The same question would apply to Emmert. What can he say without opening himself/NCAA to litigation? That was my question.
This is the key to why PSU was torched and the others will not/have not been. As a judge asked,"who hires an investigator/lawyer to blow their own brains out?"Thanks Rod.
"Take the name off the building or we will."
Then why have they not acted in a similar way since?The answer IMO is simple. They were not invited.
On the whole, it’s hard to disagree. But it wasn’t just a weapon that was handed over, it was also a signed blank check for funds drawn from the account of a then-hero turned pariah. It was like opening a barn to 4 packs of hungry wolves and expecting the chickens and cows to be protected and handled with discretion.
Simple rule: people do what’s in their interest. If it’s not in their interest, don't expect people just do the right thing. In the settlement where they removed the sanctions and re-rewrote the record books, they required a statement by PSU that the NCAA acted in good faith. I’m not questioning the decision by those at PSU under the circumstances as I wasn’t involved and don’t know what went into the settlement decision. But at this point, I don't see it being in anyone’s interest to say they erred anytime soon. The less they have to think or talk about it, the better for them. “Let’s stop talking about it” is the recurring theme.
