Unless I'm reading this wrong, I'm seeing a lack of consistency.
I'm lost. Lack of consistency? In the end I have stuck with the ethical and realistic side of every issue. I think the staff and administration know just about everything, but only the individuals directly involved know 100% of everything regarding the issues. You gather evidence and build a case. It happens every day. I never said our coaches and administration or Paterno and Penn State didn't know the facts, because I think to some degree they all knew.
Let me see if I can explain my confusion a little better.
When we were talking about Taylor I maintained the stance there are things that the staff and administration know that we don't. Based on that I feel/felt having a cut and dried opinion of him having a spot on the team was rushing to judgment. Without knowing all the details, how could you, or anyone, say "that's a bad move?" Based on how I interpreted your comments (when I asked you about your feelings) not knowing those details didn't matter.
Here I read you saying Paterno knew the details; knew things we aren't privy to as the public, so to speak. And, based on the assumption he knew what was going on his decision was wrong. I get that.
It seems to me you're judging a man based on things you assume he knew but you're also judging a man (Saban and Taylor) based on things you don't know. Is it not a rash, and quick judgment of Saban's offer to Taylor? On one hand the coach is supposed to know and did, but Taylor's situation doesn't fit the same standard?
Does that make more sense?
Hell, maybe it's just me...seems to be a conflict on decisions made by both.
Bottom line, and this is what I believe is the most important point, the NCAA is getting exactly what they deserve.
What's strangely ironic here is we have the chairman of the NCAA's executive committee making decisions based on things he admits he didn't know because he didn't take time to read the report.
