Paterno's Wins Restored

[Grisly Fan]

Penn St and Montana have one thing in common. Two shitty, weak-spined, crappy presidents. They ran from their shadows. Both should be fired.

Both of whom had brains enough to know that to mount a major offensive at the time against overwhelming public opinion a national scale to preserve past legacy of a beleaguered football program would hurt the institution far more than pretending games were lost that everybody knew were won.

We shall see what the future holds for Montanas vacated wins.

In other words, they saved the NCAA the effort of having to overreact by overreacting themselves. An effort for which the NCAA says "thank you very much".

 

[kemajic]

We shall see what the future holds for Montanas vacated wins.

I can accept the scholarship reductions, because they eventually expire and our dues are paid for our minor control mistakes. I have never been able to accept the vacated wins because that remains a part of our history. An easy response would be that we need to look forward and not backward. I say BS on that; we have pride in our past accomplishments and to have wins remain vacated without a fight after the cave in to Penn St. gets my anger elevated.

 

[PlayerRep]

Penn St and Montana have one thing in common. Two shitty, weak-spined, crappy presidents. They ran from their shadows. Both should be fired.

Both of whom had brains enough to know that to mount a major offensive at the time against overwhelming public opinion a national scale to preserve past legacy of a beleaguered football program would hurt the institution far more than pretending games were lost that everybody knew were won.

We shall see what the future holds for Montanas vacated wins.

Nope, you are not correct and you are missing the point. Both presidents compounded the problems, including the PR problems, of the universities by taking the actions they took. Edit: No has ever suggested mounting a major offensive. However, doing the right things, have some principles, not rolling over (over and over), and being more active in telling the Missoulian to back off from its unfair and inaccurate reporting, would have been very helpful--and been "right".

In the case of Penn St, the president hired the wrong independent investigator (Freeh) and let him run wild. Freech didn't act as an independent investigator, he acted more as a prosecutor. Despite not having access to a majority of the important "players", as they were either subject to criminal investigation, dead or wouldn't talk, he completely jumped to conclusions and surmised what he thought may have occurred. For example, there is zero evidence that Paterno was involved in or influenced the decisions that the old president, AD and senior asst AD made with regard to the decision to talk to Sandusky first (and not go directly to legal authorites), other than an email (not copied to Paterno) in which the president or AD said he had thought about the situation more and talked to "Joe". The investigator does not know what was said in that conversation, and my view is that there is no way that Joe told anyone what to do or forced any decision.

Some of the independent investigator's bullet points in his report were just outrageous and not supported by the record. This fed the already large media frenzy. Then, the president, without authority from the Penn St board, panicked and agreed to the outrageous proposal by the ncaa. That was an unbelievably and unnecessary panicked response. Now it's known that even the ncaa knew its proposal was over-the-top and that it didn't have authority. Penn St should have just said No, and settled in a more reasonably manner. Talk about egg now on the faces of both sides.

In the case of Montana, Engstrom et al first panicked and appointed Barz to do an independent investigation, when there wasn't anything to investigate with an outside investigator. Total over-reaction. Nothing of note came of the investigation, other than bad press. The rumors or whatever that prompted that investigation didn't result in any action by the university or the police. Zero.

Then, for no reason other than perhaps to deflect attention from himself and satisfy unnamed people putting pressure on him, Engstrom fired the AD and coach. This fed the fire and created a large amount of suspicion as well as bad local and national press. This led to comparisons between Penn St and Montana. That was untrue and dumb at the time, and even dumber when looked at now. Engstrom also allowed an apparently incompetent dean to unfairly and incorrectly pursue sexual assault proceedings against JJ and others. Ultimately, JJ was vindicated, and not one player who hired an attorney was tossed out of school. Not one.

The firings and other university actions also left the athletic program leaderless, except for Gee, and severely set back the football program. This led to gross mishandling of the ncaa investigation. Not hiring outside legal counsel for the first 6 months. Then hiring a cheap but not particularly experienced attorney. Then not defending the investigation properly and completely rolling over to the ncaa and suggesting ridiculous penalties.

I could say more, but won't. These are all my opinions and views in any event.

 

[UMGriz75]

I can accept the scholarship reductions, because they eventually expire and our dues are paid for our minor control mistakes. I have never been able to accept the vacated wins because that remains a part of our history. An easy response would be that we need to look forward and not backward. I say BS on that; we have pride in our past accomplishments and to have wins remain vacated without a fight after the cave in to Penn St. gets my anger elevated.

Engstrom punished the kids that played in those games, the coaches that coached, and the fans that cheered. He stole their history and pride from them. Everything he did in that fiasco was a fiasco all by itself.

He displayed, at no given point, a single ounce of courage or integrity.

 

[UMGriz75]

In the case of Montana, Engstrom et al first panicked and appointed Barz to do an independent investigation, when there wasn't anything to investigate with an outside investigator. Total over-reaction. Nothing of note came of the investigation, other than bad press. The rumors or whatever that prompted that investigation didn't result in any action by the university or the police. Zero.

Appointing Barz made it a bizarre spectacle at the outset, and called into question Engstrom's judgment. Barz was a wonderful person, notable as the first female district court judge, and then served a short tenure on the Supreme Court where she was mostly in over her head. A terrific person, but not a legal scholar. She was surely not an "investigator." She had never done anything like that in her entire career. She had no skills or ability in undertaking anything like that.

So why appoint her, at $150 an hour?

A good local newspaper would have immediately asked the question, but we didn't have one. Barz was a feminist icon, and Sherry Devlin and Gwen Florio were not going to mess with THAT narrative in any way, shape or form.

But then, Barz came up with nothing. Absolutely nothing. She pointed no fingers at the coaching staff, in any event.

So what did Engstrom do in response to his self-proclaimed "get to the bottom of this" investigation? Fired the coach and AD who had not been named for any wrongdoing whatsoever in the "get to the bottom of this" investigation.

Seriously. That man commissioned a very public "investigation" and then fired two people who were NOT found by his investigation to have done anything wrong whatsoever. Engstrom gave a whole new meaning to the concept of "knee jerk reaction."

And to allegations of "rape nation," not once -- NOT ONCE -- did that fiasco of a president point to the available data to show that not only was it not true, the UM Campus was one of the safer places to be of any university campus in the nation. He refused to defend the University when there was an absolute defense for it.

From there, he careened to the "NCAA" settlement agreement, which was a farce, and the "DOJ settlement agreement" which he later admitted he had not read, and which is proving to a disaster implemented across college campuses with Title IX lawsuits flowering everywhere against administrators who followed Engstrom's lead.

For some reason, he's still there. He is an enduring monument to CYA.

 

[Umista]

Every time we bring this "unfounded (Engrstrom) rape charges against the UM football team disaster" up I get ticked off and downright mad. My wanting Engstrom to step down or be fired will never end until he is long gone.

I even wish Jordy Johnson would sue the university and Enstrom et al for what he had to endure along with inserting a BIG stick up the NCAA's hiny.

 

[kemajic]

Penn St and Montana have one thing in common. Two shitty, weak-spined, crappy presidents. They ran from their shadows. Both should be fired.

Both of whom had brains enough to know that to mount a major offensive at the time against overwhelming public opinion a national scale to preserve past legacy of a beleaguered football program would hurt the institution far more than pretending games were lost that everybody knew were won.

We shall see what the future holds for Montanas vacated wins.

Nope, you are not correct and you are missing the point. Both presidents compounded the problems, including the PR problems, of the universities by taking the actions they took. Edit: No has ever suggested mounting a major offensive. However, doing the right things, have some principles, not rolling over (over and over), and being more active in telling the Missoulian to back off from its unfair and inaccurate reporting, would have been very helpful--and been "right".

In the case of Penn St, the president hired the wrong independent investigator (Freeh) and let him run wild. Freech didn't act as an independent investigator, he acted more as a prosecutor. Despite not having access to a majority of the important "players", as they were either subject to criminal investigation, dead or wouldn't talk, he completely jumped to conclusions and surmised what he thought may have occurred. For example, there is zero evidence that Paterno was involved in or influenced the decisions that the old president, AD and senior asst AD made with regard to the decision to talk to Sandusky first (and not go directly to legal authorites), other than an email (not copied to Paterno) in which the president or AD said he had thought about the situation more and talked to "Joe". The investigator does not know what was said in that conversation, and my view is that there is no way that Joe told anyone what to do or forced any decision.

Some of the independent investigator's bullet points in his report were just outrageous and not supported by the record. This fed the already large media frenzy. Then, the president, without authority from the Penn St board, panicked and agreed to the outrageous proposal by the ncaa. That was an unbelievably and unnecessary panicked response. Now it's known that even the ncaa knew its proposal was over-the-top and that it didn't have authority. Penn St should have just said No, and settled in a more reasonably manner. Talk about egg now on the faces of both sides.

In the case of Montana, Engstrom et al first panicked and appointed Barz to do an independent investigation, when there wasn't anything to investigate with an outside investigator. Total over-reaction. Nothing of note came of the investigation, other than bad press. The rumors or whatever that prompted that investigation didn't result in any action by the university or the police. Zero.

Then, for no reason other than perhaps to deflect attention from himself and satisfy unnamed people putting pressure on him, Engstrom fired the AD and coach. This fed the fire and created a large amount of suspicion as well as bad local and national press. This led to comparisons between Penn St and Montana. That was untrue and dumb at the time, and even dumber when looked at now. Engstrom also allowed an apparently incompetent dean to unfairly and incorrectly pursue sexual assault proceedings against JJ and others. Ultimately, JJ was vindicated, and not one player who hired an attorney was tossed out of school. Not one.

The firings and other university actions also left the athletic program leaderless, except for Gee, and severely set back the football program. This led to gross mishandling of the ncaa investigation. Not hiring outside legal counsel for the first 6 months. Then hiring a cheap but not particularly experienced attorney. Then not defending the investigation properly and completely rolling over to the ncaa and suggesting ridiculous penalties.

I could say more, but won't. These are all my opinions and views in any event.

This is a very informative post. If only you would do this more often than your defensive and often personal attacks on posters whose only crime is that their opinions differ from yours.

 

[argh!]

Penn St and Montana have one thing in common. Two shitty, weak-spined, crappy presidents. They ran from their shadows. Both should be fired.

Both of whom had brains enough to know that to mount a major offensive at the time against overwhelming public opinion a national scale to preserve past legacy of a beleaguered football program would hurt the institution far more than pretending games were lost that everybody knew were won.

We shall see what the future holds for Montanas vacated wins.

Nope, you are not correct and you are missing the point. Both presidents compounded the problems, including the PR problems, of the universities by taking the actions they took. Edit: No has ever suggested mounting a major offensive. However, doing the right things, have some principles, not rolling over (over and over), and being more active in telling the Missoulian to back off from its unfair and inaccurate reporting, would have been very helpful--and been "right".

In the case of Penn St, the president hired the wrong independent investigator (Freeh) and let him run wild. Freech didn't act as an independent investigator, he acted more as a prosecutor. Despite not having access to a majority of the important "players", as they were either subject to criminal investigation, dead or wouldn't talk, he completely jumped to conclusions and surmised what he thought may have occurred. For example, there is zero evidence that Paterno was involved in or influenced the decisions that the old president, AD and senior asst AD made with regard to the decision to talk to Sandusky first (and not go directly to legal authorites), other than an email (not copied to Paterno) in which the president or AD said he had thought about the situation more and talked to "Joe". The investigator does not know what was said in that conversation, and my view is that there is no way that Joe told anyone what to do or forced any decision.

Some of the independent investigator's bullet points in his report were just outrageous and not supported by the record. This fed the already large media frenzy. Then, the president, without authority from the Penn St board, panicked and agreed to the outrageous proposal by the ncaa. That was an unbelievably and unnecessary panicked response. Now it's known that even the ncaa knew its proposal was over-the-top and that it didn't have authority. Penn St should have just said No, and settled in a more reasonably manner. Talk about egg now on the faces of both sides.

In the case of Montana, Engstrom et al first panicked and appointed Barz to do an independent investigation, when there wasn't anything to investigate with an outside investigator. Total over-reaction. Nothing of note came of the investigation, other than bad press. The rumors or whatever that prompted that investigation didn't result in any action by the university or the police. Zero.

Then, for no reason other than perhaps to deflect attention from himself and satisfy unnamed people putting pressure on him, Engstrom fired the AD and coach. This fed the fire and created a large amount of suspicion as well as bad local and national press. This led to comparisons between Penn St and Montana. That was untrue and dumb at the time, and even dumber when looked at now. Engstrom also allowed an apparently incompetent dean to unfairly and incorrectly pursue sexual assault proceedings against JJ and others. Ultimately, JJ was vindicated, and not one player who hired an attorney was tossed out of school. Not one.

The firings and other university actions also left the athletic program leaderless, except for Gee, and severely set back the football program. This led to gross mishandling of the ncaa investigation. Not hiring outside legal counsel for the first 6 months. Then hiring a cheap but not particularly experienced attorney. Then not defending the investigation properly and completely rolling over to the ncaa and suggesting ridiculous penalties.

I could say more, but won't. These are all my opinions and views in any event.

This is a very informative post. If only you would do this more often than your defensive and often personal attacks on posters whose only crime is that their opinions differ from yours.

greenie doesn't bow to public opinion.

 

[PlayerRep]

Penn St and Montana have one thing in common. Two shitty, weak-spined, crappy presidents. They ran from their shadows. Both should be fired.

Both of whom had brains enough to know that to mount a major offensive at the time against overwhelming public opinion a national scale to preserve past legacy of a beleaguered football program would hurt the institution far more than pretending games were lost that everybody knew were won.

We shall see what the future holds for Montanas vacated wins.

Nope, you are not correct and you are missing the point. Both presidents compounded the problems, including the PR problems, of the universities by taking the actions they took. Edit: No has ever suggested mounting a major offensive. However, doing the right things, have some principles, not rolling over (over and over), and being more active in telling the Missoulian to back off from its unfair and inaccurate reporting, would have been very helpful--and been "right".

In the case of Penn St, the president hired the wrong independent investigator (Freeh) and let him run wild. Freech didn't act as an independent investigator, he acted more as a prosecutor. Despite not having access to a majority of the important "players", as they were either subject to criminal investigation, dead or wouldn't talk, he completely jumped to conclusions and surmised what he thought may have occurred. For example, there is zero evidence that Paterno was involved in or influenced the decisions that the old president, AD and senior asst AD made with regard to the decision to talk to Sandusky first (and not go directly to legal authorites), other than an email (not copied to Paterno) in which the president or AD said he had thought about the situation more and talked to "Joe". The investigator does not know what was said in that conversation, and my view is that there is no way that Joe told anyone what to do or forced any decision.

Some of the independent investigator's bullet points in his report were just outrageous and not supported by the record. This fed the already large media frenzy. Then, the president, without authority from the Penn St board, panicked and agreed to the outrageous proposal by the ncaa. That was an unbelievably and unnecessary panicked response. Now it's known that even the ncaa knew its proposal was over-the-top and that it didn't have authority. Penn St should have just said No, and settled in a more reasonably manner. Talk about egg now on the faces of both sides.

In the case of Montana, Engstrom et al first panicked and appointed Barz to do an independent investigation, when there wasn't anything to investigate with an outside investigator. Total over-reaction. Nothing of note came of the investigation, other than bad press. The rumors or whatever that prompted that investigation didn't result in any action by the university or the police. Zero.

Then, for no reason other than perhaps to deflect attention from himself and satisfy unnamed people putting pressure on him, Engstrom fired the AD and coach. This fed the fire and created a large amount of suspicion as well as bad local and national press. This led to comparisons between Penn St and Montana. That was untrue and dumb at the time, and even dumber when looked at now. Engstrom also allowed an apparently incompetent dean to unfairly and incorrectly pursue sexual assault proceedings against JJ and others. Ultimately, JJ was vindicated, and not one player who hired an attorney was tossed out of school. Not one.

The firings and other university actions also left the athletic program leaderless, except for Gee, and severely set back the football program. This led to gross mishandling of the ncaa investigation. Not hiring outside legal counsel for the first 6 months. Then hiring a cheap but not particularly experienced attorney. Then not defending the investigation properly and completely rolling over to the ncaa and suggesting ridiculous penalties.

I could say more, but won't. These are all my opinions and views in any event.

This is a very informative post. If only you would do this more often than your defensive and often personal attacks on posters whose only crime is that their opinions differ from yours.

I do this frequently. If you would only pay attention, not see red when I post, and pick at me--you would be much more informed. While I don't agree with some of what you say, I know you are a loyal and good Griz fan. I put Everett in this category too. However, both of you seem to be inclined to take issue with much of what I post. Don't know why. We often have the same views. I don't agree the personal attacks comment. If I don't agree with someone, I often say I don't agree. If I think they are a dummie, and they have picked at me or I don't respect them, I sometimes tell them. I don't have the patience to baby posters who attack Griz players and coaches or repeatedly say dumb stuff. This is the internet. You generally get to say what comes to mind.

 

[THE BETCH]

Keep it up Jack. You are finally winning them over. :thumb:

 

[AZGrizFan]

Both of whom had brains enough to know that to mount a major offensive at the time against overwhelming public opinion a national scale to preserve past legacy of a beleaguered football program would hurt the institution far more than pretending games were lost that everybody knew were won.

We shall see what the future holds for Montanas vacated wins.

Nope, you are not correct and you are missing the point. Both presidents compounded the problems, including the PR problems, of the universities by taking the actions they took. Edit: No has ever suggested mounting a major offensive. However, doing the right things, have some principles, not rolling over (over and over), and being more active in telling the Missoulian to back off from its unfair and inaccurate reporting, would have been very helpful--and been "right".

In the case of Penn St, the president hired the wrong independent investigator (Freeh) and let him run wild. Freech didn't act as an independent investigator, he acted more as a prosecutor. Despite not having access to a majority of the important "players", as they were either subject to criminal investigation, dead or wouldn't talk, he completely jumped to conclusions and surmised what he thought may have occurred. For example, there is zero evidence that Paterno was involved in or influenced the decisions that the old president, AD and senior asst AD made with regard to the decision to talk to Sandusky first (and not go directly to legal authorites), other than an email (not copied to Paterno) in which the president or AD said he had thought about the situation more and talked to "Joe". The investigator does not know what was said in that conversation, and my view is that there is no way that Joe told anyone what to do or forced any decision.

Some of the independent investigator's bullet points in his report were just outrageous and not supported by the record. This fed the already large media frenzy. Then, the president, without authority from the Penn St board, panicked and agreed to the outrageous proposal by the ncaa. That was an unbelievably and unnecessary panicked response. Now it's known that even the ncaa knew its proposal was over-the-top and that it didn't have authority. Penn St should have just said No, and settled in a more reasonably manner. Talk about egg now on the faces of both sides.

In the case of Montana, Engstrom et al first panicked and appointed Barz to do an independent investigation, when there wasn't anything to investigate with an outside investigator. Total over-reaction. Nothing of note came of the investigation, other than bad press. The rumors or whatever that prompted that investigation didn't result in any action by the university or the police. Zero.

Then, for no reason other than perhaps to deflect attention from himself and satisfy unnamed people putting pressure on him, Engstrom fired the AD and coach. This fed the fire and created a large amount of suspicion as well as bad local and national press. This led to comparisons between Penn St and Montana. That was untrue and dumb at the time, and even dumber when looked at now. Engstrom also allowed an apparently incompetent dean to unfairly and incorrectly pursue sexual assault proceedings against JJ and others. Ultimately, JJ was vindicated, and not one player who hired an attorney was tossed out of school. Not one.

The firings and other university actions also left the athletic program leaderless, except for Gee, and severely set back the football program. This led to gross mishandling of the ncaa investigation. Not hiring outside legal counsel for the first 6 months. Then hiring a cheap but not particularly experienced attorney. Then not defending the investigation properly and completely rolling over to the ncaa and suggesting ridiculous penalties.

I could say more, but won't. These are all my opinions and views in any event.

This is a very informative post. If only you would do this more often than your defensive and often personal attacks on posters whose only crime is that their opinions differ from yours.

I do this frequently. If you would only pay attention, not see red when I post, and pick at me--you would be much more informed. While I don't agree with some of what you say, I know you are a loyal and good Griz fan. I put Everett in this category too. However, both of you seem to be inclined to take issue with much of what I post. Don't know why. We often have the same views. I don't agree the personal attacks comment. If I don't agree with someone, I often say I don't agree. If I think they are a dummie, and they have picked at me or I don't respect them, I sometimes tell them. I don't have the patience to baby posters who attack Griz players and coaches or repeatedly say dumb stuff. This is the internet. You generally get to say what comes to mind.

:lol: :lol: