I received the following through obscure channels. It is reproduced verbatim. I don’t know how serious this proposal is, and whether it is indeed gaining traction with the town fathers. However, it is interesting.

Proposal – The ‘Joe Paterno Reflections Bench’ on Inspiration Way

May 2013

Concept: Honor Joe Paterno by memorializing the simple moment above by recreating it as a statue, to be installed in front of the mural @ Inspiration Way in downtown State College.

Detail: The candid photo above captures a personal, intimate glimpse of the Joe Paterno we all knew and will always love – a simple, unpretentious man, taking a moment to reflect in thought among his fellow Nittany Lions, while enjoying ice cream outside the Creamery. As is true with the core values that guided his life, its beauty lies in its simplicity.

Admittedly, such a statue is in stark contrast to the original Joe Paterno statue placed in front of Beaver Stadium, which was understandably tied more closely to Penn State football and Joe’s accomplishments as a great coach. While those accomplishments are undeniable, they do not solely define Joe Paterno. On the contrary, the intent with the new statue concept is to focus more introspectively on the man and his life’s accomplishments, and more accurately reflect the man that he was…and why WE ARE. In the image above, Joe is as approachable as any other State College citizen – indicative of the man who walked to work much of his life. It symbolizes the fact that he was not a God – but a man, with flaws like all of us. He is human. One with us, and we are one with him. For, we ALL are Penn State.

Capturing Joe in a reflective state is also intentional. The statue ideally would be located on Inspiration Way overlooking Michael Pilato’s mural on Heister Street. In this fashion, Joe is seen reflecting on the mural and what it teaches us – who we are, where we’ve been, and where are we going. It is also reassuring to know that as the Penn State/State College community evolves and grows, and with it the ever-changing mural, Joe will always be there as a constant figure guiding us forward – a gentle reminder to make Penn State a better place.

By keeping the seat next to Joe open, he invites us all in to share the experience, reflect, and learn with him – just as he and his family were so generous to share his life publicly with the Penn State community.

While not seen in the photo, Joe’s love of education and reading can be personalized by adding some of his favorite books on the bench sitting next to him. Other ideas to personalize the statue further can easily be added.

“If”

To memorialize Joe’s love of the poem “If” by Rudyard Kipling, the poem can be engraved on a plaque and installed at Joe’s feet, to be placed among the other bricks of Inspiration Way. This would allow those who sit next to the bench to see the poem from his perspective, and reflect on its meaning, and why he loved it so. (Note – full poem at end of this proposal. )

Inscribed Quotes:

Below is an example of many possible Joe Paterno’s quotes that can be inscribed on bench:

• Right Arm of Bench – Success With Honor
• Left Arm of Bench: The Grand Experiment
• Back of Bench: “Believe deep down in your heart that you are destined to do great things.”

Sue Paterno Addition

As a possible addition to the concept above, and to honor Sue Paterno’s long list of achievements, a 2nd statue of Sue could be added standing behind Joe, with one of her hands on his shoulders. That simple gesture is very indicative of the support she gave throughout his life. In her other arm, she could carry mementos of her favorite causes (Catholic Center, Special Olympics, etc). Again, this idea is open to may personalization possibilities.

Cost Estimates of Statue (excluding installation, etc)

• Joe On Bench – $200,000
• Joe on Bench with Sue behind – $300,000

Fundraising

With Penn State’s large alumni base, we believe the funds could be raised relatively easily and quickly. The following donors need to be looked at more thoroughly, and a fundraising strategy finalized:

• Corporate
• Alumni
• Individual donors

Possible Alternative Locations (note – until relations with the University leadership improve, we do not feel it is feasible to place the statue on campus)

• Sunset Park (McKee St)
• Sue Paterno Catholic Center
• Boalsburg Park
• Corner of Beaver Ave/Fraser

Thus far, State College authorities seem very interested in allowing the statue to be placed downtown.

* * * * * *

“If” by Rudyard Kipling

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!

So, what do you think? Does anyone know whether this is moving forward at all? 

How many yellow journalists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None. They don’t need to see the light. They just cobble together some flimsy he-said/she-said factoids to make two plus two equal five. It’s all sleight of pen. See, no wires, just sheer magic.

Such is the case with the recent Sports Illustrated article entitled “Do athletics still have too much power at Penn State?” This is just another cheap-ass shot at Penn State, which has proven to be fertile ground for sports hacks who have nothing better to write about.

If you haven’t read or don’t want to read the article, its premise is that by “firing” Dr. Wayne Sebastianelli, the long-time team physician for Penn State football, the University has demonstrated that yet again, football rules the roost. Huh? Say whut?

Since when does any administrator not have the ability and right to choose personnel for his or her organization? The article attempts to blame Sebastianelli’s “firing” on athletic director Dave Joyner’s purported long-standing grudge against Sebastianelli. The evidence of such a feud is flimsily presented. Even if the conflict existed, so what? Doesn’t Joyner have the right to run his ship the way he sees fit? The author tries to discredit Joyner as being underqualified (or unqualified) to do the job of athletic director. I have no problem with opinions about proper qualifications, as they’re subjective. But what does this have to do with athletics having power at Penn State?

Furthermore, Sebastianelli wasn’t actually fired. He was kicked upstairs. “Percussive sublimation” is what Lawrence J. Peter called it in “The Peter Principle.” What is wrong with that? Highly respected and revered offensive coordinator Fran Ganter was given the same treatment by the sainted Joe Paterno and we all accepted the move. Sebastianelli is still at least titularly in charge of sports medicine at Penn State. Why is it necessary to have an orthopedic surgeon at every football practice? Isn’t a sniffle doc good enough? If someone breaks a leg, they go to the hospital, where there are lots of ortho guys and gals. Sebastianelli is still there if they need him and will still perform surgery on players as needed.

Here’s a good one:

“O’Brien hired Penn State alum Tim Bream, who worked with Joyner at the ’92 Olympics, as athletic trainer in February 2012. Sources involved in health care for Penn State athletics who spoke with SI on the condition of anonymity say they saw Bream, who does not have a medical degree, engage in practices normally reserved for doctors, such as giving players anti-inflammatory drugs without a prescription and lancing a boil on a player’s neck. University medical sources also said that Bream told physicians to stop talking with the parents of players and that doctors should not spend as much time with the team.”

Turns out that Bream might have been dispensing Voltaren, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Although it is prescription only, so was ibuprofen at one time. This class of drugs includes aspirin, ibuprofen, relafen, etc. The same side-effects and precautions apply to all of them. I suppose we’re getting into spirit of the law versus letter of the law issues here; however, I doubt that handing out anti-inflammatories to guys with sore knees with blanket authorization by a doctor somewhere in the chain is something to be particularly concerned about. Lancing a boil isn’t exactly major surgery — it’s usually done as self-surgery. Come on, SI! Find something really wrong.

The folks in the Lasch Building unfortunately dignified this hit piece with a response or two. I think that’s reflexive after all the crap that has been slung at Penn State during the past year-and-a-half; nevertheless, I find it somewhat unsettling. Whether or not there is any substance to the allegations made by SI, Penn State should not feel obligated to defend itself. The University we know and love should keep a stiff upper lip and do business as usual.

The bottom line? Making personnel moves in the medical staff does not imply that athletics have too much power. It merely means that executive decisions are being made internally, not at the behest of the ever critical, mud-slinging press.

As an alumnus, I was bemused by an email this morning from Penn State president Rod Erickson. Here’s what he said:

Dear Penn State Community:

Recently, a number of groups across the Commonwealth have called for changes in the University’s governance structure. For more than 157 years, shared governance among the Board of Trustees, the administration, and the faculty has allowed our University to thrive and become one of the top research universities in the world. As you know, this has been a year of tremendous change at Penn State. Its governing body, the thirty-two-member Board of Trustees, also is changing.

Driven by the desire to do what’s in the best interests of the University, the Trustees on May 3 adopted a number of changes to Penn State’s charter, bylaws, and governance structure. These changes will help ensure the highest standards of excellence and a process of openness that will provide a clearer path forward in fulfilling our important mission of teaching, research, and public service.

Notably, these are living documents that were crafted to include a process for change; indeed, the Board has revised those documents more than twenty times in the past twelve years.

Another significant document connected with change is “A Vision for Penn State: A Report of the Blue and White Vision Council,” which explores the challenges, opportunities, and strategies for the University in the years ahead. The Vision Council, made up of members of the Board of Trustees and the University community, is integral to the future of the University.

I’d like to share with you these significant changes that promise to play a critical role in our future as a University and in the future of generations to come. As always, I hope these communications from me provide you with timely and important information about Penn State. Thank you for being a part of our University.

RODNEY ERICKSON

It appears that what Erickson is attempting to do is portray the Board of Trustees as a dynamic, forward thinking governing body that is responsive to the needs of the community. The BoT’s recent changes that seemingly serve to concentrate power inspired Erickson to put out this piece of colorful prose, no doubt, and his opening sentence suggests that he knows that the changes will piss off “a number of groups across the Commonwealth.” This seems to be pointed at PS4RS, from this naive turkey’s point of view.

So, what are the BoT changes? Funny you should ask. For a quick synopsis, if you read Big Al’s comment on my previous post, you’ll get an inkling — expressed in Al’s own gloves off, balls-to-the-wall style. For more detail, a Penn State press release will clue you in to the whole pile of changes. However, if you’re too busy to click on any of those links, here is a list of changes:

• The governor and University president will now serve as non-voting ex-officio members. (They used to vote)
• The president is no longer automatically secretary of the board. That position will be elected.
• Three-year term limits for all trustees, not just elected ones. [The wording is confusing in the press release, but I think this means terms, not term limits. See the next sentence. ---TNT] Term limits for trustees other than ex-officio trustees will be 12 consecutive years.
• The number of voting trustees is reduced to 30: nine elected by alumni, six appointed by the governor, six elected by agricultural societies across the state, six represent business and industry and are selected by the BoT, and three are ex-officio members (Secretary of Education, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary of Conservation and Natural Resources).
• Provision for term limits now applies to the vice chair (but not the chair!).
• Former University employees need to wait five years before serving on the BoT, up from three.
• Former Commonwealth “row officers” must wait five years before becoming trustees. (A row officer is a county official. This is kind of unique to Pennsylvania.)
• There is now a section describing the process for removal of a trustee. (This is a major controversial point, which seemed to be aimed at suppressing dissent on the board. It is half of the “Lubrano Rule” — nicknamed for an outspoken trustee — with the other half being that directors will not make publicly negative statements about board decisions. This section gives that gag rule teeth. I wrote about this back in March. Following is an excerpt from that post.)
  

  It is interesting that with the election forthcoming, the BoT is considering proposals to reduce the size of the board, to put gags on members, and be empowered to kick people off the board who speak out. Here is the exact wording of the proposal that would restrict the free speech of board members:

  “It is expected that each Trustee will… Speak openly, freely and candidly within the Board and publicly support decisions reached by the Board; it being recognized and understood that once the Board of Trustees, as the governing body of the University, makes a decision, it can be counterproductive and potentially damaging to the University for individual Trustees to publicly criticize or attempt to subvert such decision…”

  Hellllllllooooooooo! If Washington ran that way, it would be Pyongyang! Communist stifling of free speech! Toe the party line… or else! WTF? Is this America?

• Quorum requirement modified from 13 to a majority of the voting members. (That would be 16, at present.)
• The Executive Committee is now selected by chairs of six newly formed standing committees, the chair and vice chair of the board, the chair of the board of directors at the medical school, the immediate past chair of the BoT (oy, vay!), and three at-large members (yay!) nominated by the Governance and Long-Range Planning committee (boo!) and elected by the Board of Trustees. (This serves to guarantee that power will be concentrated in and held by what Big Al refers to as the ass clowns, and it incidentally empowers Karen Peetz to continue to be influential over the board by virtue of her past board chairmanship and her position as chair of the long-range planning committee. I’m just whining about the “laser focus on the future” babe here.)
• The board also strengthened its comprehensive conflict of interest policy. (I’ll have to read this one thoroughly to find the fly in the ointment.)

So, that’s what Erickson means when he says that the documents are “living documents” that have been modified twenty times in the past twelve years. I think that the lady doth protest too much! Surely, he (or more probably, the University Relations “ass clown” who wrote the letter) were being rather transparent in attempting to defuse what he anticipated to be a sea of protests, especially concerning Executive Committee and the “Lubrano gag rule” buried deeply and couched tersely in the fetid bowels of the synopsis.

As a further smokescreen, Erickson presents “A Vision for Penn State: A Report of the Blue and White Vision Council.” You may recall that Karen Peetz chairs the Blue and White Vision Council, where she maintains her signature laser focus on the future of the university. In her foreword, she quotes historian Norman Davies, to wit:

“Historical change is like an avalanche. The starting point is a snow-covered mountainside that looks solid. All changes take place under the surface and are rather invisible. But something is coming. What is impossible is to say when.”

The document is a glowing self-promotion, just about what you would expect from a 19-page document from this group. But sandwiched innocuously between the copious promotional boilerplate and the “implications for the next University president” lip service is a section on ethics. The following paragraphs on Page 17 caught my eye:

The Board of Trustees commissioned an independent review – known as the Freeh Report — which recommended that Penn State’s culture be re-examined in part to “establish values and ethics-based decision-making and adherence to the Penn State principles as the standard for all University faculty, staff and students.” Building a strong and healthy campus culture has been a point of Penn State pride over many years. For example, the Penn State Principles, aspirational statements for students, were issued more than 10 years ago, in July 2001. The Principles include four key statements:

“I will respect the dignity of all individuals within the Penn State community; I will practice academic integrity; I will demonstrate social and personal responsibility; and I will be responsible for my own academic progress and agree to comply with all University policies.”

Given the sole focus of these principles on student responsibilities, however, Penn State concluded that a new and broader set of Principles was needed. They will be grounded in Penn State’s core values and will be relevant for all students, faculty and staff. Several steps are now under way to develop the revised Principles. Prominent faculty ethicists have offered advice and expertise on substantive and process issues related to identifying new Principles. A Task Force of faculty, students and staff has been charged to lead the project and to establish a process and timeline for completion. Likewise, an audit of college, campus and administrative unit core values has been undertaken, and benchmarking of core values from other universities has also been completed. Finally, discussions have begun with the Ethics Resource Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to independent research that advances high ethical standards and practices in public and private institutions, for the development of an ethical culture survey to be administered to the University at periodic intervals. Sustaining these initiatives going forward is of particular importance.

I don’t know whether I’m seeing black helicopters here, but this raised a red flag. We start with the Freeh report being emphasized as an independent review — which this turkey has frequently opined it was anything but. I have no issues with an ethics policy being extended beyond students to the faculty and staff of the institution, just as long as the First Amendment is not stepped on. I have no qualms at all about tight policies regarding academic integrity. Social and personal responsibility, too, is a given in any halfway decent ethics policy, pun intended. My big question here is whether this new-found sensitivity to ethical practice by faculty and administrative staff not a vehicle for eventual suppression? Under the guise of preventing Sandusky scandals in the future, could the University be contemplating abrogating or limiting the right of free speech? The future of this proposed ethical renaissance is unclear, mired in a pig wallow of committees, task forces, and outside (quasi-independent) organizations (Ethics Resource Center).

I’ve written enough for now. Take a look at these documents and form your own opinions as to whether we’re really maintaining that laser focus on the future of the University.

Alumni discontent with the Penn State Board of Trustees culminated in the election of the slate of candidates recommended by Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS). That organization has arduously campaigned to purge the BoT of those who bungled the Sandusky scandal, the NCAA sanctions, and the Paterno firing. The alumni definitely won this round.

Barbara Doran, Ted Brown, and Bill Oldsey won in a landslide. Meanwhile, alums voted out incumbents Stephanie Deviney and Paul Suhey.

In January, Ken Frazier nominated Deviney as Vice Chair. How did that work out? She’ll serve in that capacity until her term ends — which is soon. Looking at her Penn State trustee blog gave me an idea of her self-promotion, but the following sentence confounded me:

Now, my second strength (which I’ve gotten a little slack for) is the ability to “win others over” affectionately referred to as “woo”.

Not only is the sentence structure awkward, particularly for a litigator, but also the last time I heard about something referred to as “woo” was in the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan classic flop Joe versus the Volcano.

Steve Suhey played football for the Nittany Lions and was a shoo-in for the BoT when he initially ran. However, he continually sided with the element regarded by PS4RS as tyrannical, which did him in.

Karen Peetz,  the “laser focus on the future of the university” babe who resigned as Chair, will remain the Business and Industry representative on the board. At least she won’t be in a position to be quoted much. She is president of BNY Mellon.

There is still much work to be done to whip this board into shape, but for the moment, at least, PS4RS has performed as those of us who supported the organization hoped that it would.

Everybody in the sports world who watched Penn State head football coach Bill O’Brien’s comments on national TV after last season’s victory over Wisconsin knows exactly what he said: “They’re a bunch of flowers.” No, seriously, he said “f**kers”, but he later denied it, stating that he really said “fighters”. The controversy lingers on, but both O’Brien and his fellow coaches were able to find humor in the incident during this year’s Coaches’ Caravan.

First, to refresh your aural memory, here’s the O’Brien post-game interview.

Now, for the retrospective on this purported faux pas with hilarious comments by PSU wrestling coach Cael Sanderson and a “let’s clear something up” quasi-rebuttal by O’Brien, check out this video coverage of the Coaches’ Caravan by Pennlive.com.

Yeah, he said “f**kers” and even his mom knows it!

******

Many of you have wondered where the hell this turkey has been for the past month or so, inasmuch as my previously prolific postings have thinned out to a penurious puddle of previously posted poo-poo. And, hell, I didn’t even comment on the Blue-White game or the NFL Draft. Whazzzup wit dat?

I’ll get to that forthwith, but first, a couple of comments about both of those things I ignored.

The Blue-White game was, as always, a showcase for fans who are starved for football, but, of course, it is essentially meaningless entertainment. Did it clarify the quarterback shuffle? No. After the game, Steven Bench had a talk with Coach O’Brien and, feeling slighted when BoB told him straight that he would play a backup role, declared his intent to bolt. Mississippi State and USF were said to be possible transfer targets for him. F**ker! Meanwhile, Christian Hackenberg and Tyler Ferguson seem to be the contenders for the job. Couple of f**kers!

O’Brien treats his f**kers like men, like NFL players. In the words of the late Howard Cosell, he tells it like it is. If they don’t like what they hear, too bad. F**kers!

One conclusion I drew from the game (and I haven’t even read anyone else’s coverage of it to determine whether anyone agrees with me) is that Jesse James is the guy the damn offense will hinge upon. I wasn’t terribly impressed with any aspect of the ground game, and you know how O’Brien likes those tight ends! F**kers!  (Yeah, I know. I’m always a day late and a dollar short.)

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. That oft-abused Sergio Leone spaghetti western title comes to mind, so like any other putrid hack journalist, I’ll give it a go. Doesn’t really work here. Nothing really bad happened during the annual spring scrimmage, but there sure as hell was something ugly! Y’know, even high school girls can routinely make extra points. Sam Ficken had the ugliest bunch of kicks since the Follies Bergère parody at the Happy Days Rest Home.  Whazzzup wit dat? It reminded me of his start last season, only worse. Having been pressed into service as the top kicker due to Anthony Fera’s departure, he got some leeway, and he improved greatly as the season wore on. However, his gains in accuracy and all-around kicking ability seem to have mysteriously departed during the long, cold winter. Critics were quickly silenced last year due to the situation Penn State was in. This year there won’t be any honeymoon. Those skills, such as they are, better return!  F**ker!

And now, the Draft. Defensive tackle Jordan Hill was our top draftee, going to Seattle in the third round. Linebacker Gerald Hodges also went in the third round, to Minnesota. Mike Mauti was disappointingly (for some) selected in the seventh round, also by Minnesota. Cornerback Stephon Morris and center Matt Stankiewitch were eligible, but were not drafted. In this turkey’s opinion, Mauti has the greatest upside potential but he also is a huge risk for any NFL team. He is a tremendous emotional leader, has a fine collection of skills, impressed the hell out of people with his pre-draft performance in spite of his injury, and he is an NFL legacy. NFL scouts were not particularly impressed with his east-west pursuit skills, but he’s still NFL material if — and it’s a big if — his oft-injured knee can return to full functionality and stay healthy. But he’s sure a f**ker!

Speaking of health issues, we’re back to the turkey. I’ve had a bit of neuritis that hasn’t seriously debilitated me physically, but it has thrown my writing schedule off-kilter. (What the hell is a kilter, anyway? Can one get back on-kilter?) It’s really hard to write when I’m pissed off at my body for letting me down. However, the show must go on. This nerve ailment is a long-term thing, and it is my hope that I’ll outlast it. In the meanwhile, I recognize that it ain’t all about me! By wallowing in the mire of self-pity, I’m not doing myself or anyone else any good. Besides, writing has always been therapeutic for me. I could indeed write in a vacuum, but I am blessed to have a small collection of stalwart readers out there who put up with my autistic rambling. That not only makes me happy, but also it keeps me going when the going gets rough. And you know how I love to hate sportswriter clichés!

So, here I am. Don’t know when I’ll write next, but I just wanted to let you all know — or by this time, let you both know — that I haven’t gone away. Here’s hoping that I can get my ass into high gear before the season starts, you bunch of f**kers!

Culture of Football? It’s for the birds.

The NCAA Enforcement Squad’s latest problem child is the University of Oregon (hereinafter referred to as the Ducks, because it makes it even more ridiculous), who have actually fessed up about at least one major violation relating to recruiting practices.

Feeling that vindication varies directly with poundage, the Ducks released 515 pages of evidence to the local newsrag, The Oregonian, who actually posted these things — lots and lots of emails with significant redactage (I made that word up) — guaranteed to bore you after you view the first 10 or so. Being a glutton for punishment, I looked at the first 100 or and the last hundred or so, just to claim to be thorough. I was overwhelmed by all the stuff in the last group, which provided dispositions of prior recruiting cases dating way the hell back to the Garden of Eden.

Now, even in view of the embarrassingly defensive publication of poundage, the Ducks are in deep duck soup. One major issue is paying a $25,000 fee to a talent scout in Texas. Oy!

You want to talk about “football culture”? There you have it. Most of this occurred during the reign of Chip Kelly, who bolted Oregon to replace Andy Reid as head coach of the NFL Philadelphia Eagles in January.

However, the Ducks and the NCAA disagree on the severity of that particular violation. Oregon admits to major violations, but considers its payment to that agent in Texas to be a secondary violation. The NCAA considers it major. Are we splitting hairs here or what? Or is this an arabesque to try to soften the blow of the whole thing by saying, “Yeah, but it isn’t as bad as you say it is, and we have 800 pounds of heavily redacted documents to prove our Duckine veracity.”

Oregon pleads ignorance according to a USA Today report:

“Football staff members were not aware that the manner in which they were using scouting/recruiting services was impermissible,” Oregon said in its October 2012 summary disposition. “Nonetheless, the recruiting advantage that was gained via the oral reports from scouting services personnel was more than the minimal.”

The NCAA has no reason to believe Lyles “coerced or directed any prospect to ultimately choose Oregon.” However, according to another document, “Lyles did provide a meaningful recruiting advantage by orally providing background information about prospects to the coaching staff and also by serving as a conduit to facilitate communication with prospective student-athletes.”

Lyles’ connection with Oregon first drew the NCAA’s attention in March 2011, after a Yahoo Sports report detailed how the school paid Lyles shortly after five-star running back Lache Seastrunk joined the Ducks’ football program. Lyles had been a mentor to Seastrunk, who was from Temple, Texas.

Yep. Vintage Chip Kelly. Culture of football. This petri dish is growing some interesting cultures.

The next step is appearing before the NCAA infractions committee. An unnamed Ducky said that the NCAA had taken a bowl ban off the table in preliminary talks; however, the Ducks were willing to accept recruiting penalties and scholarship reductions. As the investigation proceeded, the path forward got pretty muddy, so all bets are off.

This thing has dragged on for quite a while. News of the $25,000 payoff emerged in March 2011, a couple of months after the Ducks appeared in their first SSMNC game.

Read the Oregonian report on this sordid mess and let me know what you think. I’ll forgive you if you don’t read all 515 documents.

******

NCAA flips a bird at Sebastian.

Meanwhile, back at Indianapolis, the NCAA is smugly pooh-poohing the University of Miami’s (hereinafter referred to as Sebastian the Ibis) attempt to get the case against it dismissed.  Saith Jonathan Duncan (hereinafter referred to as Jake the Enforcer), the NCAA Interim Vice President of Enforcement, stated:

“In the enforcement staff’s view, the motions to dismiss are largely based on assumptions, false accusations, misleading statements and meritless claims about the enforcement staff and its investigation. For the reasons set forth below, the enforcement staff requests that the Committee on Infractions deny the motions.”

Former Clintonista and long-time president of “The U”, Donna Shalala, had previously spoken loud and hard about the unprofessional practices of the NCAA Enforcement squad. Donna takes no shit from no quarter.

In a CBS Sports story, Jake the Enforcer also defended several enforcement staff members who have since been fired:

“The enforcement staff ‘self-reported’ the [Maria Elena] Perez [attorney for Shapiro who was paid by the NCAA after doing that work, though she contends that she never actually was employed by the association] issue and then cooperated diligently with internal NCAA staff members and the Cadwalader firm to fully identify and disclose information related to the Perez issue. After an external investigation, those individuals found to have had culpability in the matter have been held accountable, and as a united enforcement staff, we deeply regret, have apologized for and are embarrassed by the events and circumstances. Nevertheless, we will not stand idly by when meritless, personal attacks are launched under the broad brush stroke of ‘enforcement staff misconduct.’

“… Overall, the enforcement staff believes that the institution is again grasping at straws in an attempt to disqualify members of the enforcement team with the most knowledge about the case. Not only are these personal attacks based on no evidence that would support the removal of Barnhart and Hannah from the case, they are also not a basis for dismissal of the case in its entirety.”

So, there you have it. The NCAA can do no wrong. The game is on center stage. The Indianapolis Arrogant Pricks vs. the Miamah Strong-Willed Culture of Football.

The NCAA can defend its shoddy practices for only so long. But do they need to? Who’s going to do anything about them?

All of this stuff is good fodder for Corbett’s case against them, should it ever go to trial. Here’s hoping!