Monitor lauds Penn State's progress post-Sandusky
STATE COLLEGE — The independent monitor who's tracking Penn State's adoption of reforms in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal says in an annual progress report that the university is making notable progress.
Former Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, is serving as Penn State's athletics integrity monitor. He issued his first-year wrapup Friday.
Mitchell says Penn State has implemented most of the 119 recommendations laid out in former FBI director Louis Freeh's report last summer. The NCAA required Penn State to adopt the recommendations as part of its consent decree with the university.
The family of the late head football coach Joe Paterno and others are suing the NCAA over the sanctions against Penn State, which included a $60 million fine, scholarship reductions and four-year postseason ban.
Sandusky, a retired assistant football coach, is serving a long prison sentence for molesting boys.
Also Friday, the Paterno family and others suing the NCAA said a judge should not throw out their claims against college sports' governing body.
The document filed that day elaborated on ways they say the NCAA has harmed them, including making it difficult for Paterno's son to find a coaching job and hurting sales of Paterno memorabilia.
They say Paterno's death in 2012 does not mean college football fans can't buy his autographed footballs, but the market is more limited because of what they term “disparaging and baseless statements.”
The NCAA's top lawyer said that after reading the new filing, he still thinks the case should be thrown out.
The plaintiffs are Paterno's family, some Penn State faculty and trustees, and some former players and coaches.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.