nittanyroar2012

BOB better win some games early and big or we're not going to have any recruiting class next year.

There are some very interesting rebuttals in here, not that the media, and especially ESPN, will give them much mind. I was impressed with the deconstruction of the disingenuous use by the Freeh Report of the 1998 incident to establish a pattern of behavior on the part of the "gang of four" to "repeatedly" conceal and disregard facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse despite the fact that numerous investigations found no basis for criminal charges. They also take to task the Freeh Report's moralizing attempt to indict the "gang of four" for not punishing Sandusky for the 1998 case despite the reports own acknowledgement that no crime had been committed. Only in Freeh World are institutions expected to punish without cause. The sophomoric nature of the report is clearly exposed here. The Lewis rebuttal also makes crystal clear that the Freeh claim that the "Gang of Four" intentionally concealed the 2001 incident hinges entirely on the questionable testimony of one man: Mike McQueary. Freeh, like Corbett, chose to accept the testimony of McQueary against that of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier because it served his narrative. As Lewis points out, the testimony of Dr. Dranov contradicts that of McQueary, and supports that of Spanier, Schultz and Curley. I guess we know why it was left out of the Freeh Report. Interestingly, the only charge that Sandusky was acquitted on was the one that relied on the testimony of McQueary. As a side note, I am increasingly convinced that Corbett used McQueary to contradict Curley and Schultz as a way of beating the bushes to flush out victims. If he accepted the testimony of Curley and Schultz, and failed to charge them for perjury, the investigation would have died. Instead, by charging them, even if he thought they might be telling the truth, he managed to flush out the victims under the blazing scrutiny of the media scandal his decision created. Whatever one thinks about the consequences of this strategy for Penn State, if it was indeed his intent, it did work in identifying victims and putting a predator behind bars.

Love this logic coming out of UNC: "UNC says it shared the results of its original internal probe with the NCAA ... And so far, it looks as if the AFAM situation has been deemed an institutional, rather than an NCAA, issue because the classes were open to non-athletes and it appears the problems originated on the academic, rather than athletics, side." So let's see. No athletic or academic problems at Penn State, only institutional problems seemingly outside NCAA authority, so let's hammer them. Meanwhile, at UNC, we'll ignore flagrant academic cheating in athletic programs. Makes sense to me!