FB: Liberty League

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 04:58:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Frank Rossi

Bartman, with all due respect, I think you need to re-check some of the history you refer to early in your post.  I'd be specific, but as I said, this isn't about Hobart.  It wasn't an attempt to make it about Hobart.  It wasn't a pot-shot toward Hobart.  And I even question if you listened to the entire 35 minutes of the interview and discussion at this point, as I stated it would make no sense to try to undermine Hobart when you co-host a weekly radio show that promotes the programs and student-athletes from those institutions.

Having said that, the lead-up to the question was conveniently eliminated by you Saturday and still today: "...I've got a question that I guess should be posed to more alumni, and fans, and supporters, and administrators, but this is, I think, a general hypothetical, rhetorical question, but deserves asking, I guess, in this day and age..."  I acknowledged who would be the truly proper people to answer the question.  However, the interviewee had recently discussed the matter with the AD and also has been a writer in the area -- and knows the Union tradition from this -- for 28 years.  It was fair to ask him that question and to see how he'd respond to see if he could provide insight based on his outreach and knowledge.  His response was honest, and I don't believe he had any real issue answering it.

As Bombers points out, this is exactly the type of question that has to be reviewed.  And with that said, and as James sort of alluded to in our discussion that followed, the measure of a coach and team in this age of D3 Football is against the teams in your conference since it's pretty much Pool A or bust if the playoffs are the measure of on-the-field success.  I was trying to avoid naming of names so that I didn't create a problem with Hobart.  The fact that he took the profile I laid out and thought it was FSU was awkward and led me to have to zone in on the situation further.  Could I have just left it as "an unnamed D3 program" in retrospect?  Sure, and I wish I had.  Yet, the discussion was an attempt to evaluate what questions need to be asked before any decisions to let go of a long-time head coach should be made. 

I focused on the show on the mistakes made by RPI with Joe King, so I'm not just saying Hobart's history needs to be considered.  It's an issue of two things, from my perspective: 1) the known vs. the unknown in coaching -- that if the program has a good reputation and overall positive favor, then would switching coaches risk that since you don't know what the new coach's focus would be; and 2) the overall question of what it would take to win and achieve a desired level of success -- which, in D3 Football is basically a playoff bid and/or wins versus main rivals.  The first is the RPI scenario, and the second brings to mind Hobart for anyone in Union shoes.   I don't think any administrator would not tell you off the record that in order to compete at higher levels of football, even in Division III, you must take bigger risks in admissions (with some lower GPA students being admitted), figure out some hyper-competitive financial aid packaging for football players from less-affluent zones, and be prepared to provide the resources on campus to ensure those students acclimate and do well in the classroom once they arrive.  Yet, you run the constant risks of seeing the average GPA of the team decline and additional off-the-field problems if that last component (acclimation/classroom support) doesn't work.  To presume that such a give-and-take situation doesn't exist is foolish, especially if a program doesn't have some sort of overall history of a strong football reputation (i.e., Mount Union and Whitewater) to constantly draw several strong football players annually. 

At the end of the day, that's the question Union must ask itself if it has de-emphasized football and shifted resources over the past seven years toward men's and women's ice hockey.  Is there any reason to shift back those resources and try to compete at that Hobart-esque level, and if so, should the Head Coach be changed to fully re-up the process, or is he the right man for the job based on his own history?  Or are resources going to remain as-is -- a level of resources that wouldn't allow any head coach to compete at that level?

Schools that take bigger risks in football acceptances know that they take bigger risks with off-the-field issues.  They know that the reputation of being a "football school" is not something that is embraced by higher education because it suggests a meat-head mentality in some quarters.  I don't agree with the meat-head premise, but I have to acknowledge that reality when I look at the state of D3 Football in higher education today.  Some schools are willing to accept these risks and go "all in" with their football programs.  Some are not.  And that becomes the ultimate question: which category does Union's administration now fall under?  And that was the question that was asked of someone who recently spoke to Union's AD and football coach.  And that is the question that folks who are connected to the Union program should be asking the administration.

lewdogg11

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 21, 2014, 05:19:12 PM
Bartman, with all due respect, I think you need to re-check some of the history you refer to early in your post.  I'd be specific, but as I said, this isn't about Hobart.  It wasn't an attempt to make it about Hobart.  It wasn't a pot-shot toward Hobart.  And I even question if you listened to the entire 35 minutes of the interview and discussion at this point, as I stated it would make no sense to try to undermine Hobart when you co-host a weekly radio show that promotes the programs and student-athletes from those institutions.

Having said that, the lead-up to the question was conveniently eliminated by you Saturday and still today: "...I've got a question that I guess should be posed to more alumni, and fans, and supporters, and administrators, but this is, I think, a general hypothetical, rhetorical question, but deserves asking, I guess, in this day and age..."  I acknowledged who would be the truly proper people to answer the question.  However, the interviewee had recently discussed the matter with the AD and also has been a writer in the area -- and knows the Union tradition from this -- for 28 years.  It was fair to ask him that question and to see how he'd respond to see if he could provide insight based on his outreach and knowledge.  His response was honest, and I don't believe he had any real issue answering it.

As Bombers points out, this is exactly the type of question that has to be reviewed.  And with that said, and as James sort of alluded to in our discussion that followed, the measure of a coach and team in this age of D3 Football is against the teams in your conference since it's pretty much Pool A or bust if the playoffs are the measure of on-the-field success.  I was trying to avoid naming of names so that I didn't create a problem with Hobart.  The fact that he took the profile I laid out and thought it was FSU was awkward and led me to have to zone in on the situation further.  Could I have just left it as "an unnamed D3 program" in retrospect?  Sure, and I wish I had.  Yet, the discussion was an attempt to evaluate what questions need to be asked before any decisions to let go of a long-time head coach should be made. 

I focused on the show on the mistakes made by RPI with Joe King, so I'm not just saying Hobart's history needs to be considered.  It's an issue of two things, from my perspective: 1) the known vs. the unknown in coaching -- that if the program has a good reputation and overall positive favor, then would switching coaches risk that since you don't know what the new coach's focus would be; and 2) the overall question of what it would take to win and achieve a desired level of success -- which, in D3 Football is basically a playoff bid and/or wins versus main rivals.  The first is the RPI scenario, and the second brings to mind Hobart for anyone in Union shoes.   I don't think any administrator would not tell you off the record that in order to compete at higher levels of football, even in Division III, you must take bigger risks in admissions (with some lower GPA students being admitted), figure out some hyper-competitive financial aid packaging for football players from less-affluent zones, and be prepared to provide the resources on campus to ensure those students acclimate and do well in the classroom once they arrive.  Yet, you run the constant risks of seeing the average GPA of the team decline and additional off-the-field problems if that last component (acclimation/classroom support) doesn't work.  To presume that such a give-and-take situation doesn't exist is foolish, especially if a program doesn't have some sort of overall history of a strong football reputation (i.e., Mount Union and Whitewater) to constantly draw several strong football players annually. 

At the end of the day, that's the question Union must ask itself if it has de-emphasized football and shifted resources over the past seven years toward men's and women's ice hockey.  Is there any reason to shift back those resources and try to compete at that Hobart-esque level, and if so, should the Head Coach be changed to fully re-up the process, or is he the right man for the job based on his own history?  Or are resources going to remain as-is -- a level of resources that wouldn't allow any head coach to compete at that level?

Schools that take bigger risks in football acceptances know that they take bigger risks with off-the-field issues.  They know that the reputation of being a "football school" is not something that is embraced by higher education because it suggests a meat-head mentality in some quarters.  I don't agree with the meat-head premise, but I have to acknowledge that reality when I look at the state of D3 Football in higher education today.  Some schools are willing to accept these risks and go "all in" with their football programs.  Some are not.  And that becomes the ultimate question: which category does Union's administration now fall under?  And that was the question that was asked of someone who recently spoke to Union's AD and football coach.  And that is the question that folks who are connected to the Union program should be asking the administration.

I'm done with this conversation due to some d-bag posters, and done with the message boards for a bit as I need a break from the jerk0ffs, however, this is my last post on it....Good post Frank, and defense of yourself BUT, once again, this brings back my simple question/assumption that i've been asking/you all have been insinuating for a while now.  Are you insinuating that Union College football just doesn't have enough talent to win consistently in and outside of the LL?  I think that is a complete copout and I 100% disagree if that is your assessment.  I think they have plenty of talent and as much or more than the majority of their competition.  You use the hockey programs as an excuse for your program's demise in the defense of the coaching staff.  Under your assessment, why don't they just roll over to St. Anthony's and grab Father Richard to be the head football coach.  I'm sure they won't win many football games, but he'll definitely keep them clean off the field, which is all that really matters.

With that said, Frank, I know you mean well, but your relationship with the Union coaching staff completely voids your credibility whatsoever on this topic, in this context, with this program.  You have a ton of knowledge on d3 football overall, but your heart is way too close to this one to see it for what it is worth.

Take it easy gentleman.  LewDogg11 is going AWOL.

Bartman

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 21, 2014, 05:19:12 PM
Bartman, with all due respect, I think you need to re-check some of the history you refer to early in your post.  I'd be specific, but as I said, this isn't about Hobart.  It wasn't an attempt to make it about Hobart.  It wasn't a pot-shot toward Hobart.  And I even question if you listened to the entire 35 minutes of the interview and discussion at this point, as I stated it would make no sense to try to undermine Hobart when you co-host a weekly radio show that promotes the programs and student-athletes from those institutions.

Having said that, the lead-up to the question was conveniently eliminated by you Saturday and still today: "...I've got a question that I guess should be posed to more alumni, and fans, and supporters, and administrators, but this is, I think, a general hypothetical, rhetorical question, but deserves asking, I guess, in this day and age..."  I acknowledged who would be the truly proper people to answer the question.  However, the interviewee had recently discussed the matter with the AD and also has been a writer in the area -- and knows the Union tradition from this -- for 28 years.  It was fair to ask him that question and to see how he'd respond to see if he could provide insight based on his outreach and knowledge.  His response was honest, and I don't believe he had any real issue answering it.

As Bombers points out, this is exactly the type of question that has to be reviewed.  And with that said, and as James sort of alluded to in our discussion that followed, the measure of a coach and team in this age of D3 Football is against the teams in your conference since it's pretty much Pool A or bust if the playoffs are the measure of on-the-field success.  I was trying to avoid naming of names so that I didn't create a problem with Hobart.  The fact that he took the profile I laid out and thought it was FSU was awkward and led me to have to zone in on the situation further.  Could I have just left it as "an unnamed D3 program" in retrospect?  Sure, and I wish I had.  Yet, the discussion was an attempt to evaluate what questions need to be asked before any decisions to let go of a long-time head coach should be made. 

I focused on the show on the mistakes made by RPI with Joe King, so I'm not just saying Hobart's history needs to be considered.  It's an issue of two things, from my perspective: 1) the known vs. the unknown in coaching -- that if the program has a good reputation and overall positive favor, then would switching coaches risk that since you don't know what the new coach's focus would be; and 2) the overall question of what it would take to win and achieve a desired level of success -- which, in D3 Football is basically a playoff bid and/or wins versus main rivals.  The first is the RPI scenario, and the second brings to mind Hobart for anyone in Union shoes.   I don't think any administrator would not tell you off the record that in order to compete at higher levels of football, even in Division III, you must take bigger risks in admissions (with some lower GPA students being admitted), figure out some hyper-competitive financial aid packaging for football players from less-affluent zones, and be prepared to provide the resources on campus to ensure those students acclimate and do well in the classroom once they arrive.  Yet, you run the constant risks of seeing the average GPA of the team decline and additional off-the-field problems if that last component (acclimation/classroom support) doesn't work.  To presume that such a give-and-take situation doesn't exist is foolish, especially if a program doesn't have some sort of overall history of a strong football reputation (i.e., Mount Union and Whitewater) to constantly draw several strong football players annually. 

At the end of the day, that's the question Union must ask itself if it has de-emphasized football and shifted resources over the past seven years toward men's and women's ice hockey.  Is there any reason to shift back those resources and try to compete at that Hobart-esque level, and if so, should the Head Coach be changed to fully re-up the process, or is he the right man for the job based on his own history?  Or are resources going to remain as-is -- a level of resources that wouldn't allow any head coach to compete at that level?

Schools that take bigger risks in football acceptances know that they take bigger risks with off-the-field issues.  They know that the reputation of being a "football school" is not something that is embraced by higher education because it suggests a meat-head mentality in some quarters.  I don't agree with the meat-head premise, but I have to acknowledge that reality when I look at the state of D3 Football in higher education today.  Some schools are willing to accept these risks and go "all in" with their football programs.  Some are not.  And that becomes the ultimate question: which category does Union's administration now fall under?  And that was the question that was asked of someone who recently spoke to Union's AD and football coach.  And that is the question that folks who are connected to the Union program should be asking the administration.
"I never graduated from Iowa, but I was only there for two terms - Truman's and Eisenhower's."
Alex Karras
"When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time."
Max McGee
"I love football. I really love football, As far as I'm concerned, it's the second best thing in the world".
Joe Namath

Bartman

Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 21, 2014, 05:19:12 PM
Bartman, with all due respect, I think you need to re-check some of the history you refer to early in your post.  I'd be specific, but as I said, this isn't about Hobart.  It wasn't an attempt to make it about Hobart.  It wasn't a pot-shot toward Hobart.  And I even question if you listened to the entire 35 minutes of the interview and discussion at this point, as I stated it would make no sense to try to undermine Hobart when you co-host a weekly radio show that promotes the programs and student-athletes from those institutions.

Having said that, the lead-up to the question was conveniently eliminated by you Saturday and still today: "...I've got a question that I guess should be posed to more alumni, and fans, and supporters, and administrators, but this is, I think, a general hypothetical, rhetorical question, but deserves asking, I guess, in this day and age..."  I acknowledged who would be the truly proper people to answer the question.  However, the interviewee had recently discussed the matter with the AD and also has been a writer in the area -- and knows the Union tradition from this -- for 28 years.  It was fair to ask him that question and to see how he'd respond to see if he could provide insight based on his outreach and knowledge.  His response was honest, and I don't believe he had any real issue answering it.

As Bombers points out, this is exactly the type of question that has to be reviewed.  And with that said, and as James sort of alluded to in our discussion that followed, the measure of a coach and team in this age of D3 Football is against the teams in your conference since it's pretty much Pool A or bust if the playoffs are the measure of on-the-field success.  I was trying to avoid naming of names so that I didn't create a problem with Hobart.  The fact that he took the profile I laid out and thought it was FSU was awkward and led me to have to zone in on the situation further.  Could I have just left it as "an unnamed D3 program" in retrospect?  Sure, and I wish I had.  Yet, the discussion was an attempt to evaluate what questions need to be asked before any decisions to let go of a long-time head coach should be made. 

I focused on the show on the mistakes made by RPI with Joe King, so I'm not just saying Hobart's history needs to be considered.  It's an issue of two things, from my perspective: 1) the known vs. the unknown in coaching -- that if the program has a good reputation and overall positive favor, then would switching coaches risk that since you don't know what the new coach's focus would be; and 2) the overall question of what it would take to win and achieve a desired level of success -- which, in D3 Football is basically a playoff bid and/or wins versus main rivals.  The first is the RPI scenario, and the second brings to mind Hobart for anyone in Union shoes.   I don't think any administrator would not tell you off the record that in order to compete at higher levels of football, even in Division III, you must take bigger risks in admissions (with some lower GPA students being admitted), figure out some hyper-competitive financial aid packaging for football players from less-affluent zones, and be prepared to provide the resources on campus to ensure those students acclimate and do well in the classroom once they arrive.  Yet, you run the constant risks of seeing the average GPA of the team decline and additional off-the-field problems if that last component (acclimation/classroom support) doesn't work.  To presume that such a give-and-take situation doesn't exist is foolish, especially if a program doesn't have some sort of overall history of a strong football reputation (i.e., Mount Union and Whitewater) to constantly draw several strong football players annually. 

At the end of the day, that's the question Union must ask itself if it has de-emphasized football and shifted resources over the past seven years toward men's and women's ice hockey.  Is there any reason to shift back those resources and try to compete at that Hobart-esque level, and if so, should the Head Coach be changed to fully re-up the process, or is he the right man for the job based on his own history?  Or are resources going to remain as-is -- a level of resources that wouldn't allow any head coach to compete at that level?

Schools that take bigger risks in football acceptances know that they take bigger risks with off-the-field issues.  They know that the reputation of being a "football school" is not something that is embraced by higher education because it suggests a meat-head mentality in some quarters.  I don't agree with the meat-head premise, but I have to acknowledge that reality when I look at the state of D3 Football in higher education today.  Some schools are willing to accept these risks and go "all in" with their football programs.  Some are not.  And that becomes the ultimate question: which category does Union's administration now fall under?  And that was the question that was asked of someone who recently spoke to Union's AD and football coach.  And that is the question that folks who are connected to the Union program should be asking the administration.
Frank, I indeed listened to the entire runup to the question and the entire 90 minute show on Sunday.  I respectfully think you stepped in it, and just needed to admit it. Your offered proof, is saying that you would not be motivated to undermine listeners of one of the LL programs..... doesn't mean you did not actually alienate at least one. While I am still not thrilled with your explanation , my discussion ends with this post. I respect your dedication to and knowledge of D3 football, and I  think you make some very valid observations with respect to  the tradeoffs in building/maintaining a successful D3 football program at an academically competitive school at a time when many faculty, administrators , students and even some alumni wonder why money is spent( wasted?) and academic standards are lowered(maybe even at Union) when football attendence is down significantly( usually not even reaching a 1000 at either  Union or Hobart unless for a homecoming event). I truly hope that the Union season turns around, as the build up to a great, hard fought game against Union is always satisfying. I am sorry I even tuned in on the Union game last Saturday , as I think I just prefer mindlessly rooting for my team , my league and my region..,. At this time,  I best join Lewdogg and take a rest from these boards and enjoy the rest of the season....... All other posters, please continue with your normal programming, and I apologise for my passionate, yet self indulgent interruptions over the last 3 days.  Pax Vobiscum, Bartman (an intentional defender of the orange and purple's reputation)
"I never graduated from Iowa, but I was only there for two terms - Truman's and Eisenhower's."
Alex Karras
"When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time."
Max McGee
"I love football. I really love football, As far as I'm concerned, it's the second best thing in the world".
Joe Namath

jackson5

Two people who can't take any criticism of their programs are gone? Its a good day. Frank can we get you to ask questions about Penn State now?

Bartman

Quote from: jackson5 on October 22, 2014, 12:39:23 AM
Two people who can't take any criticism of their programs are gone? Its a good day. Frank can we get you to ask questions about Penn State now?
Jackson 5 , you are such a classy troll
"I never graduated from Iowa, but I was only there for two terms - Truman's and Eisenhower's."
Alex Karras
"When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time."
Max McGee
"I love football. I really love football, As far as I'm concerned, it's the second best thing in the world".
Joe Namath

PBR...

Quote from: jackson5 on October 22, 2014, 12:39:23 AM
Two people who can't take any criticism of their programs are gone? Its a good day. Frank can we get you to ask questions about Penn State now?

No need the Paterno family is repped by Wick Sollers and has won all their court cases against the NCAA and PSU and discovery is going forward... soon the NCAA and Emmert and that scam artist Louis Freeh will exposed for all the frauds they are... the NCAA is going down in flames and will be nothing left of it but a flaming pile of poo by the time Ed O'Bannon and the multiple other major lawsuits are finished. NCAA would be smart to cave now before they are rendered completely useless by the courts.

jackson5

Quote from: PBR... on October 22, 2014, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: jackson5 on October 22, 2014, 12:39:23 AM
Two people who can't take any criticism of their programs are gone? Its a good day. Frank can we get you to ask questions about Penn State now?

No need the Paterno family is repped by Wick Sollers and has won all their court cases against the NCAA and PSU and discovery is going forward... soon the NCAA and Emmert and that scam artist Louis Freeh will exposed for all the frauds they are... the NCAA is going down in flames and will be nothing left of it but a flaming pile of poo by the time Ed O'Bannon and the multiple other major lawsuits are finished. NCAA would be smart to cave now before they are rendered completely useless by the courts.

Wow didn't know that anyone outside of State college actually supported Joe Pa. This is a weird board.

Jonny Utah

Quote from: jackson5 on October 22, 2014, 11:09:31 AM
Quote from: PBR... on October 22, 2014, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: jackson5 on October 22, 2014, 12:39:23 AM
Two people who can't take any criticism of their programs are gone? Its a good day. Frank can we get you to ask questions about Penn State now?

No need the Paterno family is repped by Wick Sollers and has won all their court cases against the NCAA and PSU and discovery is going forward... soon the NCAA and Emmert and that scam artist Louis Freeh will exposed for all the frauds they are... the NCAA is going down in flames and will be nothing left of it but a flaming pile of poo by the time Ed O'Bannon and the multiple other major lawsuits are finished. NCAA would be smart to cave now before they are rendered completely useless by the courts.

Wow didn't know that anyone outside of State college actually supported Joe Pa. This is a weird board.

PBR is a Penn State fan.

ITH radio

Interesting discussion. k+

I do think keeping the focus on the Union AD and his priorities is probably the best / most relevant / interesting (whatever you want to call it) angle on this topic. End of the day, it'll be McLaughlin's call to do what he wants and what he does will ultimately show how he views FB. If he makes a change  this offseason, I don't think people can say it was b/c Audino was a bad coach. His overall record speaks to the opposite. Same deal with King, but in all fairness, even after the PR disaster RPI had they did end up with Isernia who's done a nice job and RPI would probably have a better record than 4-3 right now if their starting QB wasn't out.

Maybe the landscape has changed (e.g., kids are drawn to teams with asst coaches in their 30's vs. 50's, school's w/ brand new stadiums, locker rooms, UA unis, etc), but if Audino runs his program like he always has, it has to be something more than just the coaching that's causing the team to not win OOC games and struggle in the LL this and in the 2010 seasons. Union has greater ability to provide aid than most other LL, if not, eastern schools, so if they aren't offering more that money's going somewhere else.

While I agree on one hand Frank is "too close" to the issue on one hand, on the other hand the proximity to the parties involved does provide him w/ information / access the rest of us don't have.

I too hope Union recovers as our conference could use more depth (and wins vs. the E8 ;).
Follow us on twitter @D3FBHuddle

PBR...

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on October 22, 2014, 11:28:09 AM
Quote from: jackson5 on October 22, 2014, 11:09:31 AM
Quote from: PBR... on October 22, 2014, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: jackson5 on October 22, 2014, 12:39:23 AM
Two people who can't take any criticism of their programs are gone? Its a good day. Frank can we get you to ask questions about Penn State now?

No need the Paterno family is repped by Wick Sollers and has won all their court cases against the NCAA and PSU and discovery is going forward... soon the NCAA and Emmert and that scam artist Louis Freeh will exposed for all the frauds they are... the NCAA is going down in flames and will be nothing left of it but a flaming pile of poo by the time Ed O'Bannon and the multiple other major lawsuits are finished. NCAA would be smart to cave now before they are rendered completely useless by the courts.

Wow didn't know that anyone outside of State college actually supported Joe Pa. This is a weird board.

PBR is a Penn State fan.

Also also a college sports fan... what the ncaa and mark emmert did was beyond disgusting and illegal. Their time is coming as discovery by Sue Paterno represented by Wick Sollers is moving forward. Wick Sollers is a pure cold blood sniper. One of the best lawyers out there. He will cut the heads off the NCAA and many are anxiously waiting and watching it happen. They are so backed into a corner already by their actions I can't believe how stupid they have been in what they have said and done.  It's already hilarious watching who is going to take the fall as the ncaa and the psu bot are already both pointing the fingers at each other. Comical yet so sad in a way. Real reporting is gone and no one does any real investigative reporting. It's be first and damn the facts. Everyone with a blog considers themselves a reporter and people take whatever is spewed as gospel. Shame but media and reporting is all changing and transforming now and probably not for the better. What is really sad here is the media when all this is said and done, won't go back and repair the damage as the next hype and story to spew will be there. Going to be very interesting to see who sat on what and where the info stopped above the top 3 admins at psu above Joe. Already the emails the Judge has ordered released by right to know and to Joe's lawyers have set the stage for trying to pin this on him by the people above him. Disgusting what individuals will do to save their own hides. Satisfaction is going to be seeing the monetary awards to the family after all this is done. Sue is donating all of it to charity. And a dying man was never allowed to clear his name. There are many now that see the NCAA for what it is, and many people I know at other schools that are admins have stated now they now how the Paterno's felt.  What is the most ironic thing in this whole mess????? In the new NCAA handbook on how to handle this situation in writing says to do just what Joe did... go figure???? I ask everyone to show any evidence that Joe covered anything up. No one can show 1 piece of evidence other than saying "he had to know..."  sigh... unfortunately now as people have seen louis freeh for what he is and how he made guesses and admits to guessing at everything since out of over 200 witnesses he interiewed 1... great investigative reporting there louis. People like Dick Vitale and many other pro and college coaches and some reporters who ripped Joe now have had time to read all the facts and have written and called  Sue Paterno and apologized for things they have said. Sue being a true lady tells them all its ok and never has a bad word to say about anyone. Many people could learn some life lessons from her.... just watch how this all plays out in the courts in the next year. peace/out

jackson5

Penn State truthers are my favorite truthers of them all.

ITH radio

Great ATR by Lovell on Tyre Coleman's remarkable D3FB career. He can crack the top 5 of all time d3 sack leaders with one this weekend vs. RPI. Hope he gets it.
Follow us on twitter @D3FBHuddle

Jonny Utah

Quote from: ITH radio on October 23, 2014, 12:28:13 PM
Great ATR by Lovell on Tyre Coleman's remarkable D3FB career. He can crack the top 5 of all time d3 sack leaders with one this weekend vs. RPI. Hope he gets it.

Is he better than Dave Russell?

ITH radio

I know Dave and used to watch him play. Both guys were dominant for their era, but statistically Tyre has done more than DR, albeit Dave never had as much talent around him defensively like TC has.

Great question. Will have to think about that one for a bit.
Follow us on twitter @D3FBHuddle