Yes, paying the settlements was the right call to keep as many of the details quiet as possible.
Wanting somebody else to pay the settlements turned out to be the opposite of that stategy! HAA!
Paterno knew about Sandusky in the 1970s (link)
- Thread starter michigangoblue999
- Start date
Yes, paying the settlements was the right call to keep as many of the details quiet as possible.
Wanting somebody else to pay the settlements turned out to be the opposite of that stategy! HAA!
It's the Trustees fiduciary responsibility to try to get the insurance company to pay up.
In many of the cases from Thursday's ruling, the court agreed that the insurance company was responsible for paying.
I get it, the insurance company isn't happy --- that's why they decided to go and leak the information from the "sealed" depositions stories to the press.
That's what's going on here. They aren't happy they lost a portion of the lawsuit. So they looked to embarrass Penn State for filing claims, playing to the portion of the general public that is still obsessed with Penn State's past (which can't be changed anyway).
So it goes. Although big picture and how it effects Penn State's future: it's really no big deal.
Last edited:
As I said previously in this thread, Penn State's "insurance company claim route" was the correct strategy.
Fair enough, the insurance company decided upon a "if we lose, leak and embarrass" strategy. I still think it's a "net positive ROI" for Penn State. They are liable for paying less $, and the embarrassment isn't that substantial.
I think there's little risk of "additional penalties" from the NCAA. I'd put the odds of the NCAA getting back involved at 100:1. One punishment was already served without complaint by the school. There won't be additional punishment because Penn State was "very very bad" as opposed to "very bad."
I just love the irony that the trustees ended up shooting themselves in the foot over some money. And then blaming it on the media. HAA! That strategy always works well.....
Having these stories come out at this time certainly can't be good for Penn State. That's why Barron had his hissy fit over the weekend.
How exactly is this "not good for Penn State?"
Again, my points from earlier that you're not addressing: (1) it was the Trustees' fiduciary responsibility to try to get the insurance company to pay up, and (2) PSU WON a portion of the lawsuit.
I get it, the "HA HA Penn State" crowd is loving this story. So what? They're fairly irrelevant here as regards Penn State's future.
Last edited:
I think what he is saying is that PSU did the financially correct thing in trying to get the insurance companies to pay some portion of the claims but it wound up putting the issue back in the spotlight and even made the entire Paterno was some version of Mr. Magoo and was not complicit in the acts of Sandusky less believable.
Financially made sense but gave credibility to the 'crowd' that thinks PSU/Paterno was covering this up on some level. As the article indicated...PSU didn't want these things to go to trial and settle up and create a veil of secrecy but the insurance claim unmasked some stuff that PSU was looking to keep quiet.
RM
Financially made sense but gave credibility to the 'crowd' that thinks PSU/Paterno was covering this up on some level. As the article indicated...PSU didn't want these things to go to trial and settle up and create a veil of secrecy but the insurance claim unmasked some stuff that PSU was looking to keep quiet.
RM
From a financial strategy...it was a good course of action.
Now...when you factor in the net gain monetarily with the PR mess (legitimizes the belief that Paterno/PSU were rightly punished)...was it a good deal in your mind? Yes...for you. What about the University as a whole 25 years from now? I am not quite sure.
Here is my question to you MNL. Do you think that the President and PSU would go this route again after the information was leaked? Factor in all variables. Personally they may have saved some money but the leaks were damaging. I think you would agree.
RM
Sure, I'd go down that route again (settle with nearly everyone and file the claims).
Yes, there was a PR hit. The value of that PR hit? I'm honestly not sure it's that substantial. One-time Penn State folk had a major screw up many years ago as regards Sandusky. Same story, a story people have heard many times before, except on a different timeline. I honestly don't think anyone really changed their opinion based on the last week.
I suppose the NCAA could get back involved, and that would be a monetary problem of course. But I seriously doubt that happens. Penn State was already punished (rightfully) for being bad in the past. Do we go back to that well because they were "extra bad"?
I don't think the NCAA will get re-involved or even wants to deal with this mess. As like most people...it's too uncomfortable which is why people keep a distance in regards to any kind of sexual abuse.
Here is what I have said and will say it once more. This is mostly about Sandusky and rightfully so. PSU is a fine institution but the recent revelations (in my mind) really give more credence that PSU/Paterno/Admin wanted to bury this issue. It reminds me a lot of the CC...nobody (even UM) wants something like this on their doorstep or media condemnation and humiliation.
PSU may have saved some money but in my mind and in the minds of many others...it undermines the entire Paterno was victimized and did everything he could to stop Sandusky. He did not and deserves plenty of historical criticism.
RM
Here is what I have said and will say it once more. This is mostly about Sandusky and rightfully so. PSU is a fine institution but the recent revelations (in my mind) really give more credence that PSU/Paterno/Admin wanted to bury this issue. It reminds me a lot of the CC...nobody (even UM) wants something like this on their doorstep or media condemnation and humiliation.
PSU may have saved some money but in my mind and in the minds of many others...it undermines the entire Paterno was victimized and did everything he could to stop Sandusky. He did not and deserves plenty of historical criticism.
RM
It didn't change minds, but I think it did move the needle. You could maybe say Paterno was just a doddering old fool who screwed the pooch in 2001 with a straight face. But now we know this goes back much further. It puts a more sinister veil on Paterno's legacy, in my opinion.
The 1971 allegation, if one assumes it's true --- it's more than slightly disturbing.
I can easily ascribe motive to Paterno in 2001. Older guy, endebted to Sandusky a bit for helping his own career, scared of giving up coaching football because he knew the "next milestone in his life would be dying" (he was quoted on this all the time)
I can't ascribe motive as easily in 1971. What's motive then? Sandusky's just some late twenty-something, barely beyond being a kid. A 2-year assistant LB coach. Definitely not a vital cog in Penn State Football, Inc. as of yet. The 2nd Mile doesn't exist yet. Paterno has the prime of his coaching career ahead of him instead of behind him. The future is very bright for Joe.
So just throw Sandusky under the bus --- shoot, he deserves it anyway, he's assaulting young boys. Easy as 1-2-3, there's probably not even a short-term bump for Penn State football.
Of course, one does not have to ascribe motive. But usually there is a motive.
I don't know. It's kind of odd, right?
I can come up with 2 motives, but they're both honestly kind of crazy. (1) Sandusky, even in 1971, has something terrible that he can threaten Paterno with. (2) Someone else is threatening Paterno, telling him that nothing can be done regarding Sandusky.
Last edited:
No, both sound far-fetched. Look at BWI today. Some people don't want to admit this problem exists. But once the initial mistake was made, the subsequent doubling-down to save your reputation makes sense.
Past history shows that there often aren't clear motives in these kinds of things. Maybe Sandusky denied it and Paterno believed him, at least the first time. Or it was "he said he said" so it was just easier not to do anything. Maybe there was a presumption that because it was boys it was consensual. Lots of reasons to rationalize inaction and look the other way when doing something would be distasteful and difficult on a number of levels.
I completely agree with your comment. Contrary to the PSU diehards (most of them)...these statements under perjury have credibility regardless of whether the PSU President want's to deny them or spin them away.
I think most reasonable people see this now as a child molester/rapist in Sandusky who was enabled by Paterno and PSU. I remember the Catholic Archdiocese Bishop (Mahoney/LA?) basically having his career destroyed. I was out in Southern California at the time and I followed the situation since I was raised catholic and try and stay informed on current events.
I see similarities between Mahoney and Paterno. Both did a lot of wonderful things and aren't bad people but showed bad judgement. I think hindsight is easier and the world has changed but two men who probably were very uncomfortable with what was unfortunately going on.
RM
True.
Life ain't easy --- we're challenged in many ways and the "distasteful and difficult" things aren't necessarily easy to do. But 35 years? It's honestly mind-boggling.
It's never too late to start doing the right things.
Once you start letting it slide and there are no consequences (the kids and their parents aren't going to the police, or maybe the police are involved with the enabling in a few cases), it's the path of least resistance to keep letting it slide.
Question for the board concerning the Penn State situation. Can/will the conference discipline the school if the allegations are proven to be true?
No, I don't think there will be any further punishments.
PSU fans will clamor for the trophy to be put back up, and the fact that it won't will be punishment enough for them.
You got it right..it probably didn't change many minds...maybe a few but it did move the needle which goes to your point michigangoblue999. There will be no further punishments...the fact that Paterno is now associated with the enabling (right or wrong) is punishment enough for him and his family/legacy.
PSU diehards should just come to the following conclusion...PSU and it's fans can be proud of their coach but the Big Ten will not recognize him on a trophy. It's a tragedy that this happened but WE all need to learn from this going forward. Don't try and sweep any kind of abuse under the rug or wish it to go away.
RM
PSU diehards should just come to the following conclusion...PSU and it's fans can be proud of their coach but the Big Ten will not recognize him on a trophy. It's a tragedy that this happened but WE all need to learn from this going forward. Don't try and sweep any kind of abuse under the rug or wish it to go away.
RM
This is great news for PSU.
They wanted transparency and opening up these files will help shed light on who knew & when they knew!
They wanted transparency and opening up these files will help shed light on who knew & when they knew!
Last edited:
"I wish I had done more..."-JoePed.
Possibly the worthless POS realized sending an email the next day when a kid is being assaulted was not the right response?
Again, why do you suck so much?
Last edited:
Clearly it bothers you that even POS JoePed had regrets over letting Sandusky run wild. As a ped lover, this must trouble you.
"I wish I had done more..."-JoePed.
Are you a ped yourself, or just a ped lover? I certainly hope parents in your area are aware of how disturbed you are.
"I wish I had done more .."-JoePed.
"I wish I had done more..."-JoePed.
See, even a worthless POS like JoePed saw the problem. Maybe there's a chance for a worthless ped lover like you. Probably not.
