The Nittany Turkey

Primarily about Penn State football, this is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Search This Site

Enter keyword(s) below to search for relevant articles.

Home Archives for Current Events Penn State Scandal

John Surma to Leave Board of Trustees in June

Posted on Written by

Citing “new and continuing business commitments”, U.S. Steel chairman and chief executive officer John Surma declared that he would cease to be a Penn State trustee in June. Yeah, this one was greeted with great shrieks of delight from BoT haters around the country. Why? Primarily because Surma was vice-chairman of the Board of Trustees when the Sandusky scandal broke, and he was the man who effected Joe Paterno’s denouement. To be fair, he was the point man; the actual decision was above his pay grade. Sure, as CEO of U.S. Steel, he could make the decision to fire his head coach, assuming that Big Steel had a football team, but in this case, it was a collaborative decision to fire Paterno. However, even though many agree that it had to be done, the manner in which it was handled was a major factor in fomenting hatred for the BoT in the hearts of alumni.

To refresh your memory, here’s how the firing was done. The BoT enlisted Fran Ganter, then an employee of the Penn State athletic department and formerly assistant head coach and offensive coordinator of the football team, to hand-deliver a message to the Paterno house during the after-dinner hours. The written message was a phone number that Joe was directed to call. When he did, it was Surma who answered and delivered a succinct message to the effect that Paterno was no longer an employee of Penn State University. Classy, eh?

Is it any wonder why alums hate Surma?  Well, now, in words last famously uttered by Richard M. Nixon after his defeat by Pat Brown, they won’t have John Surma to kick around anymore. He joins the similarly hated Chairman Karen Peetz in expressing the intention to leave a much maligned (deservedly) Board of Trustees in the past couple of months. Peetz stepped down as Chairman.

About Surma, current Chairman Keith Masser graciously, albeit incorrectly, stated, “Our community owes a significant debt of gratitude to John Surma and his family.” I don’t know which community Masser is talking about, but I owe Surma nothing. He could have handled the whole thing with the class Joe Paterno’s service to the university merited, but he let himself be sucked into the emotional vacuum stoked by the rapidity of events following the Sandusky revelations.

Sue Paterno’s Letter to Lettermen

Posted on Written by

The next issue on Catch-up Monday is Sue Paterno’s anticipatory letter sent to the Penn State football family portending the release of the report commissioned by the Paterno family.

In anticipation of the release of the report commissioned by the Paterno Family to criticize the Freeh Report, the late Joe Paterno’s widow Sue wrote a letter to Penn State Football lettermen (i.e., the “Penn State family). Sue and the Paterno family are conducting an extensive campaign centered on restoration of the name and legacy of the dishonored coach. I could write a lot more, but I’ll publish the entire text of the letter Sue wrote, which does a better job of getting its point across than I ever could.

February 8, 2013

Dear Christian,

For the past fourteen months I have refrained from commenting publicly about the Jerry Sandusky scandal and the related actions by the Board of Trustees, Louis Freeh, the President of Penn State and the NCAA. There have been many times, of course, when I wanted to speak out, but I needed time to deal with the loss of Joe and I believed also that this was a situation that demanded careful, thoughtful, objective analysis. The last thing Joe would have wanted is for me to become just one more voice making claims and assertions that were unsupported by the facts.

The crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky are heartbreaking. As a mother of 5 and grandmother of 17, it is incomprehensible to me that anyone could intentionally harm a child. I think of the victims daily and I pray that God will heal their wounds and comfort their souls.

As this story unfolded, Joe and I believed strongly that the first priority must be to uncover the full truth. Despite the Board of Trustees’ rash and irresponsible decision to fire Joe without ever speaking with him, we remained hopeful that the investigation they initiated with Mr. Freeh, along with simultaneous investigations by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, The Second Mile and other entities, would produce a clear and comprehensive record of what transpired. We also hoped that these investigations would result in an actionable set of lessons that other institutions could use to help prevent similar tragedies from unfolding. Sadly, neither outcome has developed.

When the Freeh report was released last July, I was as shocked as anyone by the findings and by Mr. Freeh’s extraordinary attack on Joe’s character and integrity. I did not recognize the man Mr. Freeh described. I am here to tell you as definitively and forcefully as I know how that Mr. Freeh could not have been more wrong in his assessment of Joe. I knew Joe Paterno as well as one human being can know another. Joe was exactly the moral, disciplined and demanding man you knew him to be. Over the years I watched as he struggled with countless personal and professional challenges. Never – not once – did I see him compromise his principles or twist the truth to avoid bad publicity or protect his reputation. Joe was tough, sometimes difficult, always opinionated and extremely demanding. He was also scrupulously honest, rigidly moral and absolutely unafraid of the consequences of doing the right thing.

After the Freeh report was released I knew immediately that the situation demanded further review. Unfortunately, the Board’s response was to panic again. They embraced the report without reviewing it. They never met with Mr. Freeh or his investigators. They asked no questions and challenged no assertions. Although they never officially voted to accept the report, they endorsed its findings and allowed the NCAA to impose unprecedented sanctions. To claim that this ill-considered and rash process served the victims and the university is a grave error. Only the truth serves the victims. Only the truth can help prevent this sort of crime from occurring again.

Although it was not something I ever imagined doing, I directed my lawyer, Wick Sollers, of the King & Spalding firm in Washington DC, to undertake a review of the Freeh report and Joe’s actions. I told him to engage the best, most respected experts, to take whatever time he needed and to go wherever the facts led. Sunday morning at 9am we are releasing the full Report by Wick and his team of experts. The report and additional information will be available at Paterno.com.

I will not attempt in this letter to summarize the Report of the experts except to say that they unreservedly and forcefully confirm my beliefs about Joe’s conduct. In addition, they present a passionate and persuasive critique of the Freeh report as a total disservice to the victims of Sandusky and the cause of preventing child sex offenses. I hope you can take the time to review the report and share it with friends and family.

In closing, I want to address two issues that have come up frequently over the last year. First, some critics say it is no longer appropriate for me or my family to comment further on this case and that the Freeh report and the actions of the NCAA should close the book on the Sandusky scandal. This cannot happen. The Freeh report failed and if it is not challenged and corrected, nothing worthwhile will have come from these tragic events.

Second, there has been endless speculation about what my family and I ultimately want to achieve. Is it the return of the statue? The restoration of Joe’s wins? His name on the football stadium? On this point I also want to be clear. Joe Paterno’s legacy wasn’t a statue, a winning record or public adulation. He was grateful for the many accolades he received but he never believed they defined his life. His legacy is his family and you his players. How you live your life speaks louder than any report. The great fathers, husbands and citizens you have become fulfill the dreams Joe had. All that we want – and what I believe we owe the victims, Joe Paterno and everyone who cares about Penn State – is the full record of what happened. On this point, I know the advice Joe would give. Don’t give up. Don’t be afraid. Do the right thing. And make sure your actions serve the greater good. This is the path I will continue to follow.

I thank you for your support and kindness. My heart and home will always be open to you.

Sincerely,

Sue

Inasmuch as statues, names on stadiums, 409 wins, etc., etc., etc. pale in comparison to a man’s lifetime of work sullied by a rush to judgment, I firmly believe that Sue’s aims are pure, and I don’t think she will be able rest until she accomplishes this final objective for Joe.

What about “the vvvvvvvvvvviccccccccctims”? Sure, Joe could have done more, had he really known what was going on. Did he know? I don’t think he had any idea. What Sandusky was doing had to be beyond Paterno’s wildest imagination. Beyond any of our imaginations. Admit it. It is easy to sit on your ass and say what you would have done if you were Joe in that situation. Hindsight is always 20-20. But I’ve got news for you, buddy, if you’re spewing that kind of crap: 1) Joe was one of a kind, you aren’t Joe, and you’ll never even be close to his stratum, 2) you really have no idea what you would have done in that situation, you hypothetical-spewing, smug hypocrite, and 3) you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. You’re just “pretty sure” or “almost positive” because you read it in a blog somewhere or on ESPN or in the CDT. They don’t know, and neither do you. So, can it!

It feels good to rant, even though I’ve been down that road before. As I’ve mentioned frequently in the past, writing is therapeutic for me; even if it is traumatizing for you to read it, I’d never have it any other way!

Stay tuned to the Turkey. I’ll be presenting my observations on the Sollers Report today, all 238 pages of it. I’ll be logging much bathroom reading time in the interim.

Legal Pissing Contest

Posted on Written by

Well, boys and girls, much water has flowed under the bridge since we last touched bases with respect to the NCAA vs. Penn State sanction morass, so your intrepid, albeit sporadic, reporter is here with his latest take on the happenings of this past several days, a particularly active period on the NCAA scum sucker front. The first subject we’ll address in the posts with which you will be bombarded today is the NCAA’s response to the antitrust suit filed by Governor Tom Corbett.

NCAA Files Motion to Dismiss

We all knew this one was coming when we first learned of the antitrust suit against the NCAA filed by Governor Tom Corbett on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on January 2. (See my analysis back then.) That’s why the NCAA has lawyers, at least the outside ones that are engaged to defend NCAA’s honor, such as it is. Naturally, their first cut at emerging victorious from this contest of wills is to get the case thrown out of court. Toward this end they have filed a motion  to dismiss, based on the key point that Pennsylvania is standing on thin ice trying to sue the high and mighty NCAA on issues surrounding discipline. In their dismissive comments, the NCAA posited that Pennsylvania was inappropriately attempting  “to drag the federal courts into an intra-state political dispute.”

Now, we’re all Philadelphia lawyers (this description fits some of you literally) and we’re all sports fans. So it is a sporting thing to do to analyze everything six ways to Sunday, create odds, make bets, and spend endless hours in barrooms bullshitting about every aspect of this case. Pseudo-experts abound and their opinions can be found just about everywhere — and you know what “they” say about opinions. Of course, to those who issue them, including hacks who publish or broadcast their opinions, these opinions are fact. That goes for this turkey, too. You don’t hear us blowhards spouting “it is my belief that…”. No. We say, “trust me when I tell you that…”. In other words, we’re “pretty sure”. Almost positive. How the hell can you be “almost” positive? But I digress.

Well, the NCAA lawyers, who are paid for their opinions, responded categorically to the issues raised by the January 2 filing by Pennsylvania. You can read the full text of the motion, but I’ll pull its four important points out of the legalese in case you don’t want to wade through it. I’ve interspersed my irreverent, ironical comments.

  1. Based on a precedent established by a ruling in a 1998 antitrust case, the NCAA’s regulation of college sports is subject to antitrust scrutiny only if it directly regulates economic activity. This, I think is the crux of whether the suit will ever go to trial, and it is the issue about which we all have been fed the most “expert” opinions.
  2. Even if the antitrust laws applied, the NCAA asserts that it is the guardian of the ethics and character of intercollegiate athletics, and that’s what makes college sports the wonderful thing that it is. This is based on a 1984 ruling that opined, “In performing this rule [the NCAA’s] actions widen consumer choice — not only the choices available to sports fans but also those available to athletes — and hence can be viewed as procompetitive [sic].” While I’m not sure this was true in 1984, lots has changed in the past 29 years in the world of college money sports, and I’m “almost positive” that it ain’t true now. But the NCAA takes off from this platform of being the ethical guiding light and standard-bearer for truth and justice in athletics to conclude that they weren’t punishing Penn State for what Jerry Sandusky had done, but rather that the “culture of reverence for the football program and a desire to protect it”  had imperiled the tender, developmental minds of the aspiring NFL millionaires on the team. In other words, contrary to what Pennsylvania alleges, it ain’t about Sandusky.
  3. The NCAA snottily determines that Pennsylvania insufficiently proves what markets are involved in its antitrust action, and it further fails to make its point that these ostensibly nebulous markets were subjected to lessened competition at the behest of the NCAA. The NCAA contends that competition in these nationwide markets (which apparently they can identify, even if the plaintiff can’t) couldn’t possibly have altered by anything the little ol’ NCAA did. Poor little us. Explaining further, the response states that while Penn State might have been “athletically disadvantaged” by the Consent Decree, the antitrust laws protect competition not competitors. Important legal distinction here for all you Philadelphia lawyers to debate over martinis, eh?
  4. Last, the legal geniuses at the NCAA are claiming that Pennsylvania isn’t “suing on behalf of anyone who has antitrust injury or standing to sue”. They’re betting all their marbles on the Consent Decree being the be-all and end-all feature of this case. Penn State signed it and Penn State will have to live with it. Even as patron of all things Pennsylvaniesque, Governor Corbett doesn’t have the authority to challenge the decision made by Penn State to sign the famous decree and accept its punishment. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

Now, you know and I know that the NCAA has enough dirty laundry to want to throw up a huge smokescreen and belay more adverse publicity. They certainly have had their share of calamities of late. However, in the clinical legal setting — unlike the infamous “court of public opinion” — all of that crap means nothing. Only the facts, the law, and how the judge(s) interpret the law as applied to the complaint matter. Are judges influenced by what they read in the newspaper and see on TV? They’re human, but the words “I’m almost positive” never appeared in a published legal decision.

So, we’ve been through the first round of point and counterpoint. Both sides made some reasonably good points and there are lots of shades of grey involved in this thing. I’d love for the NCAA to get their asses whipped here (particularly Emmert, who must be so unpopular now that even Vicky Triponey won’t talk with him), but there is no assurance that this case will ever see a courtroom. Who do you think scored points, and why?