redblooded

Yeah, probably, but it'd be a lot less popular.

Sorry but no. He got fired because he was part of the chain of command that this went through and got shoved under the rug by. That much is documented and admitted. It is not a witch hunt. I don't understand how people can divorce themselves from reality enough to think that this was just a convenient opportunity to get rid of the guy. He tied their hands the day he found out about what went on in 2002 and didn't go directly to the authorities and continued to have Sandusky around the program... and that's assuming he was ignorant of the situation that went on before Sandusky was removed as DC in the 90s. Which isn't very plausible. Funny, but I have yet to read of or see any evidence where this was "shoved under the rug" by Paterno. That's media supposition at it's finest, as is the posting by the media and general public on boards and blogs all over the internet about how he must have been thinking about his reputation/wins/legacy versus the safety of those kids. Sandusky had never been arrested for, nor charged with nor found guilty of any sort of crime (and still hasn't), so how exactly do you justify cutting off all ties with the person based on second hand accounts and hearsay? It's not as if Paterno actually witnessed anything that would have made what you are purporting he do - completely block access to all campus facilitys/programs etc,- actionable without putting the university and himself at risk (and even had he done so, there is zero evidence that it would have prevented Sandusky from continuing to molest children). Did JoePa know about what happened in the shower involving his former staff member? yes, he himself admitted that to a grand jury. Did he report it directly to the police? No. There you go. He's not being charged with a crime because he did not lie about that. That doesn't mean the workplace where this was swept under the rug, by the people that this was known by, needs him to be charged with a crime to see that it was a huge problem. By not being immediately turned over to police it was a problem and that was compounded by having the man accused still around the program. His inaction and those of his direct superiors (which is laughable at penn state) enabled a child rapist. Get that through your head. Everyone involved needs to be and will be canned whether they are facing indictments or not. They taint the entire institution if you allow them to remain.

No, it's not odd. It's a direct result of indictments by a grand jury.

I know he was probably getting asked all week, but someone in his position should have a huge red flag go up when asked to comment on something like this and realize that he can't add anything to what is going on and doesn't even want a part of it as university official, friends and colleagues or not. It's good someone explained that to him I guess.

Sorry but no. He got fired because he was part of the chain of command that this went through and got shoved under the rug by. That much is documented and admitted. It is not a witch hunt. I don't understand how people can divorce themselves from reality enough to think that this was just a convenient opportunity to get rid of the guy. He tied their hands the day he found out about what went on in 2002 and didn't go directly to the authorities and continued to have Sandusky around the program... and that's assuming he was ignorant of the situation that went on before Sandusky was removed as DC in the 90s. Which isn't very plausible.

The BoT hands were tied. That isn't something you get to exit on your own terms from.

The guy has multiple sexual sexual harassment allegations, and monetary settlements including NDAs. Yet people really think this is some sort of shakedown? The damn sad thing is, these allegations are the smallest reason why he shouldn't be elected. Reason number one is the guy is a freaking idiot. From things like "china developing nuclear weapons" to Islamic Mosques using the first amendment to violate the separation of church and state if you listen to him talk it's clear he has no idea what the hell he's talking about quite a bit. This is the republican frontrunner for gods sakes. How many halfwits and twits are in that party and voting for this guy?? Probably the same bunch of people that were trying to rewrite the history of Paul Revere's ride when Palin got hit with a "gotcha" question about elementary school history at a site she was visiting. Take a step back and think about this for a minute, as a party... right now... this is the best you've got.

She does a better job than most w/ the injury reports and other sideline type of things. It's not as though we are expecting them to analyze the game for us... Or they could pan a camera at the sideline and have the booth relay injuries. My point is the sideline "reporter" serves no real purpose in most of the broadcasts other then chasing a coach down at halftime and talking to him about what everyone just saw for themselves.

I don't know about that. Employs Mark May: ESPN = Yes BTN = No Advantage = BTN Employs Lou Holtz: ESPN = Yes BTN = No Advantage = BTN Employs Erin Andrews: ESPN = Yes BTN = No Advantage = ESPN In two of the three most important categories in fan enjoyment of college football (not directly related to the game), BTN wins. No offense to her but they could mute Erin Andrews's mic and she'd still serve the same purpose she does on that channel. I don't consider her an actual plus in this day and age. It's not the early 90s anymore, there are thousands of hotter chicks you can see at any time in on the internet (without the bad sideline interviews and observations).

fans here claim it's Urban.......................he already bought a house and his daughter is going here Urban won't touch Penn State with a 10' pole. He's likely a shoe-in for tOSU, at any rate, and tOSU will be in a better position in 10 years' time than PSU will after the dust has settled from their respective scandals. And don't think the NCAA won't step in and levy sanctions against Penn State--if this isn't a complete lack of institutional control, then I don't know what is. This isn't how that works. People are going to get punished, but this isn't something the NCAA could (or should, or is even designed to) try and tack on punishment for. Anything they could do would look pretty meaningless and stupid against the seriousness of what happened... This is a criminal matter and these people belong in jail for the rest of their lives, and those that are loosely affiliated enough to slip through that will forever be tarnished by the scandal and their own moral failings.

You have got to be kidding me. What's so surprising about that? She hasn't been convicted of anything yet. People with DUI offenses don't lose their license pretrial either (it gets taken but they get a piece of paper that is a legal drivers license), if she completed the required course to get it reinstated with the DMV that's the way it works. You cant really punish people for things they aren't convicted of, that's the way the legal system is supposed to work. She sounds like a few women I knew when younger. Totally aloof on the road and probably someone you hold onto the handles in the car white knuckled as a passenger. Her voluntarily not driving says to me she has started to realize how serious this is and how perception is way out of whack for her as a high profile coach's little girl at a big program. It's an unfortunate position she's got her self in, but some of you are being a little ridiculous with possibly outcomes that could've resulted and just how harsh she should be punished. Removal from the team is silly, IMO, suspension for the season may be a bit harsh too. This is kinda the problem with public messageboard discussion trying to decide what is justice on these amateur athletes. She'll get appropriate punishment from the legal system. The university should treat them as a student first and if this was any other student we wouldn't know about it so she's already getting added punishment through community public embarrassment. I wouldn't underestimate that.

Supposedly PSU fans are turning in their tickets and the students are planning a boycott. So no.

Just to play devil's advocate because I don't know what they will do one way or the other, but I think the message it sends is that: if you have 2 members of your football staff (at least) that knew about this for years, and basically still associated themselves with someone they knew was a child raping sex offender while not turning it into authorities it will not be tolerated. As a rational person I'd have a hard time believing that the WR coach and JoePa were the only two who knew about these things as well. You don't think there was probably a few people around the office that had heard about Jerry? and maybe not to let him around their kids? The administration at PSU will be canning the chancellor, the AD is already gone, I'd assume Joe Pa and his entire staff is gone and probably anyone else who they figure out had knowledge and was complicit in covering it up. It's very much a legal issue for those indicted, but even those that weren't indicted aren't going to keep their jobs because they were still complicit. At that point who is going to be leading this team? does the university want to go ahead and put themselves out there for 4 hour broadcasts of coachless players and a recounting of how the penn state athletic department was responsible for covering up the rape of a child and continuned association with the accused ex-coach for almost a decade?

Because the staff knew, and they are about to get canned likely in the next few days and the entire athletic department (and probably the university as a whole) is going to be reeling from this for awhile. I'm sure as an institution the last thing the people that oversee penn state are thinking about at this point is 3 games for the football players. Yeah playing the games is probably what the football team wants, but they are going to be dealing with a lot of things they probably don't deserve if they do. including hundreds of reporters asking them about child sexual abuse that was going on and their relation to it, as well as fan disgust, ect... Post game press conferences about raping kids doesn't seem fair to them either.

It's not comparable at all. If you think someone at penn state is using this to free themselves from Paterno, well... Charges being filed and trials being imminent tend to bring stuff like this out in the light, nothing more. Just as presidential candidacy gets people going over your lifetime records.

There were more broncos fans around when they were good. I voted lions, but really I only watch them for Suh and the other the ex-huskers. Wasn't a fan before that except to watch sanders run. I don't really like pro-ball enough to watch it religiously. Most the time games end up as background noise while I do something else.

So a more advanced engine, better graphics, destructible environments, squad based gameplay, vehicles and about the most realistic warfare game ever don't trip your trigger? You're crazy son!!! I wouldn't waste $60 on Modern Warfare 2 Modern Warfare 3. It's basically just new weapons, reorganized perks and new models slapped onto the same half a decade old engine. I guess you have to give IW made props for being able to sell that garbage, though. Now that I've said that, though, I'm glad nobody knows I still generally pay full price for the new NCAA game every year. At least this last year it only cost me $35! Enhance, there are some folks that just can't handle what BF3 provides, bottom line. MW's success lies in its banality, simplicity, and the ease of which script kiddies can hack the games. It's part of the reason why Infinity Ward and Activision came to loggerheads--the former wanted to expand the franchise greatly, and the later was content to shovel the same **** out the door for $59.99 U.S. and rely on P.T. Barnum's Law of Consumer Creation and Categorization. Considering the braintrust behind MW (Infinity Ward) has mostly migrated over to EA and DICE, it's only a matter of time before Call of Duty goes the way of Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk Skateboard games. Uhh, there really isn't a way to stop hackers in any game. You can minimize the amount there are with decent cheat detection, but at its core these games are simply pieces of software that have to store things like enemy positions in memory. The more calculations you have to do for security double checks the slower the game is going to run so if you had a really hard to hack game (never would it be impossible) it wouldn't have all the graphic bells and whistles that drive the Masses. However games like counterstrike and quake don't have nearly the large amount of problems MW did (and BF3 will). Mainly because 3rd party server admins that would take care of their own servers and you could actually ban hackers. There is nothing wrong with simplicity in games. Nor is there anything wrong with people that don't find graphics and physics engines with destroyable environments and other eye-candy the equivalent of fun. For the past 4 or 5 years I've played a fair amount of cs gungame to pass time. It's not a hugely involved game, but it's fast paced and can be quit any time. That makes it fun for me. The graphics aren't as good as even MW, but the game is better, faster, and more entertaining. Arguing that engines make a game better is like arguing that candy land is better then chess because the board is more colorful.

Didn't Tom loose like 7 bowl games strait in the 80s and with QB Tommie Frazier drop the 92 ISU game? I mean come on, some of you need to get realistic, sometimes Nebraska loses... even games it shouldn't. Now if you want to take another spin on the coaching wheel for someone who will come to a place that will fire a coach who is a proven winner, consistently getting 9 wins a year, who has built a pretty good culture around his program and will see it pay off eventually with consistency... Well fine, but when whoever is the AD after Osborne is signing some ex-nfl reject for a multiyear high money deal titled "Callahan 2, revenge of the idiots without any perspective over-reacting". I'll laugh, to keep from crying, and stop watching football. Till that day though I'll be thankful that some of you have no actual say in such a decision.

Probably by far Martinez's best game of the year. They just weren't executing for consecutive plays for the first half. The defense can go ahead and give the blackshirts back though, looked as disorganized out there as they were the first 4 games.

I think Big XII top two teams, OU and OSU would beat anyone the B1G puts in front of them. NU, OSU and UW and maybe MSU could beat A&M. UW, OSU I think could beat UT. I didn't say NU bc UTerus always beats us. So, all in all, I think the Big XII has the best two teams, but if you look at the conference as a whole, the B1G has just as much depth as the Big XII. I think it depends on the point of the year where Nebraska saw OU/OSU personally and what injuries happened. There's no reason the MSU game couldn't have happened (albeit higher scoring) against OSU if the defense came together before Nebraska got there in the schedule. For every part of them not getting checked by the big 12 south you have to sprinkle in Nebraska was building to beat OU/OSU so it's not like they get a free pass. OSU beat a horrible Texas by 12. They are by no means indestructible. Either game could go either way, I wouldn't write in a victory for either Oklahoma team. OU is stronger if they don't let up, by far. always. OSU would get exposed by anyone with athletes enough to shut down everyone but blackmon if they could keep him in check...

i think i explained it fairly well. everything, all the possible things, are better. venues, teams, btn, and so on and so forth. Ohhhh we're talking about the Big Ten, I get it. Well from the perspective of a fan of the Big Ten prior to expansion I think you guys have definitely proven to be worth the move. Adding NU enriched the conference substantially...the races for the championship are incomparably better and now we have a CG, they are more than capable of being competitive in the league and as a program with national appeal now we're up to four marque teams. I think that may be more than any other conference, (SEC may beg to differ but other than Bama I'm not sure any of those teams is head and shoulders a national fan base team...maybe LSU...maybe, all the others are strong in their states and big in the region but I've never seen a Vol fan in Minneapolis or an Auburn fan in Topeka) That said AAU membership would be nice and we'll see how they fair in B-Ball. Have a feeling they're going to tear up baseball though. we are still embarrassed about the AAU debacle, and i imagine we will always be embarrassed by nebrasketball, but maybe this is our year. AAU membership could happen again if pride doesn't get in the way and even if it doesn't things will pan out alright. I'm thinking in 10 or 20 years UNL will improve its academics greatly from cooperating with its conference brethren in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, so even if its not in the AAU it'll be at the level. That's the awesome thing about the Big Ten, we're much more than just athletics. I'm not sure about Basketball yet though..we'll see how they translate to the conference. Out of curiosity you do realize the 2 swing votes that would have kept Nebraska in the AAU, If memory serves on the totals, were no votes from Wisconsin and another big ten school right? I cant remember who but I want to say Michigan? You aren't allowed to give Nebraska crap on that front if your school voted them out. Screw the AAU. It's definitely a pride thing now. It means absolutely nothing. Hey another person that flips sh#t because they think I'm talking smack. Great, hey how you doing? I'm not giving UNL crap for being kicked out of the AAU, read what I said, was any of that giving you guys crap? I was being positive and optimistic. Don't get so defensive when you see someone from another fanbase post. I'm not here to tear down NU, if I was I'd have gotten my kicks and been banned weeks ago, I'm here to talk CFB and the Big Ten, something we all enjoy. Chill. I read it wrong then. I think you'd have to do more to get banned then give the football board a hard time about aau membership. But according to the chancellor no actual difference between being a member or not, besides his invite to the snobatorium dinner and perception for the people that follow academics like football. if invited back as some point I'm sure we could dig up a monocle for Harvey.

i think i explained it fairly well. everything, all the possible things, are better. venues, teams, btn, and so on and so forth. Ohhhh we're talking about the Big Ten, I get it. Well from the perspective of a fan of the Big Ten prior to expansion I think you guys have definitely proven to be worth the move. Adding NU enriched the conference substantially...the races for the championship are incomparably better and now we have a CG, they are more than capable of being competitive in the league and as a program with national appeal now we're up to four marque teams. I think that may be more than any other conference, (SEC may beg to differ but other than Bama I'm not sure any of those teams is head and shoulders a national fan base team...maybe LSU...maybe, all the others are strong in their states and big in the region but I've never seen a Vol fan in Minneapolis or an Auburn fan in Topeka) That said AAU membership would be nice and we'll see how they fair in B-Ball. Have a feeling they're going to tear up baseball though. we are still embarrassed about the AAU debacle, and i imagine we will always be embarrassed by nebrasketball, but maybe this is our year. AAU membership could happen again if pride doesn't get in the way and even if it doesn't things will pan out alright. I'm thinking in 10 or 20 years UNL will improve its academics greatly from cooperating with its conference brethren in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, so even if its not in the AAU it'll be at the level. That's the awesome thing about the Big Ten, we're much more than just athletics. I'm not sure about Basketball yet though..we'll see how they translate to the conference. Out of curiosity you do realize the 2 swing votes that would have kept Nebraska in the AAU, If memory serves on the totals, were no votes from Wisconsin and another big ten school right? I cant remember who but I want to say Michigan? You aren't allowed to give Nebraska crap on that front if your school voted them out. Screw the AAU. It's definitely a pride thing now. It means absolutely nothing.

sometimes people have to be snapped back into reality, especially freshmen. There seems to be a pretty strong you play how you practice sentiment from the coaches aka don't half ass it if you want to play. If that was the case, it's by far the better long term decision to send a message now.

Word. If they are stacking the deck, making it impossible for me to acquire security and comfort, then I would see it as much more of a problem. But the 1% aren't preventing me from gaining wealth. I could conceive of a brilliant idea tomorrow and become wealthy. I could continue to earn a modest but comfortable wage in my current career. If they're not attacking my (and your) ability to live, why do I care how much money they have? This is one of the reasons why I don't understand this movement. What is the goal? What would be a "win?" I think the main goal seems to be getting the government to realize they represent the people, not the corporations, frankly government should be there to protect us from them. It doesn't anymore, between PACs, SuperPACs, the supreme court granting them essentially the rights of people (money as free speech). Corporations are already made up of people free to enter the political arena as they want, so it's basically double representation, IMO. Allowing them a seat at the table when their sole agenda is to make money without a care in the world for anyone but investors profits is a HUGE problem. It gets you awesome things like ACTA, The DMCA, software and business method patents... which are innovation stifling. You have cable companies that have regional monopolies for phone/internet/cable TV, which is a serious conflict of interest as far as competition (see netflix, level3, and comcast). You have people running things like the FCC approving NBC/Comcast mergers and then leaving office a month later to take a job as a Consultant/Lobbyist for the new merged company. It's shameless. As far as the wealth disparity... it does matter some, when the cost of things has risen and the middle class income hasn't, yet companies are paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to CEOs and the government is bailing out even those that make bad bets because they are "Too big to fail." That's simply unfair, because one, no company should ever be too big to fail. Frankly if they are it's time for another round of trust busting. Secondly there is almost zero accountability at the top and in wall-street unless you are just running a full blown ponzi scheme or outright cooking the books like enron. Third, you have all kinds of questionable practices going on now like HFT for instance, which is basically microsecond arbitrage, if you have enough money to stick your computers in the exchange data-centers. The quotes from the "Job Creators" last night on the daily show were hilarious... The whole "Well fine, we'll just fire people if they raise our taxes." Or Oreilly's "I might not be doing this anymore." So the opposition argument boils down to they'll take their ball and go home. The government spending is also entirely based on exponential growth in society and frankly that's bad policy. Especially when you grant the corporations and "job creators" that are supposed to be driving the economy insane tax loopholes like cayman island tax shelters, dutch sandwiches and the double Irish arrangements. p.s. News outlets characterizing Bank of America not going ahead with a $5 fee as a victory for OWS and Obama are just plain idiotic. I'm sure plenty of tea party supporters thought, "Jesus, now they are going to stick me for 5 dollars a month to use my money?" too. They can frame it however they want, but the fact of the matter is BoA was looking at a massive amount of people closing accounts and going to competitors who weren't adding those fees for them to back off. It wasn't pressure by any political movement.