospective students;

Whereas, people who continue to harp on this in lieu of focusing on the future of Penn State are completely missing the point;

Whereas, if you composed this yourself, you most likely flunked your requisite English class, but a corrupt professor was willing to let you slide for a few Benjamins;

Therefore, it be Resolved that
You, and others thinking like you, should be left in the past while others try to make this a university that my sons would be proud to attend.


Stop living in the past. Be an agent for positive change in the education of young minds or not-so-kindly STFU.

I'm a proud PSU alum, a University Scholars member (now, Schreyer Honors College) with a Varsity Letter, who wouldn't allow either of my boys to consider PSU until/if folks like you drift off into the expanse of virtual space ... because what I care about, is the best educational experience for my sons, and whether or not you acknowledge the Freeh report doesn't do dick toward picking PSU up by the bootstraps and making it what it once was.

Change yourself. And then run for "office."
You are entitled to your opinion, but there is no reason that past wrongs can't be corrected while also working on the many current issues that are needed to improve our beloved university. The primary impediment to that is the OGBOT. Thank you to Anthony for being willing to fight the good fight.
 
Exactly. When this buddy of mine told me, it was at least 6-7 months before the story broke. We call each other about once per month just to touch base and stay in touch with each other. We were talking about other things, and he brought this up. At the time, I actually paid it no attention to it because in my mind, Sandusky no longer meant anything to Penn State so he was irrelevant. Again, there is absolutely no way anyone will ever convince me that the power-players within the BOT did NOT know about this 6-12 months before it broke.... Remember, these are not stupid people. These are all intelligent people, with the financial access to lawyers, consultants, risk management professionals, law enforcement agents, and politicians.... the power-players on the BOT are definitely people with the right contacts to get some excellent advice..... So having 6-12 months to advance plan.... Having 6-12 months to "get in front of the story".... Having 6-12 months to pre-script the response....... The plan that they devised was one that resulted in McQuery being credible, the 2nd Mile having no affiliation, Paterno's name getting destroyed, Spanier's name getting destroyed, The University's name getting destroyed, and the football program which is a financial life-line of the University getting penalized...... Makes you go Hmmmmm.

If this was the plan that they devised with 6-12 months of lead time, then either:
a) they are protecting some other very powerful entities/people
or,
b) they are grossly negligent and stupid

Ganim's first article came out March 31, 2011 and it's possible that's where he heard about it. BOT members claimed to be ignorant of it although one pressed Spanier at the Trustees meeting about what was going on.

That said there are bodybuilding.com posts from 2010 about Sandusky and that something was going down...so yeah, I'm sure at least some BOT members knew in early 2011 if not earlier.

Didn't you have a brother-in-law or friend that had ties with PSU's PR firm and said Joe was lucky to be dead based on what he knew? Did he ever elaborate on that?
 
My kids aren't going to decide to attend PSU based on Franco Harris, Joe Paterno or the Freeh Report. It's time you step aside and let time, rationality and progress work their "magic."
Nor should they, but that doesn't mean this past debacle should be forgotten.
 
My kids are out of state (MA). I can afford to pay whatever insane tuition they throw at me. Despite my fond memories of my time there, the university has lost its luster, thanks, in large part, to those who want to keep rehashing JoePa/Freeh Fight Club, and stymieing progress.

Both of my boys are high achievers at ages 12 and 10, respectively, and although there's a long way to go between now and their college decision date, I foresee their educational choices to be amongst the Harvards, MITs and Browns of the world, rather than the PSUs ... but they also have some athletic prowess, so, if that results in a balancing of interests, we'd be looking at Stanford, Vandy or like-kind institutions before considering PSU.

Regardless, grasping onto this topic, years later, is just a few steps beyond some of the saddest things I've seen.
I'm sure your kids are cool, but parents who are convinced their kids are a lock for MIT, Brown, Harvard, Stanford of Vandy when they are 10-12 years old are hysterical. Grow up dude. Your kids aren't special.
 
My kids are out of state (MA). I can afford to pay whatever insane tuition they throw at me. Despite my fond memories of my time there, the university has lost its luster, thanks, in large part, to those who want to keep rehashing JoePa/Freeh Fight Club, and stymieing progress.

Both of my boys are high achievers at ages 12 and 10, respectively, and although there's a long way to go between now and their college decision date, I foresee their educational choices to be amongst the Harvards, MITs and Browns of the world, rather than the PSUs ... but they also have some athletic prowess, so, if that results in a balancing of interests, we'd be looking at Stanford, Vandy or like-kind institutions before considering PSU.

Regardless, grasping onto this topic, years later, is just a few steps beyond some of the saddest things I've seen.

giphy.gif
 
Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

Here's my thoughts:

We have DUE PROCESS to prevent precisely what was done at Penn State.

Imagine accusing your neighbor of a crime and instead of allowing the courts to sort it out, you hire an "independent" contractor to levy the charge and what the "independent" contractor finds is the final word.

In the 21st Century, a major University did just that. It's appalling.

University officials were charged. But, Penn State bypassed due process with the hiring of an "independent" counsel.

The blame to me lies with Kenny and Peetz and those that allowed it to happen. Worse, IMO, this took place at a highly respected major research and teaching university.
 
Ganim's first article came out March 31, 2011 and it's possible that's where he heard about it. BOT members claimed to be ignorant of it although one pressed Spanier at the Trustees meeting about what was going on.

That said there are bodybuilding.com posts from 2010 about Sandusky and that something was going down...so yeah, I'm sure at least some BOT members knew in early 2011 if not earlier.

Didn't you have a brother-in-law or friend that had ties with PSU's PR firm and said Joe was lucky to be dead based on what he knew? Did he ever elaborate on that?

Well hell there was a former Balto. cop that knew about it but was more interested in destroying Paterno than saving some possible "victims" by coming forward sooner.:rolleyes:
 
Seems to me after reading through the comments that those telling Lubrano to pound salt and quit the fight are ok with the report and all of the payouts that stemmed from it. It also seems like they are ok with rolling over, taking the punishment, and moving on, not caring that the truth was never found. While it’s an uphill battle almost 9 years in the making, there are corrupt players breathing who can still be stained by their actions in 2011-12.

Why did schools like North Carolina and MSU get off easy on their allegations? Because they fought. PSU rolled over so the corruption wouldn’t be exposed.
I'm not disagreeing with your general thesis here, but just to be clear UNC didn't commit any crimes (and technically didn't commit any NCAA violations...I understand if you disagree with the second part of that, but please don't lump that in with sexual abuse cases)

MSU, OSU and Michigan allowed crimes to be committed against student athletes on their campuses by university staff. No action has been taken by the NCAA or Big 10.
 
As Jim Valvano said, “Don’t give up, don’t EVER give up.” I fully support and thank you bringing this resolution up at the first board meeting of your new term and in EVERY subsequent board meeting during your term. I hope you continue to be a nuisance to the board on this issue at every public opportunity. I only wish the other 8 “silent” alumni trustees shared your passion on this issue.

I disagree with a lot of the other posters on this topic that have endorsed the “Move on” mantra. Until Penn State reverses its position on the Freeh report and Penn State’s culpability in this mess, we should never move on. Almost 10 years later I continue to have people makes comments to me when they learn I’m a Penn State grad or I’m wearing Penn State gear. I don’t believe this will stop until Penn State aggressively starts to try to change the false narrative and begins to defend the actions and responses of all the 4 Penn Sate employees who’s reputations have been destroyed, Paterno, Spanier, Shultz, and Curley.
 
Destruction of the Freeh Report would have no bearing on the convictions of Spanier, Curly, and Schultz.
Not in a legal sense, but it would certainly bring attention to the glaring fact that they should never have even been charged.
 
Destruction of the Freeh Report would have no bearing on the convictions of Spanier, Curly, and Schultz.

If the Freeh Report is shown to be the farce that it is, it will be clear that Freeh and the OAG were colluding and that Freeh was not independent. McChesney's 79 page diary demonstrates some of the misconduct that the OAG and Freeh were doing and shows the weakness in the OAG's cases against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. Yes, Curly and Schultz plead guilty and those convictions will not likely change in the near term. Spanier, on the other hand, is on the verge of being exonerated as there are oral arguments in federal court on June 15 regarding Josh Shapiro's appeal of the dismissal of Spanier's conviction and it seems to me that Shapiro doesn't have a leg to stand on in regards to trying Spanier on law that was enacted after the date of his alleged offense. IMO, if the Freeh Report is repudiated then the cases against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz is at a minumum severely tainted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
If the Freeh Report is shown to be the farce that it is, it will be clear that Freeh and the OAG were colluding and that Freeh was not independent. McChesney's 79 page diary demonstrates some of the misconduct that the OAG and Freeh were doing and shows the weakness in the OAG's cases against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. Yes, Curly and Schultz plead guilty and those convictions will not likely change in the near term. Spanier, on the other hand, is on the verge of being exonerated as there are oral arguments in federal court on June 15 regarding Josh Shapiro's appeal of the dismissal of Spanier's conviction and it seems to me that Shapiro doesn't have a leg to stand on in regards to trying Spanier on law that was enacted after the date of his alleged offense. IMO, if the Freeh Report is repudiated then the cases against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz is at a minumum severely tainted.

Has no legal bearing.
 
Definitely support. My concern however is that unless this topic gets any media push, it will never go anywhere. To those that say let it go, it is a shame that you do not care about the unneeded reputation damage, the college experiences spoiled, and the lives ruined by this coverup and grandstanding by our state officials and certain members of our BOT. It’s a shame that you are ok with the Big Ten and NCAA literally stealing tens of million dollars from us.
I don’t think you’ll get anywhere with this. I do agree with some responses that we need to go after the B10 to get the bowl money refunded. No way that other schools that were hiding their crimes should be able to further their agendas with our money!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric_M
Not in a legal sense, but it would certainly bring attention to the glaring fact that they should never have even been charged.

Curley and Schultz were charged well before the Freeh report saw the light of day, somewhat before Freeh began his work at PSU. The report was already dismembered by Dick Thornburgh. Repeating the exercise will accomplish little to nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
For anyone who thinks Anthony Lubrano should “move on” and allow the Freeh report to continue to be perceived as a factual document, read this post from an Iowa fan from another active thread on our BWI board:

“I would say essentially everyone I have ever spoken with about the JS scandal (some of these conversations were years ago so can't say it was 100%), including many PSU alums, think that JVP should have reported the 2001 McQueary incident to the police himself, as opposed to only reporting it to his University superior. I think that is a mistake, you may feel differently. The Freeh report makes a few inferences about things involving JVP where he certainly may have made other mistakes in this matter as well.”

Until the Freeh report is publically refuted and Penn State starts to defend its response to the whole Sandusky situation, views like the above will continue to be expressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and francofan
Ganim's first article came out March 31, 2011 and it's possible that's where he heard about it. BOT members claimed to be ignorant of it although one pressed Spanier at the Trustees meeting about what was going on.

That said there are bodybuilding.com posts from 2010 about Sandusky and that something was going down...so yeah, I'm sure at least some BOT members knew in early 2011 if not earlier.

Didn't you have a brother-in-law or friend that had ties with PSU's PR firm and said Joe was lucky to be dead based on what he knew? Did he ever elaborate on that?

Not me on the brother-in-law stuff. Must be confusing me with another poster on that one.

Again, when my buddy told me about this it kind of went right into my "don't really care" portion of my listening brain because it was 2011 and Sandusky was 10+ years removed from PSU. So I did not press him on where he heard it. From my recollection and my assumption, just from knowing him, I kind of just assumed he heard it at one of the local bars. He is not exactly a newspaper reading type guy. he works weird shifts at one of the hotels, so he hangs at the local bars downtown on odd nights and times. Like he'll have Tuesday and Wednesday off, so he'll be hanging at bars those days when they are relatively empty. I just assumed he got it from a bar in State College.
 
That said there are bodybuilding.com posts from 2010 about Sandusky and that something was going down...so yeah, I'm sure at least some BOT members knew in early 2011 if not earlier.

I had heard rumblings during the 2010 football season. I asked a local woman I know about it. She told me that was crazy. Then she called me and let me know she spoke with a cop friend who said there is some smoke there. So it was definitely out prior to Ganim.

If the Freeh Report is shown to be the farce that it is, it will be clear that Freeh and the OAG were colluding and that Freeh was not independent.

Well isn't this the basis of Sandusky's appeal? I'm all for getting to the truth. I'm not saying Sandusky is innocent, but if this stuff is true, then he should get a retrial at minimum.
 
Has no legal bearing.

I didn't say it did. I just said that repudiating the Freeh Report would lead to the conclusion that the OAG manufactured the cases against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.
 
Well isn't this the basis of Sandusky's appeal? I'm all for getting to the truth. I'm not saying Sandusky is innocent, but if this stuff is true, then he should get a retrial at minimum.

As I understand it, as described in Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog, the basis for Sandusky's appeal is newly discovered evidence including the McChesney diary and the alumni BOT's critical review of the Freeh Report documenting collusion between the OAG and Freeh and prosecutorial misconduct including grand jury leaks. It also details a Sandusky trial jurror (jurror 0990) who was a Penn State professor who had been interiewed by Freeh investigators and had a grudge against Penn State and was not forthcoming in the voir dire interview in front of the judge. The appeal asks for evidentiary hearings with Freeh, Fina, McChesney, Judge Cleland, and others to investigate the transgressions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
Oh God, you’re one of “those” parents. I’ve coached kids with parents like you. They’re 10 and 12 and you already have them playing at a high D-1 level university. Give me a break. Many kids at that age show “athletic prowess”....it takes a lot more than that to get to the D-1 level.

No poop. That's why I said that there's a long way between 10/12 and college. I thought it was pretty clear that I was acknowledging there was a long way between 10/12 and the college decision when I said there was a long way between 10/12 and the college decision. Help me help you.

If you coached kids with parents like me, you'd be grateful, as my kids are respectful toward their coaches, their teammates, opponents and umps alike. They give max effort (most times) and like to have fun while doing so. And their parent provides whatever support is needed or asked for by the program or the coach, but otherwise hangs out with the other parents having a good time.

So, maybe you're one of "those" coaches.
 
Oh God, you’re one of “those” parents. I’ve coached kids with parents like you. They’re 10 and 12 and you already have them playing at a high D-1 level university. Give me a break. Many kids at that age show “athletic prowess”....it takes a lot more than that to get to the D-1 level
Exactly. When this buddy of mine told me, it was at least 6-7 months before the story broke. We call each other about once per month just to touch base and stay in touch with each other. We were talking about other things, and he brought this up. At the time, I actually paid it no attention to it because in my mind, Sandusky no longer meant anything to Penn State so he was irrelevant. Again, there is absolutely no way anyone will ever convince me that the power-players within the BOT did NOT know about this 6-12 months before it broke.... Remember, these are not stupid people. These are all intelligent people, with the financial access to lawyers, consultants, risk management professionals, law enforcement agents, and politicians.... the power-players on the BOT are definitely people with the right contacts to get some excellent advice..... So having 6-12 months to advance plan.... Having 6-12 months to "get in front of the story".... Having 6-12 months to pre-script the response....... The plan that they devised was one that resulted in McQuery being credible, the 2nd Mile having no affiliation, Paterno's name getting destroyed, Spanier's name getting destroyed, The University's name getting destroyed, and the football program which is a financial life-line of the University getting penalized...... Makes you go Hmmmmm.

If this was the plan that they devised with 6-12 months of lead time, then either:
a) they are protecting some other very powerful entities/people
or,
b) they are grossly negligent and stupid
wasnt it in the cdt in April?
I guy who I play golf with brought it up from the article, and he had no psu affiliation and we live in Massachusetts
 
I had heard rumblings during the 2010 football season. I asked a local woman I know about it. She told me that was crazy. Then she called me and let me know she spoke with a cop friend who said there is some smoke there. So it was definitely out prior to Ganim.
.

Weren't there posts right here on the McA board all though the 00s dropping hints about JS? I recall seeing things and then the posts would be removed, iirc. I also thought it was nonsense, someone being an ass by saying things against TSM and JS that were in essence just throwing stuff against the wall to get a reaction.

So, the rumors were there, and perhaps probably started by McQ telling people that he saw JS in the shower one night, and absolutely no one having the thought of doing any more with what they were told by him except repeating it or shrugging it off. If this theoretical has some merit, how serious was what he actually saw that in over all those years, he did nothing else with it except for mention it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
It sounds like you've found a lot of success in life even though you attended Penn State. :confused: My guess is your fondness of the university hasn't lessened because of the Sandusky fallout discussions. Your above post makes it obvious it's really due to your self-loathing over having attended a lowly state university. You prefer to be associated with the brand name private schools - Harvard, MIT, Brown, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc. If that makes your life complete then go for it.

I'd hope that most people would be hoping and reaching for the best for their children. If circumstances change, or there are other fits, you adjust and find contentment and opportunity with those. Realizing that those institutions I listed, and others like them, are preferred destinations to a PSU, generally, shouldn't be an insult, or earth-shattering news to anyone.

But there was a time, in the not too-distant past, when PSU was making a lot of head-way in being a very good option to some of those institutions for those who were either just a notch below in educational attainment, or those who couldn't afford those institutions, or even for those who just didn't want to venture that far from home, and found the convenience of a local school of value. They were rising up the charts of respectability, even while trying to managing the challenge of balancing being a huge university, catering to a mass of people, while also providing elite educational opportunities.

They appear to have gotten away from that, somehow becoming more expensive while, at the same time, becoming less effective.

Spending all this time and effort trying to "right this wrong" surrounding the Freeh Report ... that's not for the kids who are there now, or may be considering attending in the future. That's so some older folks can feel better about their idols. There's way too much stuff that needs fixing for the future, to be putting this much time and effort into trying to fix the past.

You need folks that are looking to get PSU on the path toward being worthy of inclusion with those "brand name" schools.
 
No poop. That's why I said that there's a long way between 10/12 and college. I thought it was pretty clear that I was acknowledging there was a long way between 10/12 and the college decision when I said there was a long way between 10/12 and the college decision. Help me help you.

If you coached kids with parents like me, you'd be grateful, as my kids are respectful toward their coaches, their teammates, opponents and umps alike. They give max effort (most times) and like to have fun while doing so. And their parent provides whatever support is needed or asked for by the program or the coach, but otherwise hangs out with the other parents having a good time.

So, maybe you're one of "those" coaches.
Since there is a long way until that decision is made, I suggest you dial back the expectations a bit.

And I had a ton of parents like what you described....in fact most of my parents were supportive and helpful and pretty much all of the kids I coached were respectful and coachable and a lot of fun to be around. The parents that weren’t helpful were the ones with unrealistic expectations (apparently like you) or thought their kids had “athletic prowess” (also like you).
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrisrn1965
I'd hope that most people would be hoping and reaching for the best for their children. If circumstances change, or there are other fits, you adjust and find contentment and opportunity with those. Realizing that those institutions I listed, and others like them, are preferred destinations to a PSU, generally, shouldn't be an insult, or earth-shattering news to anyone.

But there was a time, in the not too-distant past, when PSU was making a lot of head-way in being a very good option to some of those institutions for those who were either just a notch below in educational attainment, or those who couldn't afford those institutions, or even for those who just didn't want to venture that far from home, and found the convenience of a local school of value. They were rising up the charts of respectability, even while trying to managing the challenge of balancing being a huge university, catering to a mass of people, while also providing elite educational opportunities.

They appear to have gotten away from that, somehow becoming more expensive while, at the same time, becoming less effective.

Spending all this time and effort trying to "right this wrong" surrounding the Freeh Report ... that's not for the kids who are there now, or may be considering attending in the future. That's so some older folks can feel better about their idols. There's way too much stuff that needs fixing for the future, to be putting this much time and effort into trying to fix the past.

You need folks that are looking to get PSU on the path toward being worthy of inclusion with those "brand name" schools.
PSU will never be compared to Harvard or MIT. It is still a very good alternative for excellent students who either cannot get in to Harvard/MIT or cannot afford them.

I hope your kids can get into/attend whatever schools they want. But I hope as a parent you realize that is far more likely that they will go to Umass-Dartmouth than MIT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUMATT85
PSU will never be compared to Harvard or MIT. It is still a very good alternative for excellent students who either cannot get in to Harvard/MIT or cannot afford them.

I hope your kids can get into/attend whatever schools they want. But I hope as a parent you realize that is far more likely that they will go to Umass-Dartmouth than MIT.
And it’s far more likely they will play athletics for Clarion (or not at all) than for Stanford or Vanderbilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC
Anthony, I am late to the thread here but I wanted you to know that I back your efforts and while there are other priorities that need to be addressed at PSU, this to me is still the highest priority. Fixing this gets to the soul of the university. Our Brand was in large part developed by JoePa even before the concept of a Brand was widespread. Keep at it and if I can help as many on this board would also help, let us know what we can do.

WE ARE because HE WAS!
 
Definitely support. My concern however is that unless this topic gets any media push, it will never go anywhere. To those that say let it go, it is a shame that you do not care about the unneeded reputation damage, the college experiences spoiled, and the lives ruined by this coverup and grandstanding by our state officials and certain members of our BOT. It’s a shame that you are ok with the Big Ten and NCAA literally stealing tens of million dollars from us.
My son was a freshman in 2011. The 11.9/11 BOT terrorists owe ALL students of that era substantial compensation for the lifetime negative impact they inflicted - rooted in their personal $ gain and preservation for their own affiliation with the second mile. Students of that era did have a front row seat viewing corruption in action. Those lessons learned will, depending on the student's character, serve them well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric_M
I think this is a nice gesture but it's at best symbolic noting it is far too late in the game for this to have any real meaningful impact. Sort of like the Catholic Church coming around on Galileo some 300 years too late - by then, no one cared and for Galileo the damage was done. I don't know that there's much anyone can do to help reverse the damage. Like others, I think your time is better spent improving the university and the experience for the students there. And maybe take a sec before approving massive spending projects without consideration for a) the cost and if it could be done cheaper, and b) the opportunity cost.

Thanks for your service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePennsyOracle
I think this is a nice gesture but it's at best symbolic noting it is far too late in the game for this to have any real meaningful impact. Sort of like the Catholic Church coming around on Galileo some 300 years too late - by then, no one cared and for Galileo the damage was done. I don't know that there's much anyone can do to help reverse the damage. Like others, I think your time is better spent improving the university and the experience for the students there. And maybe take a sec before approving massive spending projects without consideration for a) the cost and if it could be done cheaper, and b) the opportunity cost.

Thanks for your service.
He can't do both?
 
PSU will never be compared to Harvard or MIT. It is still a very good alternative for excellent students who either cannot get in to Harvard/MIT or cannot afford them.

I hope your kids can get into/attend whatever schools they want. But I hope as a parent you realize that is far more likely that they will go to Umass-Dartmouth than MIT.

Well, you can't make that claim based on anything other than a generic application of statistics/probability ("given that there are X amount of slots at School A, and Y amount of slots at School B, they're more likely to go to School B" type of analysis), which isn't very relevant. It doesn't take inherent individual abilities, opportunities or other advantages into consideration.

It's highly unlikely any particular individual goes to either of those specific schools (MIT or UMass-Dartmouth), but if you meant to convey schools like them, well, based on their current level of achievement/inherent intelligence, it's more likely they go to an MIT-level school than one of the public bottom feeders, like UMass-Dartmouth. However, given how bad schools like UMass-Dartmouth are (if you had used UMass-Amherst, you would have a better argument), and how competitive admissions at schools like MIT are, it's not extremely likely they go to either "type" of school. Both my boys are at the top of standardized testing, and academic performance in their schools, and they have an inherent aptitude for, and appreciation for, learning (they're self-motivated and naturally inquisitive/analytical ... mommy and daddy aren't pushing them, and they aren't spending vast amounts of time and energy trying to achieve what they've achieved), so I'd place their odds at "better than most."

But your point that PSU will never be compared to MIT or Harvard is ... well ... missing the point. A PSU Schreyers college experience, for example, could be roughly equivalent to a MIT or Harvard experience, or, at least, a close enough experience as to be extremely attractive for those who didn't get into MIT or Harvard, or who can't attend those schools for whatever reason (monetary issues, etc.).

And those in charge of PSU should be making every effort to maximize their student's return on educational investment, rather than directing effort toward righting some wrong from the past, which does nothing to benefit future students.
 
And it’s far more likely they will play athletics for Clarion (or not at all) than for Stanford or Vanderbilt.
Agreed. But I'm not just talking about sports. Even if you consider just academics, if you think about who the academic "rock stars" (as it were) in your elementary school class, how many of them went to an Ivy League school (or MIT or Stanford)?

In thinking back to my sixth grade class (and using the wonders of facebook), the top few folks in my class went to:

Middlebury (which is a very good liberal arts school, but certainly not Harvard/MIT/Stanford)

NYU (again very good liberal arts school, but not Harvard/MIT/Stanford)

and (wait for it...)

Pitt

There was one guy from my sixth grade class who went on to go to Yale, but when he was 12 he was mediocre at best.
 
ADVERTISEMENT