Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PSUnishment
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
HOUSEoPAIN
Update.

No bowl games for 4 years, $60 million fine, vacation of wins since 1998.
Dreagon
Well, it ain't what SMU got hit with. But then this was a completely different situation.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Jul 23 2012, 08:29 AM) *
Well, it ain't what SMU got hit with. But then this was a completely different situation.


It's significantly worse
Dreagon
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 23 2012, 08:30 AM) *
It's significantly worse


Yeah. The weird thing is it's a criminal matter, and I imagine the NCAA probably never imagined themselves having to deal with an entire program over a situation like this.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Jul 23 2012, 08:44 AM) *
Yeah. The weird thing is it's a criminal matter, and I imagine the NCAA probably never imagined themselves having to deal with an entire program over a situation like this.


Sandusky is the only criminal afforded due process. Funny how that works.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 23 2012, 09:53 AM) *
Sandusky is the only criminal afforded due process. Funny how that works.


Ugh, I'm sure this will end up being another 100+ comment thread before long.

I would think of the NCAAs actions as that of a private club suspending/punishing a member who it deems has violated its rules, or risks tarnishing the reputation of the club. I know that's simplistic, but it was in the NCAAs best interests to do something sooner rather than later, even if you disagree witht he punishment.
mcnabbulous
I'm pretty much over it at this point. I'll continue to support the team/players, because they've done nothing wrong and deserve the support.

With that said, the NCAA deemed that PSU leadership, and Joe Paterno specifically, were too powerful. So they combatted that by giving the NCAA president unprecedented power to impose sanctions.

How's that for irony.
make_it_rain
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Jul 23 2012, 08:24 PM) *


I know I shouldn't laugh.

Yet it's so freakin funny..... laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Flying Dutchman
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Jul 23 2012, 08:24 PM) *


Fits well with my decision to refer to Joe only as Joe Pedo-Pa from now on. His decided inaction was a contributor to lifelong agony for a lot of kids.
mcnabbulous
Not to put a damper on a happy mood, because this thread is pure comedy and there is nothing more funny than pedophila (It's all about the children!) but I just had a thought and wanted to run it by the various coverup experts that are on this board...

Throughout the Freeh report, which you've all read, it was mentioned numerous times that the PSU administrators displayed a lack of empathy as it related to the victims. Specifically the 2001 McQuery incident. The report states how the admins never even discussed the victims, proving they didn't care.

So, as it relates to the obvious coverup. If you were trying to coverup allegations of rape that involved a child, wouldn't you want to make sure you discuss the possibilities of said child talking? Or at least discuss the possibilities of keeping him quiet? Since it was a coverup and all.




D Rock
Zactly.

Not only were they world class douche bags, but they were BAD at it.
mcnabbulous
Apparently not, given how long it lasted. Best worst coverup ever.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 12:08 AM) *
So, as it relates to the obvious coverup. If you were trying to coverup allegations of rape that involved a child, wouldn't you want to make sure you discuss the possibilities of said child talking? Or at least discuss the possibilities of keeping him quiet? Since it was a coverup and all.


Well that's an interesting question - unfortunately, I can't answer it, because there is no remotely possible circumstance on earth where I could ever imagine wanting to do such a thing - the second I found out about something like this I would fully investigate it, and if I saw it happening I would physically stop it myself before handing over the douchebag to the authorities.



mcnabbulous
Ahhh. You would fully investigate. I'd love to know what that would consist of, detective.

Of course, it's ridiculous to say how you would handle any situation you've never been placed in, because of course no one really knows.

I'm sure if you posed the same question to Graham Spanier in 2000, he would probably have said, "as the victim of persistent abuse as a child, I would have never turned a blind I to suspected abuse." Wouldn't you think so? Doesn't it seem way more likely that someone who was abused as a child would be even more likely to stick up for those placed in that situation, if they suspected it to be the case?

Of course it does. But the story you believe is that a victim of child abuse himself, along with 3 other guys, orchestrated a strategic plan to harbor a pedophile in their own community. Despite the fact that there is not one piece of evidence to verify that.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:45 AM) *
Ahhh. You would fully investigate. I'd love to know what that would consist of, detective.


Well for starters, if it was known one of my assistant coaches was molesting children in the shower at my facility, instead of worrying about 'interfering with everyone's weekend' I would've aggressively made sure action was taken. Pages 62-64 of the Freeh report are the most damning, and why we're discussing this in the first place. Yes Paterno as well as others 'reported' to their superiors what was going on, but didn't follow up in any sort of meaningful manner, shrugged it off, and at least 2 boys were molested after Feb. 2001. Not that I'm Sherlock Holmes or anything.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Jul 24 2012, 09:16 AM) *
Well for starters, if it was known one of my assistant coaches was molesting children in the shower at my facility, instead of worrying about 'interfering with everyone's weekend' I would've aggressively made sure action was taken. Pages 62-64 of the Freeh report are the most damning, and why we're discussing this in the first place. Yes Paterno as well as others 'reported' to their superiors what was going on, but didn't follow up in any sort of meaningful manner, shrugged it off, and at least 2 boys were molested after Feb. 2001. Not that I'm Sherlock Holmes or anything.

Well for starters, Sandusky wasn't his assistant coach. He was a former assistant coach, and Paterno has stated that for this reason, he didn't feel as though he had jurisdiction over the matter, hence reporting him to his superiors. You're aware of this fact, I presume.

Secondly, it wasn't "known" that Sandusky was molesting children. What McQuery reported has been the subject of much speculation. He's admitted to watering it down for Paterno.

Pages 62-64 of the Freeh report are a synopsis of findings, and not the actual 'evidence' that would typically be valuable in this situation. With that said, I'm curious what type of followup you would deem appropriate...

On 2/11/2001, Paterno reported the incident to Curley/Schultz. This is a fact.
On 2/27/2001, Curley sent an email to stating, "after talking it over with Joe yesterday..."

Do you know what the context of that conversation was? Isn't it possible that Curley said something like, "Schultz and I talked to McQuery. It sounds like the situation isn't very serious. We're going to talk to Sandusky and tell him he can't bring Second Mile kids to the facilities anymore. We're also going to talk to the head of The Second Mile and tell him the same."

If you're Joe, what additional followup needs to take place?

Yes, that is a hypothetical conversation, but it contains no fewer facts than what you've presented. Unfortunately, there has been no due process, so we have absolutely no sense to the context of that conversation. Just the slandering of a dead man's name with no facts to back it up.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 10:57 AM) *
If you're Joe, what additional followup needs to take place?


His lack of follow-up is what initially caught my eye when the story first came out. This isn't like catching someone smoking in the bathroom, it's a particularly serious crime, at a school no less. At the very least, if only to cover his own ass, he should've made absolutely sure the matter was resolved, by asking those he reported it to, and finding out all possible relevant info in the handling of the situation. I don't know what was actually said, and we'll never know because he's dead, and everyone else is in defensive mode and already has their lawyer-approved talking points. Oh well.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Jul 24 2012, 10:12 AM) *
His lack of follow-up is what initially caught my eye when the story first came out. This isn't like catching someone smoking in the bathroom, it's a particularly serious crime, at a school no less. At the very least, if only to cover his own ass, he should've made absolutely sure the matter was resolved, by asking those he reported it to, and finding out all possible relevant info in the handling of the situation. I don't know what was actually said, and we'll never know because he's dead, and everyone else is in defensive mode and already has their lawyer-approved talking points. Oh well.

But what if he didn't think it was a crime. Or was told that it wasn't? A similar incident was reported in 1998 and no charges were filed by a DA and police force not associated with the University.

Does it make sense to slander a man's name, with no due process and pure speculation? Do you think the media has done a reasonable job in considering both sides of the story?

Cover his own ass? He reported it to his superiors (including the University law enforcement.) That was exactly what he was supposed to do. By law. He was not trained to handle that type of situation and passed it to people who were. But he didn't meet your moral standard...

He was a man and a football coach. Not a social worker. Not a police officer. Not a god.

What caught your eye is the vitriol spewed by every talking head on ESPN.
mcnabbulous
It's all about the victims, though...

http://onwardstate.com/2012/07/24/victim-4...-not-consulted/

QUOTE
Benjamin Andreozzi, a Harrisburg based attorney who represents Victim 4 in the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse trial, is not happy with NCAA president Mark Emmert or Penn State.

He says his client loved Penn State Football and may have wanted to express his thoughts regarding the Joe Paterno statue and NCAA sanctions before decisions were made.


Priceless.
nephillymike
I have an opinion but I'd like to look at something.

Where can I read the contents of the e-mails? Are they online anywhere?

And McNabb, in your eyes, can there ever be due process for a dead man?
mcnabbulous
Google 'Freeh Report' and you can find it pretty easily. Would link you, but on my phone.

I don't know that he could get due justice. Too many people would have to admit to being wrong.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:45 AM) *
Of course, it's ridiculous to say how you would handle any situation you've never been placed in, because of course no one really knows.

Why is it ridiculous? You don't have to have been in a situation to know how you'd react all of the time.

If I came across someone molesting a child, I'd do something about it....at that moment. I have a feeling you would do the same. I have never been put in that situation--and hope I never am--but I know I'd do that.

It's not ridiculous at all to know what you'd do in that situation.

Your stance defending the situation is ridiculous. I agree with you none of us knows ALL of the facts, however, it is quite clear from what's out there that certain people knew about what happened. We also know that very little was done to ensure it wasn't continuing to happen.

We could debate about how people did all that was, "required by law," and all that crap but, it doesn't make it right. You're kidding yourself if you think Paterno (specifically) and the school (in general) had no influence over the police (on and off campus). The least thing they could have (should have) done was to check with the police after they reported what was happening--if they reported it--just to put their mind at ease that things were being handled. Nobody's saying they needed details or anything like that. But they didn't do that and the molesting continued.

As I posted before, I saw an athlete (I forget who he was as he wasn't a well-known athlete) said something to the affect that these people had gotten wind that something like this was happening to a CHILD. Our jobs--as adults--is to protect children. They did NOT do that.

I find it amazing anyone--other than their own family members--chooses to defend their inaction on this whole situation. We could bicker about the details about who knew exactly what and what exactly they did do but we DO know people knew something was going on and we also know they did very little to ensure it stopped. That, by itself, is bad enough.

Am I saying they should all go to jail? I don't know. If they broke laws which would (possibly) send them to jail, then I'd say yes. However, as you keep saying (as a defense) it looks like they may not have broken any laws but it doesn't make what they did (or didn't) do right.
nephillymike
I heard something from a cop/lawyer friend of mine that rang true to me the other day, and something also espoused by McN.

The Freeh report is like a plaintiff's case presented to the judge. At the end of the plaintiff's case, the judge sends it to the jury for deliberation while the defense sits idly by.

I disagree with McN as to if punishment other than what is doled out criminally should be levied. I think it should. I have some ideas of what it should be if it comes to that.

However, I agree that they should have their day in court. We need the Freeh report to be rebutted by the defendants. And after that, decide what the course of action should be.

The NCAA jumped the gun on this. They should have announced reserving judgement until the report was rebutted.

It sounds like they threatened PSU of the death penalty unless they accepted the Freeh report and the lesser sanctions. Maybe those in power felt that the report was accurate (which I think is the case) and gave in. In any event, they should wait until the defendants get their day in court.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Jul 24 2012, 07:34 PM) *
Why is it ridiculous? You don't have to have been in a situation to know how you'd react all of the time.

Of course not. Every situation isn't black and white. But it certainly helps.

QUOTE
If I came across someone molesting a child, I'd do something about it....at that moment. I have a feeling you would do the same. I have never been put in that situation--and hope I never am--but I know I'd do that.

And how many people in this saga were in that situation? Do you honestly know off-hand? Was Paterno?

QUOTE
It's not ridiculous at all to know what you'd do in that situation.

I would agree, but what if you didn't exactly knew what you saw (i.e. you didn't see anything specific) and the person in question was a relative, or someone you had known for a long period of time and trusted? Do you think either of those variables would impact how you handle it?

QUOTE
Your stance defending the situation is ridiculous. I agree with you none of us knows ALL of the facts, however, it is quite clear from what's out there that certain people knew about what happened. We also know that very little was done to ensure it wasn't continuing to happen.

I would actually guess that you know very few of the facts. Based on what is out there, why don't you specifically tell me what you think people knew that happened. What do you think Paterno knew? Spanier, Curley, Schultz? Based on the evidence of the case, what is so clear that those people knew?

QUOTE
We could debate about how people did all that was, "required by law," and all that crap but, it doesn't make it right.

So you think someone who isn't trained to handle this type of scenario should do something beyond report it to the appropriate authorities? A little vigilante justice?

QUOTE
You're kidding yourself if you think Paterno (specifically) and the school (in general) had no influence over the police (on and off campus).

You're kidding yourself if you think you have any idea what type of influence Paterno had. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Neither does hearing it on ESPN.

There is also no evidence, not even in the Freeh Report, to suggest that Joe tried to influence the law enforcement regarding any Sandusky related event.

QUOTE
The least thing they could have (should have) done was to check with the police after they reported what was happening--if they reported it--just to put their mind at ease that things were being handled. Nobody's saying they needed details or anything like that. But they didn't do that and the molesting continued.

What if they didn't think there was anything that needed "handled?" What if they weren't told specific details, thus concluding that there were no victims? Paterno did have a followup conversation with the AD, apparently. He was working directly with the head of police. Do you know what was discussed in that conversation?

QUOTE
As I posted before, I saw an athlete (I forget who he was as he wasn't a well-known athlete) said something to the affect that these people had gotten wind that something like this was happening to a CHILD. Our jobs--as adults--is to protect children. They did NOT do that.

What did they hear was happening to a CHILD? Why don't you tell me.

QUOTE
I find it amazing anyone--other than their own family members--chooses to defend their inaction on this whole situation. We could bicker about the details about who knew exactly what and what exactly they did do but we DO know people knew something was going on and we also know they did very little to ensure it stopped. That, by itself, is bad enough.

I find it amazing that people who know virtually no facts about a subject, try to discuss it rationally. We really can't bicker about the details, because you don't know any of the details.

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight and with a grand jury report and trial, we can all sit back and declare Sandusky a pedophile. It's so easy to do! These guys, unfortunately, weren't afforded that luxury.

QUOTE
Am I saying they should all go to jail? I don't know. If they broke laws which would (possibly) send them to jail, then I'd say yes. However, as you keep saying (as a defense) it looks like they may not have broken any laws but it doesn't make what they did (or didn't) do right.

I've never said their actions were right. I think that many people (most of whom have never even been mentioned) bear responsibility for not identifying the threat that was Jerry Sandusky. Unfortunately, pedophiles are notoriously devious and don't hide in the shadows. They hide in plain sight, which is why they're so difficult to detect. Of all the people involved, only Paterno has been willing to say that he wishes he had done more (with the benefit of hindsight.)

My problem with people (and what I mean by that is the moral supremacists despite having little knowledge about the facts of the case) is that they proclaim some malicious coverup, with absolutely no evidence to support their claim. They can't accept that a group of men were put into an unimaginable situation and mishandled it.

So, I'll ask you. Did you read the Freeh report? What evidence makes you so confident in your claims that all of this was so "clear."
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jul 24 2012, 08:48 PM) *
It sounds like they threatened PSU of the death penalty unless they accepted the Freeh report and the lesser sanctions. Maybe those in power felt that the report was accurate (which I think is the case) and gave in. In any event, they should wait until the defendants get their day in court.

Do you mind sharing what specific email you were looking for?

As for the threat, I'm not sure what to think about that. The simple fact that the NCAA felt obligated to get a signature from the PSU President is very telling, in my opinion. If the sanctions were legit and justified, why would they need consent from PSU?

Additionally, if they threatened PSU with the death penalty, isn't it reasonable to consider the signature to have been done under duress?

Obviously they should have waited until the trial, if the grounds for the sanctions were criminal actions by the PSU admins. Even the majority of the national media has acknowledged that the NCAA overstepped their bounds with this one. I'd like to believe that someone from PSU will try to fight this (there is at least one BoT member who seems to be trying to) but the PSU President is spineless.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:18 PM) *
Do you mind sharing what specific email you were looking for?

As for the threat, I'm not sure what to think about that. The simple fact that the NCAA felt obligated to get a signature from the PSU President is very telling, in my opinion. If the sanctions were legit and justified, why would they need consent from PSU?

Additionally, if they threatened PSU with the death penalty, isn't it reasonable to consider the signature to have been done under duress?

Obviously they should have waited until the trial, if the grounds for the sanctions were criminal actions by the PSU admins. Even the majority of the national media has acknowledged that the NCAA overstepped their bounds with this one. I'd like to believe that someone from PSU will try to fight this (there is at least one BoT member who seems to be trying to) but the PSU President is spineless.


I wanted to see the e-mails before the meeting with Paterno and the one after it.

I must fess up on something. I'm aware of two SEPARATE incidents that have happened on campus where football players acted criminally and should have been reported to the authorities and weren't. It so happens that in both of the incidents, the non athlete students who were involved were sons of people I know. (incidentally, both their fathers are Philly cops, one a PSU grad himself.) It turns out that both of the fathers went up to PSU and had a meeting and were persuaded into letting the athletic dept handle the issues. These incidents were less than two years apart, one around 2004 and the other 2006. The PSU father met with Joe Pa himself, the other guy met with one of the people in AD administration (maybe asst AD??) The one father is a guy I played cards with frequently at the time. The other guy is a parishoner who is good friends with the cop/lawyer I mentioned (who I coached with for years). The take away on this for me at least, is that Paterno ran that ship and was aware of all of the things going on. To convince a PSU grad cop father to look the other way when his son was wrongly beaten badly by three football players is doing a lot. To convince his boss , who was really not his boss, to look the other way on handling the Sandusky matter was not as much of a stretch for me. According to my cop/lawyer friend, that program had a lot of players with legal issues and they were mostly handled in house. YOu would probably know the ones that made it to the media more than I but there were quite a few. I cannot fathom that JOe P did not know every detail. But they should have thier day in court and I think the NCAA jumped the gun.
mcnabbulous
I'm not sure I'm following, but if I understand...

The son of a friend of yours (the Philly cop/PSU grad) was beaten by a group of PSU football players. Your friend went to PSU to discuss the situation and met personally with Paterno regarding the matter? Paterno convinced him to not alert authorities?

Feel free to correct anything I misunderstood.

Do you have any idea what was said to convince them to handle things internally? Do you know the resulting punishment? Was there any? Were the father's satisfied with the end result?

The reason I ask is because Paterno notoriously punished his players harder than other coaches around the country.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
And how many people in this saga were in that situation? Do you honestly know off-hand? Was Paterno?

I don't know, neither do you. It doesn't matter how many people were involved, just that not enough was done.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
I would agree, but what if you didn't exactly knew what you saw (i.e. you didn't see anything specific) and the person in question was a relative, or someone you had known for a long period of time and trusted? Do you think either of those variables would impact how you handle it?

No it wouldn't change how I would handle it. Again, it's allegations that a CHILD was being abused. It's not something you say to yourself, "Well, they've been a coach for years here in the past so I think I'll just let things play out the way they will." You amaze me with how you try to rationalize this.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
I would actually guess that you know very few of the facts. Based on what is out there, why don't you specifically tell me what you think people knew that happened. What do you think Paterno knew? Spanier, Curley, Schultz? Based on the evidence of the case, what is so clear that those people knew?

And you know very few of the facts as well.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
So you think someone who isn't trained to handle this type of scenario should do something beyond report it to the appropriate authorities? A little vigilante justice?

I love how you put words in peoples' mouths. Did I say anything about vigilante justice??? Something beyond report it would be to speak to more people who might actually either look into it or assure me that something is being done about it. I never said I'd go pop a cap in the guy's ass.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
You're kidding yourself if you think you have any idea what type of influence Paterno had. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Neither does hearing it on ESPN.

There is also no evidence, not even in the Freeh Report, to suggest that Joe tried to influence the law enforcement regarding any Sandusky related event.

Ok, you do seem to live in a fantasy world. While you're correct in saying I don't know (specifically) what influence Paterno and the school had over local law enforcement, common sense tells us all they had quite a bit of influence. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe they did.

I never said they exerted any influence over local law enforcement. I'm saying, if they had to, they could have.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
What if they didn't think there was anything that needed "handled?" What if they weren't told specific details, thus concluding that there were no victims? Paterno did have a followup conversation with the AD, apparently. He was working directly with the head of police. Do you know what was discussed in that conversation?

Do YOU know what was discussed? I didn't think so. So it's safe to say you're stating an OPINION about what was discussed just as I am.

If they didn't think there was anything that needed to be handled, by all accounts, they were WRONG. I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe everyone is just out to get Paterno and Penn State and none of this happened. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But it seems to me, there was certainly enough information available to those involved for them to have come to the conclusion that (essentially) more could have been done. They DO have access to all of the facts, unlike you or me or anyone around here. I tend to believe them over you and your opinions and blind defense of the situation.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
What did they hear was happening to a CHILD? Why don't you tell me.

:::sigh:::

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
I find it amazing that people who know virtually no facts about a subject, try to discuss it rationally. We really can't bicker about the details, because you don't know any of the details.

Yet here you are, trying to discuss it rationally and bickering about the facts...

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
Yes, with the benefit of hindsight and with a grand jury report and trial, we can all sit back and declare Sandusky a pedophile. It's so easy to do! These guys, unfortunately, weren't afforded that luxury.

I supposed you believe the Catholic church didn't allow this sort of thing to go on for years and, by some accounts, for it to still go on?

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 09:51 PM) *
I've never said their actions were right. I think that many people (most of whom have never even been mentioned) bear responsibility for not identifying the threat that was Jerry Sandusky. Unfortunately, pedophiles are notoriously devious and don't hide in the shadows. They hide in plain sight, which is why they're so difficult to detect. Of all the people involved, only Paterno has been willing to say that he wishes he had done more (with the benefit of hindsight.)

My problem with people (and what I mean by that is the moral supremacists despite having little knowledge about the facts of the case) is that they proclaim some malicious coverup, with absolutely no evidence to support their claim. They can't accept that a group of men were put into an unimaginable situation and mishandled it.

So, I'll ask you. Did you read the Freeh report? What evidence makes you so confident in your claims that all of this was so "clear."

I agree they were put in a bad situation on this. By your own admission above, they knew something was going on--exactly what can be up for debate--and Paterno himself said he should have done more. So, it would seem to me, they knew more than you seem to think they knew.

Unfortunately, pedofilia is one of those crimes which the person being accused of it is going to be guilty until proven innocent in the public's eyes. Unfortunately--in this case--this didn't seem to be the case in PSU's eyes. And that is the heart of the matter.

Not sure why you can't seem to understand that more should have and could have been done to ensure this wasn't happening. I didn't say the guy should have been hanged based on the information they (allegedly) had. I've said they could have done more to ensure the proper people were looking into the situation. As you said Paterno himself said he should have done more. So it seems to me more could have been done.


mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Jul 25 2012, 06:18 AM) *
I don't know, neither do you. It doesn't matter how many people were involved, just that not enough was done.

Yes - I do. It's well documented. Only one person actually personally witnessed Sandusky's actions and that person has been on record saying he didn't actually see anything. The other people were informed of this with watered down or conflicting stories.

This is one of the basic, fundamental elements of the story. If you're unaware of the details, you really have no reason to be speaking on the matter.

QUOTE
No it wouldn't change how I would handle it. Again, it's allegations that a CHILD was being abused. It's not something you say to yourself, "Well, they've been a coach for years here in the past so I think I'll just let things play out the way they will." You amaze me with how you try to rationalize this.

No - It wasn't allegations that a CHILD was being abused. It was allegations that he was in a shower with a child. Beyond that, the details are fuzzy. A few years earlier, the same situation occurred and he was cleared by the DA and professionals trained to identify pedophiles.

If you knew someone personally (for you entire life, mind you) and you weren't sure that you even witnessed a crime, I'm quite confident your immediate reaction wouldn't be to turn them over to the police. It's a moot point, though.

Just so we're clear, capitalizing the word CHILD doesn't make the allegations any more severe.

QUOTE
And you know very few of the facts as well.

False. I know the details (or lack thereof) within the Freeh Report. I know statements that have been made by the parties involved. I know details about their Grand Jury testimony. You know nothing.

QUOTE
I love how you put words in peoples' mouths. Did I say anything about vigilante justice??? Something beyond report it would be to speak to more people who might actually either look into it or assure me that something is being done about it. I never said I'd go pop a cap in the guy's ass.

Paterno was told about the incident. He determined it was something that he wasn't trained to handle properly, so he escalated it to his boss and the head of University police. The fact that he didn't micro manage the process after that is no reflection on his character. He did what he was supposed to do. By law. That is how chains of command work and he shouldn't be penalized for appropriately following his.

Doing anything beyond that could have potentially jeopardized anything that was in motion.

QUOTE
Ok, you do seem to live in a fantasy world. While you're correct in saying I don't know (specifically) what influence Paterno and the school had over local law enforcement, common sense tells us all they had quite a bit of influence. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe they did.

I never said they exerted any influence over local law enforcement. I'm saying, if they had to, they could have.

So you think someone should be slandered over your hypothetical situation? How about a factual situation where a Centre County judge wrote a letter stating that Paterno never attempted to interfere with the judicial process? That is a fact, sir.

When I slander someone's name, I prefer it to be fact based.

QUOTE
Do YOU know what was discussed? I didn't think so. So it's safe to say you're stating an OPINION about what was discussed just as I am.

If they didn't think there was anything that needed to be handled, by all accounts, they were WRONG. I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe everyone is just out to get Paterno and Penn State and none of this happened. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But it seems to me, there was certainly enough information available to those involved for them to have come to the conclusion that (essentially) more could have been done. They DO have access to all of the facts, unlike you or me or anyone around here. I tend to believe them over you and your opinions and blind defense of the situation.


Well, I know what their Grand Jury testimonies stated. I know that McQuery's story changed on several occasions. But here is the part that really matters. It doesn't matter if I don't know what was discussed. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

What specifically is this "enough information" you speak of? Can you cite one specific thing you know about this case/tragedy? Just one.

QUOTE
I supposed you believe the Catholic church didn't allow this sort of thing to go on for years and, by some accounts, for it to still go on?

I'm the last person you're going to see defend the Catholic Church or any Church.

Catholics had over 4000 accusations of pedophilia within their organization and strategically moved people around to hide their crimes.

There is one person who has been associated these crimes in the PSU situation. Just one. He was not hidden, or moved around. He continued to be a normal member of the community because, it appears, that people didn't understand the magnitude of his actions or the severity of his personality disorders.

PSU and the Catholic Church are nothing alike.

QUOTE
I agree they were put in a bad situation on this. By your own admission above, they knew something was going on--exactly what can be up for debate--and Paterno himself said he should have done more. So, it would seem to me, they knew more than you seem to think they knew.

No, Paterno never said that. He said he "with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

We all do, but none of us are afforded the luxury of going back in time.

QUOTE
Unfortunately, pedofilia is one of those crimes which the person being accused of it is going to be guilty until proven innocent in the public's eyes. Unfortunately--in this case--this didn't seem to be the case in PSU's eyes. And that is the heart of the matter.

Ahhh, and here it is. This is precisely the reason why people are reluctant to report this type of crime.

Because of the severe and taboo nature of these allegations, Sandusky's life and The Second Mile charity would have been severely harmed had this information made it's way out to the public. Can you imagine if the founder of a children's charity is suspected of pedofilia?

Now, imagine if the allegations were untrue. I'm not saying they handled it correctly, but to suggest that you would callously accuse someone of pedofilia, without being completely confident in the accusation, you're admitting that you're putting them into a situation where they will not be given the luxury of due process. They are at the mercy of public opinion, and we see how those things work in this type of case.

QUOTE
Not sure why you can't seem to understand that more should have and could have been done to ensure this wasn't happening. I didn't say the guy should have been hanged based on the information they (allegedly) had. I've said they could have done more to ensure the proper people were looking into the situation. As you said Paterno himself said he should have done more. So it seems to me more could have been done.

No, I didn't say that about Paterno. See above. You're no better than the media, trying to twist that statement to fit your agenda.

Of course more should have and could have been done. But that is a lot different than accusing people of a malicious coverup. What don't you understand about that?
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 25 2012, 09:30 AM) *
Yes - I do. It's well documented. Only one person actually personally witnessed Sandusky's actions and that person has been on record saying he didn't actually see anything. The other people were informed of this with watered down or conflicting stories.

This is one of the basic, fundamental elements of the story. If you're unaware of the details, you really have no reason to be speaking on the matter.


No - It wasn't allegations that a CHILD was being abused. It was allegations that he was in a shower with a child. Beyond that, the details are fuzzy. A few years earlier, the same situation occurred and he was cleared by the DA and professionals trained to identify pedophiles.

If you knew someone personally (for you entire life, mind you) and you weren't sure that you even witnessed a crime, I'm quite confident your immediate reaction wouldn't be to turn them over to the police. It's a moot point, though.

Just so we're clear, capitalizing the word CHILD doesn't make the allegations any more severe.


False. I know the details (or lack thereof) within the Freeh Report. I know statements that have been made by the parties involved. I know details about their Grand Jury testimony. You know nothing.


Paterno was told about the incident. He determined it was something that he wasn't trained to handle properly, so he escalated it to his boss and the head of University police. The fact that he didn't micro manage the process after that is no reflection on his character. He did what he was supposed to do. By law. That is how chains of command work and he shouldn't be penalized for appropriately following his.

Doing anything beyond that could have potentially jeopardized anything that was in motion.


So you think someone should be slandered over your hypothetical situation? How about a factual situation where a Centre County judge wrote a letter stating that Paterno never attempted to interfere with the judicial process? That is a fact, sir.

When I slander someone's name, I prefer it to be fact based.



Well, I know what their Grand Jury testimonies stated. I know that McQuery's story changed on several occasions. But here is the part that really matters. It doesn't matter if I don't know what was discussed. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

What specifically is this "enough information" you speak of? Can you cite one specific thing you know about this case/tragedy? Just one.


I'm the last person you're going to see defend the Catholic Church or any Church.

Catholics had over 4000 accusations of pedophilia within their organization and strategically moved people around to hide their crimes.

There is one person who has been associated these crimes in the PSU situation. Just one. He was not hidden, or moved around. He continued to be a normal member of the community because, it appears, that people didn't understand the magnitude of his actions or the severity of his personality disorders.

PSU and the Catholic Church are nothing alike.


No, Paterno never said that. He said he "with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

We all do, but none of us are afforded the luxury of going back in time.


Ahhh, and here it is. This is precisely the reason why people are reluctant to report this type of crime.

Because of the severe and taboo nature of these allegations, Sandusky's life and The Second Mile charity would have been severely harmed had this information made it's way out to the public. Can you imagine if the founder of a children's charity is suspected of pedofilia?

Now, imagine if the allegations were untrue. I'm not saying they handled it correctly, but to suggest that you would callously accuse someone of pedofilia, without being completely confident in the accusation, you're admitting that you're putting them into a situation where they will not be given the luxury of due process. They are at the mercy of public opinion, and we see how those things work in this type of case.


No, I didn't say that about Paterno. See above. You're no better than the media, trying to twist that statement to fit your agenda.

Of course more should have and could have been done. But that is a lot different than accusing people of a malicious coverup. What don't you understand about that?

:::sigh:::

You are a piece of work. I'm done trying to argue with you as you seem to think this is a court of law--which is isn't. No matter what you say, what you've read, what you think you know (or do know), you know no more than me or anyone else around here. You've come to a different conclusion, that's all.

I'm not talking about whether someone did something criminally wrong or not. We're talking about doing what's morally right. The burden of proof does not apply to that.

Rather than try and pick nits--it's boring--I'll just say this....

It's obvious you're going to continue to defend the inactions of people regardless of what people say or what information comes to light. That's your right as it is mine to believe there's much more to the story than we're being told. Life experience tells me that when there's smoke, there's almost always fire. There is a lot of smoke. This would be the main reason I feel the way I feel.

I'm guessing, if things happened (or didn't) as you seem to claim they did (or didn't), it will all come out when these guys all sue because of defamation of character, etc. Until that time, you keep believing what you believe. It doesn't affect me. I'll continue to believe what I believe.
mcnabbulous
Here is the difference. I am drawing conclusions based on the available documentation about the case.

You are drawing your conclusions on your feelings about some things you've heard. Of course, you could always prove me wrong by answering one question. Did you read the Freeh report?

One more question: Do you think there is a difference between not doing enough follow through and maliciously covering up the actions of a pedophile?
D Rock
::Yawn::

You do not have exclusive viewership of the Freeh report. It was all over the internet. Do you think you're the only one that's read it simply because you're the only one that's drawn the conclusions you have?

Yes. There is a difference between not doing enough and maliciously covering up the actions of a pedophile. Both are damning offenses and both appear to have occured.

.........

This is my last post in this discussion.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Jul 25 2012, 02:26 PM) *
::Yawn::

You do not have exclusive viewership of the Freeh report. It was all over the internet. Do you think you're the only one that's read it simply because you're the only one that's drawn the conclusions you have?

Yes. There is a difference between not doing enough and maliciously covering up the actions of a pedophile. Both are damning offenses and both appear to have occured.

.........

This is my last post in this discussion.


Convenient last post. So you now acknowledge that you've read the report and drawn your conclusions from it. I'd love you to cite the specific thing that makes the coverup so clear to you.

Don't worry, I've become accustomed to you ducking questions to that effect.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 24 2012, 10:24 PM) *
I'm not sure I'm following, but if I understand...

The son of a friend of yours (the Philly cop/PSU grad) was beaten by a group of PSU football players. Your friend went to PSU to discuss the situation and met personally with Paterno regarding the matter? Paterno convinced him to not alert authorities?

Feel free to correct anything I misunderstood.

Do you have any idea what was said to convince them to handle things internally? Do you know the resulting punishment? Was there any? Were the father's satisfied with the end result?

The reason I ask is because Paterno notoriously punished his players harder than other coaches around the country.



Yes that's the case. I think the father was happy with it at the time, but I think his opinion changed. His son stayed at PSU that next year, but then transferred the following year, because of unhappiness with fallout from the incident. I don't know what that unhappiness was caused by and it was really not my place to ask. My only reason for bringing this up was that Joe Pa was very much involved in these type of incidents. I think of the players involved, only one was a non star starter, the others backups at the time. So he took the time to handle this for non star players. This is why, I believe he knew and he knew every detail. That was Joe Pa and HIS football program. I don't know what the punishment was and maybe it was severe. But one thing's for sure, whatever the punishment, it didn't hurt the program's rep as much as a press coverage would have. Maybe a wild stretch on my part, I 'll concede it ahead of time. But, would a forced retirement of Sandusky be an internally applied harsh punishment as opposed to the harm ot the program at the time? Probably a stretch. But based on known information, do we KNOW this not to be the case?

All this being said, I still think that PSU shoul dhave had the right to rebut the Freeh report. And if they did not come out on top, then I'd have no problem wit a multi year death penalty. Why?

OJ Simpson
Casey Anthony
Bill Clinton
Trayvon Martin

The opinions of th eoutcome of these cases at the beginning were very different than how it turned out.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jul 26 2012, 05:13 PM) *
Yes that's the case. I think the father was happy with it at the time, but I think his opinion changed. His son stayed at PSU that next year, but then transferred the following year, because of unhappiness with fallout from the incident. I don't know what that unhappiness was caused by and it was really not my place to ask. My only reason for bringing this up was that Joe Pa was very much involved in these type of incidents. I think of the players involved, only one was a non star starter, the others backups at the time. So he took the time to handle this for non star players. This is why, I believe he knew and he knew every detail. That was Joe Pa and HIS football program. I don't know what the punishment was and maybe it was severe. But one thing's for sure, whatever the punishment, it didn't hurt the program's rep as much as a press coverage would have. Maybe a wild stretch on my part, I 'll concede it ahead of time.

I think that's a reasoned conclusion. I have no doubt that Paterno was keenly aware of the indiscretions of his players. Without a doubt. I'm also quite sure that he tried to keep the player discipline within the confines of his team.

I'm a bit torn on that one. I think if you were to do an analysis of any big time NCAA sports program across the country, you would find the same thing. It's absolutely not unique to PSU/Paterno. That definitely doesn't make it right though.

That time period was definitely somewhat interesting in PSU/Paterno history. I'll start by saying that I do believe he should have retired 10 years ago. In the early part of the decade, his brother died and he really seemed to lose a lot of interest in the game/recruiting. That coincided with the stretch of really bad seasons they had between 2000-2004. At the same time, there were reportedly a greater number of team related issues, culminating with ESPN doing an Outside the Lines feature around 2008.

I think as Paterno got older, his attentiveness to player discipline took a back seat. Back in the 70's, he apparently used to stand outside his players classes to make sure they were there. With that said, he was still clearly active in the discipline element.

QUOTE
But, would a forced retirement of Sandusky be an internally applied harsh punishment as opposed to the harm ot the program at the time? Probably a stretch. But based on known information, do we KNOW this not to be the case?

Actually, yes. This is one piece of evidence we almost conclusively have an answer to. There was tons of speculation about the circumstances surrounding Sandusky's retirement at the time and again when all of this broke. It did seem like a smoking gun.

The first time Sandusky was investigated for questionable behavior was May 1998. Per the Freeh Report (pg. 56):
QUOTE
Before the May 3, 1998 incident in the Lasch Building, Curley had already spoken with Sandusky about his future role in the University’s football program. On February 8, 1998, for example, Curley emailed Spanier and Schultz, stating that he had several conversations over the past week with Sandusky about taking an Assistant Athletic Director position.n Curley stated in the email that Paterno had also met with Sandusky about his future with Penn State football.

On February 9, 1998, Curley emailed Schultz and Spanier reporting that Sandusky did not want the Assistant Athletic Director position, and would continue coaching for the next year.o Curley told them Sandusky “will have 30 years in the system next year, which will give him some options after next season.” He added, “Joe tells me he made it clear to Jerry he will not be the next head coach.”


Paterno's reasoning for this was because he stated that Sandusky wasn't committed to his responsibilities with the football program, due to his involvement with The Second Mile.

Freeh's conclusion (pg. 55):
QUOTE
The Special Investigative Counsel found no evidence to indicate that Sandusky’s retirement was related to the police investigation of him in 1998.


QUOTE
All this being said, I still think that PSU shoul dhave had the right to rebut the Freeh report. And if they did not come out on top, then I'd have no problem wit a multi year death penalty. Why?

Well, the BoT/President have made it clear that they're not interested in challenging the sanctions. There seems to be an exhaustive effort to wipe Paterno's accomplishments/contributions from the PSU history book. I'm not sure who/what is driving it, but he notoriously had a bad relationship in the BoT in the later years. It would seem as though these are drastic steps, however.

There are a handful of reasons why I'm so discouraged with the way things have played out. First, I think it's been an absolute witch hunt, fueled by a desire for media ratings. Second, the evidence against Paterno is astoundingly weak. I know you said you haven't read the Freeh Report, but this analysis breaks down all of the 'evidence' against Paterno. I'd like to believe that anyone here could read it with an open mind.

Additionally, there is this laughable idea that Penn State had some sort of Football over everything else culture. If that is the case, explain this.

QUOTE
The first-place academic team in the BCS rankings is Penn State. 80 percent of Penn State football players who enroll as freshmen currently graduate from college in 6 years or fewer, a respectable grad rate for any sports team or even a university at large. (If you exclude students who transfer or leave the college to play professionally from the dropout rate, 87 percent of Penn players graduate in 6 years or fewer.)

Additionally, there is no black-white graduation rate gap among players on the university’s football team. It’s disappointing to say that is very rare for Division I football.


I realize that everyone has made up their mind regarding Paterno, and frankly, it says a lot about our society as a whole. People would rather jump to conclusions and assume the worst (going so far to slander a dead man's name), rather wait for the process to run it's course. As far as I'm concerned, Paterno's last remaining legacy as the PSU football coach is the team he left behind. While Mark Emmert (the NCAA President) has done everything in his power to bring down the program with unprecedented sanctions and embarrassing transfer rules, Paterno's former players have stuck together. At current count, 49 current players have committed to staying, while only 1 has decided to transfer. I think it says alot about the integrity of those 18-22 year old men, who have handled the situation far more maturely than most people twice their age.

If you don't think Paterno contributed to that, then you haven't been paying attention.
mcnabbulous
Oh this is just priceless...

http://chronicle.com/article/Freeh-Group-M...ticizes/133213/

Headline: Freeh Group Member Criticizes NCAA's Use of Investigative Report

Quote relevant to this thread:
QUOTE
The NCAA's approach is not sitting well with the source close to Mr. Freeh's staff.

"The sanctions against Penn State were really overwhelming, and no one imagined the report being used to do that," this person said. "People thought it would help others draw conclusions about what happened and provide a guide for leaders to be able to identify minefields and navigate through them.

"Instead, Emmert took the report and used Penn State's own resources to do them in," the person said. "The institution is made of people, too. And they don't deserve this."
HOUSEoPAIN
Hey, did you hear football is back?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Jul 27 2012, 03:37 PM) *
Hey, did you hear football is back?

Hey man, if you can't handle my truth bombs, stop reading smile.gif

D Rock
opinion bomb more like it.

just sayin.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Jul 27 2012, 09:30 PM) *
opinion bomb more like it.

just sayin.


You've said nothing relevant yet. Why start now.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 26 2012, 06:48 PM) *
I think that's a reasoned conclusion. I have no doubt that Paterno was keenly aware of the indiscretions of his players. Without a doubt. I'm also quite sure that he tried to keep the player discipline within the confines of his team.

I'm a bit torn on that one. I think if you were to do an analysis of any big time NCAA sports program across the country, you would find the same thing. It's absolutely not unique to PSU/Paterno. That definitely doesn't make it right though.

That time period was definitely somewhat interesting in PSU/Paterno history. I'll start by saying that I do believe he should have retired 10 years ago. In the early part of the decade, his brother died and he really seemed to lose a lot of interest in the game/recruiting. That coincided with the stretch of really bad seasons they had between 2000-2004. At the same time, there were reportedly a greater number of team related issues, culminating with ESPN doing an Outside the Lines feature around 2008.

I think as Paterno got older, his attentiveness to player discipline took a back seat. Back in the 70's, he apparently used to stand outside his players classes to make sure they were there. With that said, he was still clearly active in the discipline element.


Actually, yes. This is one piece of evidence we almost conclusively have an answer to. There was tons of speculation about the circumstances surrounding Sandusky's retirement at the time and again when all of this broke. It did seem like a smoking gun.

The first time Sandusky was investigated for questionable behavior was May 1998. Per the Freeh Report (pg. 56):


Paterno's reasoning for this was because he stated that Sandusky wasn't committed to his responsibilities with the football program, due to his involvement with The Second Mile.

Freeh's conclusion (pg. 55):



Well, the BoT/President have made it clear that they're not interested in challenging the sanctions. There seems to be an exhaustive effort to wipe Paterno's accomplishments/contributions from the PSU history book. I'm not sure who/what is driving it, but he notoriously had a bad relationship in the BoT in the later years. It would seem as though these are drastic steps, however.

There are a handful of reasons why I'm so discouraged with the way things have played out. First, I think it's been an absolute witch hunt, fueled by a desire for media ratings. Second, the evidence against Paterno is astoundingly weak. I know you said you haven't read the Freeh Report, but this analysis breaks down all of the 'evidence' against Paterno. I'd like to believe that anyone here could read it with an open mind.

Additionally, there is this laughable idea that Penn State had some sort of Football over everything else culture. If that is the case, explain this.



I realize that everyone has made up their mind regarding Paterno, and frankly, it says a lot about our society as a whole. People would rather jump to conclusions and assume the worst (going so far to slander a dead man's name), rather wait for the process to run it's course. As far as I'm concerned, Paterno's last remaining legacy as the PSU football coach is the team he left behind. While Mark Emmert (the NCAA President) has done everything in his power to bring down the program with unprecedented sanctions and embarrassing transfer rules, Paterno's former players have stuck together. At current count, 49 current players have committed to staying, while only 1 has decided to transfer. I think it says alot about the integrity of those 18-22 year old men, who have handled the situation far more maturely than most people twice their age.

If you don't think Paterno contributed to that, then you haven't been paying attention.



OK, it strongly looks like the Sandusky retirement was not related, based on the Freeh report. To be fair, that too should be scrutinized just as the bad things should. But it looks like they're in the clear.

I wouldn't say that PSU put football above all else. I think they put the REPUTATION of the football program on too high a pedestal. Those academic stats are impressive. But does your opinion of them waiver at all? Mine does. A football coach who has the power to tell his bosses to take a hike when they come to his house to ask him to retire, one who has the power to convince many to let them handle disciplinary and legal issues "in house", probably has it in his power to make a call and negotiate a C for a player struggling in a subject. I'm not naive. I played a division 1 sport for four years and I've seen it done. It happens, plenty. And our coaches were no where near the influence that Joe Pa was. Given his influence in other issues, I have to be critical of those academic stats.

Suppposedly, our own Ray Didinger wrote a highly critical piece on Joe Pa in the early 1980's and he recieved a ton of criticism for it. Thirty years later he's been vindicated. I heard about it on the radio yesterday. I'll see if I can track it down.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jul 28 2012, 05:31 AM) *
OK, it strongly looks like the Sandusky retirement was not related, based on the Freeh report. To be fair, that too should be scrutinized just as the bad things should. But it looks like they're in the clear.
Sure the conclusions should be scrutinized, but it's undeniable that the wheels were in motion prior to the May 98 incident. Maybe they suspected things earlier, but there is no indication that is the case.

QUOTE
I wouldn't say that PSU put football above all else. I think they put the REPUTATION of the football program on too high a pedestal. Those academic stats are impressive. But does your opinion of them waiver at all? Mine does. A football coach who has the power to tell his bosses to take a hike when they come to his house to ask him to retire, one who has the power to convince many to let them handle disciplinary and legal issues "in house", probably has it in his power to make a call and negotiate a C for a player struggling in a subject. I'm not naive. I played a division 1 sport for four years and I've seen it done. It happens, plenty. And our coaches were no where near the influence that Joe Pa was. Given his influence in other issues, I have to be critical of those academic stats.
Given the witch hunt to tear down Paterno's legacy, do you not think it would have come out if there was some widespread academic fraud? Paterno was Ivy League educated and by all indications really cared about that element of things.

QUOTE
Suppposedly, our own Ray Didinger wrote a highly critical piece on Joe Pa in the early 1980's and he recieved a ton of criticism for it. Thirty years later he's been vindicated. I heard about it on the radio yesterday. I'll see if I can track it down.


I read some snippets after googling the connection. Nothing that I read was really new information. There was a criticism of his choice to stay at PSU instead of taking the Patriots job back in the 70's. The idea being that he wouldn't be able to control the media in Boston the same way he could in Central PA. Maybe that is the case, but the $1.2M in salary he gave up for that luxury was his choice I guess.

Also, apparently he yelled at his players on the field. Gasp!

Does Didinger feel vindicated? Have you heard his opinion on recent transgressions? One thing to note about Paterno. When all of those writers were writing glowing, saintly portrayals in the 70's, 80's, and 90's; Joe consistently downplayed the ideology by saying things like, "no one is as good as you're depicting me."

Not ironically, the same media that built him up had no problem bringing him down. Classy bunch, today's journalists.

In all honesty, Mikey...you seem to be grasping at this idea that he was this secretly horrible guy, but I still haven't seen anything that indicates he actually did the things most are accusing him. Specifically, knowingly enabled a child rapist.

I don't think he was perfect, but that's not something he ever claimed to be. I do think he was an overall good human, who stuck by his ideals as college football became increasingly cutthroat. Did he care about his/PSU's image? No doubt. Is there any evidence to suggest he protected Sandusky for the sake of that image? No. Rather than look for a bunch of circumstantial stuff to help you draw that conclusion, why not look at the 'evidence' people are using to make those claims. It's embarrassingly weak, which indicates to me that it doesn't exist.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 28 2012, 03:00 PM) *
Sure the conclusions should be scrutinized, but it's undeniable that the wheels were in motion prior to the May 98 incident. Maybe they suspected things earlier, but there is no indication that is the case.

Given the witch hunt to tear down Paterno's legacy, do you not think it would have come out if there was some widespread academic fraud? Paterno was Ivy League educated and by all indications really cared about that element of things.



I read some snippets after googling the connection. Nothing that I read was really new information. There was a criticism of his choice to stay at PSU instead of taking the Patriots job back in the 70's. The idea being that he wouldn't be able to control the media in Boston the same way he could in Central PA. Maybe that is the case, but the $1.2M in salary he gave up for that luxury was his choice I guess.

Also, apparently he yelled at his players on the field. Gasp!

Does Didinger feel vindicated? Have you heard his opinion on recent transgressions? One thing to note about Paterno. When all of those writers were writing glowing, saintly portrayals in the 70's, 80's, and 90's; Joe consistently downplayed the ideology by saying things like, "no one is as good as you're depicting me."

Not ironically, the same media that built him up had no problem bringing him down. Classy bunch, today's journalists.

In all honesty, Mikey...you seem to be grasping at this idea that he was this secretly horrible guy, but I still haven't seen anything that indicates he actually did the things most are accusing him. Specifically, knowingly enabled a child rapist.

I don't think he was perfect, but that's not something he ever claimed to be. I do think he was an overall good human, who stuck by his ideals as college football became increasingly cutthroat. Did he care about his/PSU's image? No doubt. Is there any evidence to suggest he protected Sandusky for the sake of that image? No. Rather than look for a bunch of circumstantial stuff to help you draw that conclusion, why not look at the 'evidence' people are using to make those claims. It's embarrassingly weak, which indicates to me that it doesn't exist.



I haven't heard personally, Didinger's take on the situation, so other than what was referenced on the morning show, I can't ellaborate.

I didn't say big time academic fraud. The way I've seen it done, is a phone call, with maybe another chance to take a bad test, or a chance at some makeup work to "earn" the C, a chance that Joe Non Athlete doesn't get. There are some teachers known to be "friendly" to athletes and will give them the benefit of the doubt. However, knowing how involved he was, I suspect that this happened often. Yes, it's a shade of unfair, but it happens and no it's not destroying his image, but putting his academic accomplishments into what I see from experience, as a more likely scenario.

I don't think he was some secretly horrible guy. However, there are plenty of people in PSU administration, board members, former players and asst coaches and area police officers and State College citizens, coaching peers who knew him better than you or I. With the exception of a few, they have been mostly silent. I would think that someone with a valid track record of doing the "right thing" (not just public persona, but in reality), would get a lot more people coming to his defense. Sure the crime is horrible. Is it possible that the people truly believe what he said "I should have done more"? and the lack of an enthusiastic defense comes from that reality?

That being said, they still needed the Freeh report to be criticised in fairness.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jul 29 2012, 12:43 PM) *
I didn't say big time academic fraud. The way I've seen it done, is a phone call, with maybe another chance to take a bad test, or a chance at some makeup work to "earn" the C, a chance that Joe Non Athlete doesn't get. There are some teachers known to be "friendly" to athletes and will give them the benefit of the doubt. However, knowing how involved he was, I suspect that this happened often. Yes, it's a shade of unfair, but it happens and no it's not destroying his image, but putting his academic accomplishments into what I see from experience, as a more likely scenario.

We aren't looking at these academic numbers in a vacuum. These are compared to the rest of the NCAA. If you believe those things are happening at PSU, inevitably they are happening elsewhere.

When you compare these programs, Penn State is superior by a healthy margin.
QUOTE
I don't think he was some secretly horrible guy. However, there are plenty of people in PSU administration, board members, former players and asst coaches and area police officers and State College citizens, coaching peers who knew him better than you or I. With the exception of a few, they have been mostly silent. I would think that someone with a valid track record of doing the "right thing" (not just public persona, but in reality), would get a lot more people coming to his defense. Sure the crime is horrible. Is it possible that the people truly believe what he said "I should have done more"? and the lack of an enthusiastic defense comes from that reality?
Look at the things said about the people who do come to his defense. There are very few positives associated with supporting Paterno right now. I've heard a BoT member, district judges, coaches, players, etc...defend him.

Also, he never said "I should have done more."
QUOTE
That being said, they still needed the Freeh report to be criticised in fairness.
The Freeh report is an embarrassment. What we need are trials. My problem is that people try to profess any semblance of knowledge about the events without even knowing the Freeh Report. It would be like me trying to tell you my opinion of a movie after reading a review by Roger Ebert.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jul 29 2012, 01:13 PM) *
Also, he never said "I should have done more."



"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more"

Joe Paterno 11/9/11

Pretty damn close, no?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 4 2012, 03:16 PM) *
"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more"

Joe Paterno 11/9/11

Pretty damn close, no?


Oh I'm quite familiar with the quote. I'd stay the two things are very different. One implies that he knowingly made an obvious choice to neglect pushing things harder. The other is stating that given new information and details which he wasn't afforded the luxury of previously knowing, he would like to have the ability to go back and change his actions.
It's something that we've all experienced in some capacity. With that said, he's still the only person involved to acknowledge any kind of regret.
md717
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 4 2012, 04:16 PM) *
"This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more"

Joe Paterno 11/9/11

Pretty damn close, no?
Yeah, I gotta go with McN here. "Should" says that with the information he had at the time, there was a moral or legal imperitive to do more than he did. "Wish" is different. I wish he had done more too, but I can't know if he "should" have done more.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 4 2012, 09:03 PM) *
Oh I'm quite familiar with the quote. I'd stay the two things are very different. One implies that he knowingly made an obvious choice to neglect pushing things harder. The other is stating that given new information and details which he wasn't afforded the luxury of previously knowing, he would like to have the ability to go back and change his actions.
It's something that we've all experienced in some capacity. With that said, he's still the only person involved to acknowledge any kind of regret.


I will agree that there is a shade of difference, but I don't think it is as big a difference as McN and MD say.

If we can all agree that Joe Pa did not use wish in the same sense as we would say " I wish I'd win the lottery", then we can dig a little deeper. If you think he said it with the same intent of the lottery comment, then there's no ground for debate, we're worlds apart.

"THIS is a great tragedy. IT is one of the great sorrows of my life."

As of November 9, 2011, WHAT was the tragedy? There were accusations against Sandusky. There was no trial yet. He was not proven guilty in front of the law yet. Did Joe Pa assume he was guilty? If so, why so? Did he know he was guilty? If so, why so? Did Joe Pa assume that his long time asst was not guilty? If so, why so?

If we take the stance that Joe Pa knew he was guilty, then why did he know? Because McQuery told him about the incident and Joe Pa knew full well what he had done in the past and knew what his own lack of action allowed him the opportunity to do again.

If we take the stance that Joe Pa assumed he was guilty, then why did he assume that? Why would he do that and deprive one of his most long tenured coaches the benefit of his day in court? What was it that would make him think that one of the most important people on his coaching staff that he knew and spent a ton of time with over the years (for the time being I'll buy your theory that they weren't friends) would be capable of the horrible crimes? Because McQuery told him of the incident and after being told about the incident he thought some more about all of the kids he used to have hanging around and he knew that his own lack of action allowed him the opportunity to do it again.

In this stance, what is the hindsight he is referring to? Knowing that, in fact or by accusation, more kids were abused or alleged to be abused by him after the incident was reported to him by McQuery, and he knew that his own lack of action allowed him the opportunity to do it again.

Now, how about another take on what THIS is and what IT is.

As of November 9th, what did we know for sure? We knew that the reputation of PSU was in shambles. We knew that the football program was rocked by the accusations. We knew that the campus was in rebellion, the pro Joe's vs. the anti Joe's. We knew that despite his assertion that the Board should not worry about his future that he would retire after the 2011 season, in accordance with the new timely retirement deal had negotiated shortly after the Grand Jury testimony. He knew that there was a board meeting later that night that would likely deal with his future. It was a few hours after the quote, at that board meeting that the board unanimously decided to fire him.

One could argue that the THIS and the IT, had really nothing to do with the accusations per se, but had to do what was upfront and center that day, the unrest on the campus and student body, the public realtions beating the school and program were taking and the future of his employment with the university as football coach, which he so gratiously had the unmitigated gall to "suggest" that the BOT not "spend one minute" worrying about it.

If he had known that his lack of action would cause THIS unrest and THIS much damage to his football team's rep, the school's rep and his own reputation and would prevent him from finishing out his career the way he would have liked and so carefully planned out as we see in his words to the BOT that day and his carefully redone deal months before and potentially facing the unimaginable outcome of him getting fired by PSU BOT, he would definitely think that THIS was a great tragedy and without doubt, IT would be one of the great sorrows of his life.

In this stance, what is the hindsight he is referring to? Knowing that by not acting differently years earlier, he put his future, his reputation, his program's reputation and his school's reputation and the futre of all of the above, at risk, and in a negative light in the forum of public opinion, something he meticulously guarded against during his tenure.

I personally think that the version in the previous paragraph was where his thoughts were THAT day, the day he knew he might get fired, the day he saw what had happened to the things he loved. His thoughts that day, were exactly where they were hours before with his announcement that the BOT need not worry about his future, where they were months before when he negotiated a new out deal, where they were years before when he chose the road he chose:

In self preservation mode.

IMO, no matter which likely interpretation one selects of the meaning of this statetment, it speaks volumes.

It is a shame that he did not live thru this and have his day to tell us all and all the lawyers exactly what he meant. If nothing else, it would finally convince his most adament (sp?) defenders of what really happened. I would think that even a fan like McN, would have to admit that the information that has been revealed up until now, has brought him to a realization he could have never imagined months ago. Even if not fully convinced, even if you think the Freeh report should be properly criticised with rebuttal (which I do too), I can't see based on your early takes on this ordeal, where you ever could believe we'd be where we are, in either public opinion or fact.

Maybe I'm just too cynical, or maybe too much influenced about those things I knew happened up there, but I think if he wasn't taken when he was and if he was given the opportunity to be cross examined, there would be no doubt of his focus on self preservation and why he did what he did, (or didn't do what he didn't do)

Who knows. With the Paterno family challenging the sanctions, maybe we'll get that closer look we all want. They don't seem to want it to go away and I can see their point of view.

On a side note, did anyone focus in on the coaches from 1996-2011? What did they say?





Reality Fan
I wish Paterno was around also so he could either affirm or obliterate the Freeh report. I really find the Freeh report pretty sad because much of their report hinges on supposition yet is treated as fact.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.