John Urschel Named Best Person in Sports


on October 23, 2013 12:50 PM

 Penn State offensive guard and math wiz John  Urschel has another accolade to add to his many accomplishments: On  Monday, Fox Sports named him Best Person in Sports for “excelling in the classroom and on the field.”

Last year Urschel was selected as  a first team All-Big Ten guard and  was also named a Capital One/CoSIFA Academic All-American in 2012. He  finished his undergraduate degree in mathematics in just three years  while maintaining a perfect 4.0 GPA. He is now working on  earning his master’s degree and has plans to pursue a PhD after his  football career.

Urschel’s research has been published in the “Celestial Mechanics and  Dynamic Astronomy” journal, and he currently has several more articles  in the works. When he is not on the field he can be found teaching mathematics in classes such as Math 041. He can undoubtedly be considered one of the best student athletes in all of college sports.

While Urschel’s academic accomplishments are nothing to be scoffed  at, his success on the field is equally impressive. He has quickly  excelled as an elite athlete and NFL prospect after making the  decision to play football in ninth-grade. Last season he earned  first-team All-Big Ten honors after starting every game at right guard  and helped Zach Zwinak rush for over 1,000 yards. This year, he’s  continued to be a leader on the team while playing a key role in the  offensive line.

Sandusky Prosecutor–Joe Not Involved in Coverup


This time, CBS Sports is getting in the mix with a Penn State feature on “60 Minute Sports” on Showtime at 10 p.m. tonight. The episode focuses on Frank Fina and Joe McGettigan, the two prosecutors who helped put Sandusky behind bars.

CBS released a clip of the interview yesterday and once you get past the “college football’s darkest episode” rhetoric, there is actually some interesting material.

Notably, Fina was asked if he thought Joe Paterno participated in a coverup of Sandusky’s actions as he believes former administrators Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz did.

“I do not,” Fina said straight up when asked if Paterno participated in a coverup.

“And I’m viewing this strictly on the evidence, not any kind of fealty to anybody. I did not find that evidence.”

What Did Spanier Know and When?


Penn State’s leadership kept the university’s public information director out of the loop about Jerry Sandusky between a media inquiry in 2010 until “all hell broke loose” in November 2011 with the release of the grand jury presentment, the employee testified Tuesday.

“Our office had no idea,” said Lisa Powers, the university’s top spokeswoman whose duty is to promote its positive image.

“We did not anticipate the presentment, we did not anticipate the fallout, and we were inundated with media from everywhere,” Powers said. “I didn’t answer my phone, and I couldn’t answer my email. There were just too many of them.”

Powers testified that she was one of several people who got an email in September 2010 from a Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter asking if anyone knew of any investigation into Sandusky. The email was sent by blind carbon copy, or bcc, to Spanier, Powers and another spokesman, Bill Mahon.

Spanier responded about an hour after receiving the email: “I haven’t heard this. Can you tell me more?” The reporter never responded, Powers said.

Powers testified she spoke with another employee who had found something about Sandusky touching boys that was posted on an online message board on a bodybuilder’s website. Powers said she and the employee noted the title of Sandusky’s autobiography, “Touched,” but when Powers went to find the message board, the comment had been removed.

Powers said she learned of another potential Sandusky-related issue when she was told that the reporter had camped outside the home of former Penn State police chief Thomas Harmon, who retired in 2005.

Powers said she was told by Al Horvath –— then the university’s senior vice president for finance and business — there was an investigation into Sandusky, but it had been closed.

The prosecution presented an email by Spanier to Horvath that Powers was only given enough information so she could field media inquiries without “exacerbating the situation.”

Powers testified she received another media inquiry in March 2011 about Sandusky, to which Powers responded the university didn’t know about any investigation and that Sandusky was a former Penn State employee who retired 10 years earlier.

Then, in late March 2011, when a grand jury investigation into Sandusky was revealed in a news report, Powers learned that senior leadership had gone to testify to the grand jury.

Caught off-guard, Powers sought information about the grand jury process from Cynthia Baldwin, who was then the university’s general counsel.

According to Powers’ testimony, Baldwin made the news report out to be a non-issue. Powers said Baldwin told her the grand jury investigation was a “fishing expedition” and had convened three times before and found nothing.

Powers said she was concerned that senior administrators had testified, but Baldwin never mentioned her role in accompanying Curley, Schultz or Spanier to the grand jury.

Seven months later, on Oct. 28, 2011, Powers was called into a meeting with Spanier, Baldwin, Mahon and the trustees chairman at the time, Steve Garban.

She testified she was told that a presentment was coming, and that Curley and Schultz may be indicted on perjury charges.

Report of Mid States Regarding Accreditation


STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 201 Old Main Building University Park, PA 16802 Phone: (814) 865-4700; Fax: (814) 865-1100 http://www.psu.edu

Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Rodney A. Erickson, President
INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
Enrollment (Headcount): 74371 Undergraduate; 13024 Graduate
Control: Public
Affiliation: State
Carnegie Classification: Research – Very High Research Activity
Degrees Offered: Postsecondary Certificate (< 1 year), Postsecondary Certificate (>=1 year, < 2 years), Associate’s, Bachelor’s, Postbaccalaureate Certificate, Master’s, Doctor’s – Professional Practice, Doctor’s – Research/Scholarship;
Distance Education Programs: Yes
Accreditors Approved by U.S. Secretary of Education: American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar; American Physical Therapy Association, Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education; American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology; Commission on Acceditation of Healthcare Management Education; Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education; Commission on English Language Program Accreditation; Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology; Liaison Committee on Medical Education; National Association of Schools of Art and Design, Commission on Accreditation; National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on Accreditation; National Association of Schools of Theatre, Commission on Accreditation; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education; National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission
Other Accreditors: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences; Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND); Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education; Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology; Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications; American Academy of Forensic Science; American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians; American Chemical Society; Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International; Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-International (AACSB); Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business; Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education; Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education; Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs; Council on Rehabilitation Education; Institute of Food Technologists; Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board (LAAB); National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences; National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB); National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE); National Association of Schools of Public Affairs & Administration (NASPAA); North American Wildlife Technology Association; Pennsylvania State Board of Nursing – Licensing; Pennsylvania Department of Education; Professional Golfer’s Association (PGA) of America; Society of American Foresters; Society of Wood Science and Technology
Instructional Locations
Branch Campuses: Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle, PA; Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA
Additional Locations: Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies, Malvern, PA; Penn State Abington, Abington, PA; Penn State Altoona, Altoona, PA; Penn State Beaver, Monaca, PA; Penn State Berks, Reading, PA; Penn State Brandywine, Media, PA; Penn State DuBois, DuBois, PA; Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, Erie, PA; Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Campus, Uniontown, PA; Penn State Greater Allegheny, McKeesport, PA; Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA; Penn State Hazleton, Hazleton, PA; Penn State Lehigh Valley, Center Valley, PA; Penn State Mont Alto, Mont Alto, PA; Penn State New Kensington, Upper Burrell, PA; Penn State Schuylkill, Schuylkill Haven, PA; Penn State Shenango, Sharon, PA; Penn State Wilkes-Barre, Lehman, PA; Penn State Worthington Scranton, Dunmore, PA; Penn State York, York, PA
Other Instructional Sites: Abington Hospital, Abington, PA; Aria Health, Philadelphia, PA; ARIS-SON, Abington, PA; Clearfield Area High School, Clearfield, PA; Community Education Council of Elk and Cameron Counties, St. Marys, PA; Downtown Conference Center, Altoona, PA; Erie Regional Skill Center, Erie, PA; Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA; Kraft, Wilkes-Barre, PA; Lancaster Center, Lancaster, PA; Lebanon, Lebanon, PA; Mount Nittany Medical Center/Clinics in Centre County, State College, PA; Northern Tier Center, Towanda, PA; Penn State Continuing Education at Williamsport, Williamsport, PA; Pittsburgh Mills Mall, Tarentum, PA; Proctor & Gamble, Mehoopany, PA; Regional Learning Alliance, Cranberry Twp., PA; Sallie Mae, Hanover Twp., PA; Shaver’s Creek, Petersburg, PA; The Penn State Learning Center (Lewistown), Lewistown, PA; Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, PA; Westmoreland County Community College, Youngwood, PA
ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
Status: Member since 1921
Last Reaffirmed: November 15, 2012

Most Recent Commission Action:

November 15, 2012: To accept the monitoring report, to note the visit by the Commission’s representatives, to remove the warning, and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a monitoring report, due November 1, 2013, documenting (1) the impact on the University budget and the identification of sources of funding to cover the requirements of (a) the report of the U.S. Department of Education regarding the University’s compliance with the Clery Act and associated penalties; (b) updated estimates of the projected costs and liabilities associated with related litigation and the implementation of the Freeh Report recommendations and the NCAA Consent Decree requirements; and (c) the recommendations that are articulated in the report of the external monitor called for by Recommendation 8.3 of the Freeh Report (Standard 3); and (2) developments associated with the revision of the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees to accommodate (a) the expanded involvement of faculty, staff, and students on Board committees and (b) the dual reporting accountability to both the Board and the President of key positions, including that of the General Counsel and the Directors of Internal Audit and Compliance (Standard 4). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2014-2015.

 

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:

November 18, 2010: To accept the Periodic Review Report and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a progress report due by April 1, 2012 documenting evidence of further progress in: (1) the establishment of learning goals at the program level in all programs; and (2) the use of appropriate assessment of the attainment of learning goals at the program level, including use of direct measures of the assessment of student learning and evidence that assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2014-2015.
March 1, 2012: To accept the Commission-requested information report, to remind the institution that the Commission must continue to be informed of any further developments that may result in changes in mission, programs, personnel and/or budget arising from the institution’s investigation or that may result in a change of status with external oversight bodies, such as the NCAA, and to request that the institution provide to the Commission copies of all relevant reports from its investigation or to its external oversight bodies. To further remind the institution of the progress report due by April 1, 2012 documenting evidence of further progress in: (1) the establishment of learning goals at the program level in all programs; and (2) the use of appropriate assessment of the attainment of learning goals at the program level, including use of direct measures of the assessment of student learning and evidence that assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2014-2015.
June 28, 2012: To accept the progress report. To remind the institution that the Commission must continue to be informed of any further developments that may result in changes in mission, programs, personnel, and/or budget arising from the institution’s investigation or that may result in a change of status with external oversight bodies, such as the NCAA, and to request that the institution provide to the Commission copies of all relevant reports from its investigation or to its external oversight bodies. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2014-2015.
August 6, 2012: To warn the institution that its accreditation is in jeopardy based on information contained in the institutionally commissioned Report of the Special Investigative Counsel (Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP, July 12, 2012) and the Binding Consent Decree Imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association and Accepted by the Pennsylvania State University (July 23, 2013) and insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation 5 (compliance with all applicable government policies, regulations, and requirements) and 9 (institution’s governing body responsibility for the quality and integrity of the institution, for ensuring that the institution’s mission is being carried out, and for making freely available to the Commission accurate, fair, and complete information on all aspects of the institution and its operations) and with Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance) and Standard 6 (Integrity). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To request a monitoring report due by September 30, 2012 documenting steps that have been taken and are planned to ensure the institution’s full compliance with Requirements of Affiliation 5 and 9 as well as Accreditation Standards 4 and 6. In addition, to request that the monitoring report also address Accreditation Standard 3 (Institutional Resources) with regard to the institution’s capacity and plans for addressing financial obligations that will or may result from the investigation and related settlements, etc. A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. To remind the institution that the Commission must continue to be informed of any further significant related developments, including the provision of copies of any and all relevant external reports. The due date for the next evaluation visit will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.

 

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2014 – 2015

Next Periodic Review Report: 2020

Date Printed: April 15, 2013

DEFINITIONS

Branch Campus – A location of an institution that is geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution. The location is independent if the location: offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential; has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; and has its own budgetary and hiring authority.
Additional Location – A location, other than a branch campus, that is geographically apart from the main campus and at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program. ANYA (“Approved but Not Yet Active”) indicates that the location is included within the scope of accreditation but has not yet begun to offer courses. This designation is removed after the Commission receives notification that courses have begun at this location.
Other Instructional Sites – A location, other than a branch campus or additional location, at which the institution offers one or more courses for credit.
Distance Education Programs – Yes or No indicates whether or not the institution has been approved to offer one or more degree or certificate/diploma programs for which students could meet 50% or more of their requirements by taking distance education courses.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION ACTIONS

An institution’s accreditation continues unless it is explicitly suspended or removed. In addition to reviewing the institution’s accreditation status at least every 5 years, actions are taken for substantive changes (such as a new degree or geographic site, or a change of ownership) or when other events occur that require review for continued compliance. Any type of report or visit required by the Commission is reviewed and voted on by the Commission after it is completed.

In increasing order of seriousness, a report by an institution to the Commission may be accepted, acknowledged, or rejected.

Levels of Actions:

Grant or Re-Affirm Accreditation without follow-up

Defer a decision on initial accreditation: The institution shows promise but the evaluation team has identified issues of concern and recommends that the institution be given a specified time period to address those concerns.

Postpone a decision on (reaffirmation of) accreditation: The Commission has determined that there is insufficient information to substantiate institutional compliance with one or more standards.

Continue accreditation: A delay of up to one year may be granted to ensure a current and accurate representation of the institution or in the event of circumstances beyond the institution’s control (natural disaster, U.S. State Department travel warnings, etc.)

Recommendations to be addressed in the next Periodic Review Report: Suggestions for improvement are given, but no follow-up is needed for compliance.

Supplemental Information Report: This is required when a decision is postponed and are intended only to allow the institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action.

Progress report: The Commission needs assurance that the institution is carrying out activities that were planned or were being implemented at the time of a report or on-site visit.

Monitoring report: There is a potential for the institution to become non-compliant with MSCHE standards; issues are more complex or more numerous; or issues require a substantive, detailed report. A visit may or may not be required.

Warning: The Commission acts to Warn an institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy when the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and a follow-up report, called a monitoring report, is required to demonstrate that the institution has made appropriate improvements to bring itself into compliance. Warning indicates that the Commission believes that, although the institution is out of compliance, the institution has the capacity to make appropriate improvements within a reasonable period of time and the institution has the capacity to sustain itself in the long term.

Probation: The Commission places an institution on Probation when, in the Commission’s judgment, the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and that the non-compliance is sufficiently serious, extensive, or acute that it raises concern about one or more of the following:

  1. the adequacy of the education provided by the institution;
  2. the institution’s capacity to make appropriate improvements in a timely fashion; or
  3. the institution’s capacity to sustain itself in the long term.

 

Probation is often, but need not always be, preceded by an action of Warning or Postponement. If the Commission had previously postponed a decision or placed the institution on Warning, the Commission may place the institution on Probation if it determines that the institution has failed to address satisfactorily the Commission’s concerns in the prior action of postponement or warning regarding compliance with Commission standards. This action is accompanied by a request for a monitoring report, and a special visit follows. Probation may, but need not always, precede an action of Show Cause.

Suspend accreditation: Accreditation has been Continued for one year and an appropriate evaluation is not possible. This is a procedural action that would result in Removal of Accreditation if accreditation cannot be reaffirmed within the period of suspension.

Show cause why the institution’s accreditation should not be removed: The institution is required to present its case for accreditation by means of a substantive report and/or an on-site evaluation. A “Public Disclosure Statement” is issued by the Commission.

Remove accreditation. If the institution appeals this action, its accreditation remains in effect until the appeal is completed.

Other actions are described in the Commission policy, “Range of Commission Actions on Accreditation.”

Board of Trustee Election Starts Today!!!! Vote!!


Voting begins today in the contentious election for three alumni seats on Penn State’s Board of Trustees. The trustees race once generated little interest in the general public, let alone the 560,000 Penn State alumni across the country. But that changed last year following scrutiny on the actions of university leaders in the aftermath of retired assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky’s arrest in November 2011 on child sex abuse charges. Any of the university’s 560,000 alumni can vote, though they must first contact the Board of Trustees office. Voters can cast ballots online or through the mail. Voting ends May 2, with results to be announced the following day at the trustees meeting

If you did not get your ballot, be sure to contact the alumni office!!!!!

I recommend you Vote for Scott Kimler!!!!!!!

Mark Emmert and Vicky Triponey, Continued



    • Hmmmmmm Wichita State. Louisville. Michigan. Syracuse.

      These will be the four schools squaring off today to decide which teams will make up the national title game Monday night.

    • Mark Emmert‘s Final Four news conference even had little to do with the upcoming national semifinals. It was mostly him defending his past after a troubling report about his career as a university president was released earlier this week. The NCAA president even got into it with CBS Sports reporter Dennis Dodd, who has said in recent months that Emmert should step down. Wichita State, Huh–Emmert and Triponey!! Syracuse, hey Bernie!!–
      • Guess who was the President of the Middle States in 2012 that threatened Penn State? Barbara Gildenstein, president of the College of New Jersey under whom Vicky Triponey serves as Vice President of Student Affairs.  Middle States accuses Penn Sate of potentially violating four different areas of their accreditation requirements, relating to the following:
        ■Compliance with all applicable government policies, regulations, and requirements. (Affiliation 5)
         ■Institution’s governing body responsibility for the quality and integrity of the institution, for ensuring that the institution’s mission is being carried out, and for making freely available to the Commission accurate, fair, and complete information on all aspects of the institution and its operations. (Affiliation 9)
        ■Leadership and Governance (Standard 4)
        ■Integrity (Standard 6)

One email from Triponey, to Spanier said “please do something to stop this atrocious behavior before this team and an entire generation of Penn State students leave here believing that this is appropriate and acceptable behavior within a civil university community.”
Triponey was a lightning rod for controversy due to her  policy implementations at both Penn State and before that the University of Connecticut.  Spanier hired Triponey in 2003 knowing her controversial background at UConn (hired by Mark Emmert); he supported her actions vis-a-vis Paterno for a time; and the biggest clashes came after the 2004 season when Spanier had tried to strong-arm Paterno’s resignation, or at least get Paterno to plan a retirement timeline. The team started winning again in the 2005 season, and after that Spanier appears to have stopped supporting Triponey, i.e. he gave up trying to get Paterno to retire, for the time being at least. By 2007 Triponey was out at PSU.
In one email to Spanier in Sept. 2005 she wrote, “I do not support the way this man is running our football program.” Um, whose football program?
Did Paterno cause Triponey’s demise at Penn State? Almost certainly.
Did Paterno have a reputation for using his power to fire people, or get them fired? No, he didn’t.
Could Paterno wield his clout forcefully? Yes.

What Do Vicky Triponey and Mark Emmert Have in Common?? Joe Paterno!


Vicky L. Triponey of Wichita State University has been named vice chancellor for student affairs at the University of Connecticut,  Chancellor Mark Emmert has announced.  Triponey, who is interim vice president for student affairs at Wichita State, will join UConn March 31. She will report to Emmert.

2003  Vicky Triponey came to Penn State from UConn

Triponey was hired in 2003 by Graham Spanier after a rocky and controversial stint at the University of Connecticut. Within months of her arrival at Penn State she began a campaign aimed at consolidating power within her Office of Student Affairs and crushing or eliminating anything or anyone that challenged that power. (note:  this is also Mark Emmert’s tenure which is now under review and scrutiny by USAToday).

In a series of emails to Dr. Spanier, Triponey insisted that she alone had the responsibility to discipline the players involved and indicated that suspension or expulsion was called for. Joe Paterno pointed out that since the incidents were off-campus and everyone involved was facing criminal trials, it was necessary to wait for DUE PROCESS to take its course

example:

When I served as the Graduate Student Association president, I was a very outspoken opponent of FAB. In particular that these students were not elected, and that university employees would hold 40 percent of the voting power. That meant that they had only to convince 20 percent of the students to agree with their voting bloc.

Not only did I voice my concern as a member of the Cabinet of Student Leaders, but I also put every monkey wrench in the system that I could as a member of the Student Activity Fee Board. In order for Triponey to wrestle control of student money away from students, they had to amend the “Guiding Principles” of the activity fee.

I was personally intimidated by Triponey, who threatened that by announcing the proposed changes to the Guiding Principles, I was disseminating confidential information and suggested that I be remanded by Judicial Affairs (funny that I was a member of that steering committee as well).

I informed Triponey & Co. that I was the president of a branch of the student government. As such, any communication with me was also a communication with the 10,000 graduate students across the university. They have a right to know about the dealings of their elected officials and their activity fee funds.

After reading many of the Collegian Articles during 2006, it appears that Triponey’s main effort was to wrestle student control of student activities away and into the hands of salaried individuals. Money was severely cut to student organizations, USG disappeared, etc, etc.  Ms Triponey also attempted to take over control of student discipline, a move that was opposed by faculty and staff – not just Joe Paterno!

Dr. Spanier asked for her resignation, acknowledging the mistake he had made four years earlier.

Now, fast forward to 2011–Mark Emmert and Vicky Triponey–Payback time!!  Vicky Triponey’s issues with Joe Paterno get full coverage with the Freeh Report AND Mark Emmert who is now conveniently at the NCAA–Mark Emmert hasn’t stayed in one place too long, either!!  Check out his work history–and a disaster occurred everywhere he went–Scandal and Dirt left everywhere in his wake!! (note: I have heard from Vicky Triponey and she states that she and Mark Emmert have had no communication in at least 10 years).  Her employment history below:

Interim Vice President for Student Affairs
The College of New Jersey
January 2012– Present (1 year 4 months)Ewing, NJ–took Vicky 4 years to find a job!!  She applied for and was rejected for other positions during the 4 year hiatus!

Vice President for Student Affairs
Penn State University
July 2003– July 2008 (5 years 1 month)

Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
University of Connecticut
April 1998– June 2003 (5 years 3 months)

Interim Vice President for Student Affairs
Wichita State University
July 1997– April 1998 (10 months)

Associate Vice President for Campus Life
Wichita State University
September 1994– July 1997 (2 years 11 months)

Assoc. Dean of Student Life and Services
Wichita State University
June 1989– September 1994 (5 years 4 months)

Coordinator of Student Orgs. & Media
University of Georgia
March 1983– August 1986 (3 years 6 months)

Asst to Dean of Student Life/Dir of Orientation
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown

February 1980– March 1983 (3 years 2 months)

Mark Emmert Declares “Eternal Winter in Happy Valley”


Big 12 Meetings Emmert Football

This is funny, but you must read the WHOLE Thing!!  Onward State‘s April Fool’s Joke!!  (it made many of us very angry today when we misunderstood a shortened version).

Earlier today, NCAA President Mark Emmert made an addition to the sanctions levied against Penn State this past July. In an uncharacteristic abuse of power, Emmert bypassed his publicist and decided to write the press release himself. Read the full document obtained by Onward State below:

Mark Emmert National Collegiate Athletic Association Indianapolis, IN April 1, 2013

My Fellow Americans,

I have personally crafted this press release to discuss the July 23, 2012 sanctions against The Pennsylvania State University. Up to this point, as far as we can tell, every penalty we implemented has been upheld by Penn State. (Note: When I use ‘we’, this pronoun represents both myself and the NCAA as a whole. Definitely not just me.)

However, we feel as though Penn State still has work to do. After closely watching the University’s leaders over the past eight months, it is clear the sanctions (including a $60 million fine, a four-year football postseason ban, vacating all wins dating back to 1998, and scholarship reductions) are collectively not enough.

Following a careful examination of the facts (while avoiding all biased and largely-opinionated media sources), we have determined the next step necessary to the successful re-shaping of Penn State’s culture.

State College, Pa. will no longer reap the benefits of a four-season ecological cycle. Summer, autumn, and spring are hereby eliminated, thus creating an eternal winter in Happy Valley. Previously unbeknownst to State College residents, this measure has already been in place since October.

The Penn State Board of Trustees and President Rodney Erickson have complied 100% with our requests, and I am happy to report that in March 2013, Happy Valley saw snow, rain, sleet, and hail, with an average temperature of 25 degrees Fahrenheit.

Despite our climate and atmospheric alterations, we have a problem. There has been little to no change in Penn State’s culture. The community didn’t crumble. Students are still having fun. PSU athletes continue to rank towards the top in terms of collegiate academia. If these problematic trends continue, other actions – such as discontinuing THON, which definitely shows exactly what’s wrong with Penn State – will be taken.

Many people will question why we altered State College’s climate. Many will wonder how we achieved this. Some might even ask what winter has to do with Penn State’s imminent culture problem.

To those people, I say this: Louisiana State University was lucky enough to have me as their Chancellor, and I can promise you that football has nothing do with LSU’s culture and success as an academic institution. It was all me. That school was terrible before I arrived. And besides, I’m President of the NCAA. I don’t have to answer to you. I can do whatever I want without solid reason. I can even overstep my legal boundaries and contradict myself if I want to, although of course, I would never do either of these things.

Rest assured, the NCAA will continue to assess The Pennsylvania State University’s horrible problems. Together with Penn State’s Board of Trustees, we will weigh each decision heavily and avoid making any rash judgments, just as both parties have done throughout this entire ordeal.

Thank you, Mark Emmert

Retire Paul Suhey–Lettermen Request!


SUCCESS WITH HONOR

March 28, 2013

Dear Fellow Lettermen,

We write to you about a matter of great importance to our University. As fellow Lettermen and alumni of the Pennsylvania State University we, like the rest of the Nation, were horrified by the actions of Jerry Sandusky. No words that we or anyone else can say will ever heal Sandusky’s victims, their families or the damage that he caused other than to say our thoughts and prayers remain with them.  Also horrifying has been the ensuing damage inflicted to the standing of our University due in large part to the failure of the Board of Trustees. It is for this reason that we are compelled to step forward and oppose Paul Suhey’s re-election to the Board. We take this action with the full understanding of the division this may cause amongst us. It is not a role we relish but, it is one we believe is necessary to prevent any further damage to our University.

At nearly every turn over the past sixteen months, the Board of Trustees has failed miserably to exercise the necessary leadership and responsibility to guide our University.  No greater illustration is the Board’s handling of Joe and the Freeh Report. While admittedly not knowing all of the facts, the Board unanimously rushed to judgment and fired Joe after 62 years of service to the University without ever once talking with him. Similarly, the Board to this very day has failed to discuss the substance of the Freeh report let alone question its evidentiary basis or lack thereof. The consequences of these actions have severely tarnished the reputation and legacy of Coach Paterno and have brought great harm upon the University, our beloved program and the innocent players and coaches who now occupy our locker room.

In the coming days, you will no doubt hear how Paul Suhey disagreed with these actions but cannot tell “his side” for legal reasons or how knew Joe as “Uncle Joe”. To this we say nonsense! Actions speak louder than words and if Suhey disagreed with the actions the Board was taking he had both an obligation and a duty to speak up and cast his vote accordingly. The fact that he failed to do so only underscores the point that he is not fit to serve on the board a day longer. The choice is for everyone to make but, for us it could not be any clearer – retire Paul Suhey, like he claimed to retire Joe, by not re-electing him.

Todd Blackledge’82

Robert Capretto ’67

Tom Donchez ’74

Franco Harris ’72

Justin Ingram ’00

Christian Marrone ’97

 Brian Masella ’74 Lydell Mitchell ’72

Michael Robinson ‘04

Steve Smear ’69

Brandon Short ’99

 

Penn State Wrestlers 2013 National Champions


Penn State won the national team title for the third year in a row.

Penn State’s Ed Ruth and Quentin Wright won titles in back-to-back matches to seal the fourth national crown for the Nittany Lions and their third under Sanderson.

Penn State had 123.5 points. Oklahoma State was second with 119.5, and Minnesota third with 103 points.

Penn State wrapped up the team crown earlier in the evening, as Wright upset top-seeded Dustin Kilgore of Kent State 8-6 at 197 pounds to give the Nittany Lions an insurmountable lead over Oklahoma State.

Wright sealed the victory with a pair of impressive late takedowns of Kilgore, an NCAA champion in 2011 who had won 62 straight matches.

“I knew one of us had to take it upon our shoulders to get it and I thought ‘Why not me? Let’s go out there. Let’s win this,” Wright said.

Penn State began the day with a virtual lock on the title — and the Cowboys nearly stole the crown away. Penn State held a 20.5-point lead over Oklahoma State to start Saturday’s competition. The Nittany Lions also had five wrestlers in the finals, three more than Oklahoma State.  But Penn State didn’t have anyone who earned spots in Saturday morning‘s wrestleback session. That’s where the Cowboys made up 17.5 points to cut the deficit to 114.5-111.5.  Chris Perry then gave Oklahoma State a 1-point lead with a win over Penn State’s Matt Brown in the first title match, the 174-pound finals.

The Cowboys only held the lead for about 15 minutes, though.  They never got it back.

Ruth won his second straight national title with a 12-4 win over Robert Hamlin of Lehigh. Ruth finished with a takedown to clinch a major decision, giving the Nittany Lions a crucial extra team point.  “I looked over at the coaches and (they) were just saying ‘Cut him. Cut him.’ I was like, ‘Oh wow, he must be going for a major then,'” Ruth said.

There’s since been a lot of talk about modernizing a sport rooted in antiquity — and upgraded wrestler introductions for the finals were a big hit to the sellout crowd.  The athletes burst through puffs of smoke amid dimmed lights and blaring heavy metal music, their names displayed with colorful lighting. The end of every finals match was marked by four plumes of smoke emanating from each corner of the stage.