Joe Paterno-New Winningest Coach-Again

[devildeac]

Not sure whether this belongs on the EK Forum, the OTB or to be locked immediately after posting:o. Discuss.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored

[blazindw]

So basically, the NCAA dropped sanctions to show that they were doing something above and beyond, only to remove those sanctions one by one and essentially make it as if nothing ever happened. That's the NCAA for ya.

[SoCalDukeFan]

So basically, the NCAA dropped sanctions to show that they were doing something above and beyond, only to remove those sanctions one by one and essentially make it as if nothing ever happened. That's the NCAA for ya.

Why the NCAA did what they did. I thought from the beginning that this was a legal matter and the NCAA should let the legal authorities hand out the penalties.

SoCal

[Duvall]

A lot of cowardice going around these days.

[uh_no]

So basically, the NCAA dropped sanctions to show that they were doing something above and beyond, only to remove those sanctions one by one and essentially make it as if nothing ever happened. That's the NCAA for ya.

If they hadn't made a deal they would have absolutely gotten destroyed in a lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania. They really didn't have a choice.

[Chicago 1995]

Not sure whether this belongs on the EK Forum, the OTB or to be locked immediately after posting:o. Discuss.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored

Football's still more important than child rape in Happy Valley. But there'was nothing wrong with the culture there.

As bad as it might be at UNC or UK or SMU or wherever else, it's worse at PSU. ABC? We should *all* be ABPSU.

[CameronBlue]

Football's still more important than child rape in Happy Valley. But there'was nothing wrong with the culture there.

As bad as it might be at UNC or UK or SMU or wherever else, it's worse at PSU. ABC? We should *all* be ABPSU.

This should gall me. But in the end, if they want to worship a man who fashioned a cover-up for a child rapist, it's probably better to have their sycophancy out in the open.

[roywhite]

This should gall me. But in the end, if they want to worship a man who fashioned a cover-up for a child rapist, it's probably better to have their sycophancy out in the open.

Or you could be wrong about the facts, and that Joe Paterno had no part whatsoever in a cover-up concerning Jerry Sandusky, which is what Sandusky's prosecutor found. Jerry Sandusky prosecutor: No evidence Joe Paterno participated in criminal cover-up at Penn State (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/jerry_sandusky_prosecutor_no_e.html)

The original narrative has not held up.

[CameronBlue]

Or you could be wrong about the facts, and that Joe Paterno had no part whatsoever in a cover-up concerning Jerry Sandusky, which is what Sandusky's prosecutor found. Jerry Sandusky prosecutor: No evidence Joe Paterno participated in criminal cover-up at Penn State (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/jerry_sandusky_prosecutor_no_e.html)

The original narrative has not held up.

I don't think we've heard the final word on this. Fina stated simply that he found no evidence of a coverup and that Paterno satisfied his legal obligation in reporting the infamous shower incident to his superiors. But Fina didn't exactly exonerate Paterno of moral turpitude I think you'd agree. Additionally, the conclusions of the much assailed Freeh report still have not been refuted to my knowledge and directly contradict Fina on the charge of a coverup, specifically that Paterno "concealed facts relating to Sandusky's sexual abuse of young boys."** Sounds like a cover-up to me. Would it be fair to read between the lines of Fina's statement that Paterno employed the "see no evil, hear no evil" defense? If so is that defense really defensible?

Freeh's report seems to go out of its way to paint Paterno as morally depraved in the Sandusky affair, acting in his own interest to the disregard of innocent victims which has opened the report up to criticism that it was a conclusion in search of a narrative. A prosecutor conducting a criminal investigation vs a former FBI director, his team of former prosecutors and G-Men (hired by the PSU Board of Trustees). Tough call but I'd probably go with the G-Men.

[jv001]

I don't think we've heard the final word on this. Fina stated simply that he found no evidence of a coverup and that Paterno satisfied his legal obligation in reporting the infamous shower incident to his superiors. But Fina didn't exactly exonerate Paterno of moral turpitude I think you'd agree. Additionally, the conclusions of the much assailed Freeh report still have not been refuted to my knowledge and directly contradict Fina on the charge of a coverup, specifically that Paterno "concealed facts relating to Sandusky's sexual abuse of young boys."** Sounds like a cover-up to me. Would it be fair to read between the lines of Fina's statement that Paterno employed the "see no evil, hear no evil" defense? If so is that defense really defensible?

Freeh's report seems to go out of its way to paint Paterno as morally depraved in the Sandusky affair, acting in his own interest to the disregard of innocent victims which has opened the report up to criticism that it was a conclusion in search of a narrative. A prosecutor conducting a criminal investigation vs a former FBI director, his team of former prosecutors and G-Men (hired by the PSU Board of Trustees). Tough call but I'd probably go with the G-Men.

We will probably never know the full truth on whether Paterno knew the whole story on the pervert Sandusky. But thank God there's a Judge waiting to give the verdict in this case on all who participated in this horrible and sinful act. Something tells me those that are found guilty are not going to like the punishment handed out. GoDuke!

[CDu]

Or you could be wrong about the facts, and that Joe Paterno had no part whatsoever in a cover-up concerning Jerry Sandusky, which is what Sandusky's prosecutor found. Jerry Sandusky prosecutor: No evidence Joe Paterno participated in criminal cover-up at Penn State (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/jerry_sandusky_prosecutor_no_e.html)

The original narrative has not held up.

One is not legally obligated to try to save a drowning person. Nor is one legally obligated to fire a child rapist. Personally, I suspect the latest reports are accurate that Paterno did nothing legally criminal. The bigger issue to me is, and always has been, how much did he know and how little did he do about it? As the most powerful man in Happy Valley, he could have put a stop to this (at the very least a the university). So while I do think Paterno is innocent of any legal crimes, it is much harder to say he was innocent of any moral failings in this case. That is not to say he wasn't otherwise a great man; he certainly has a long list of commendable achievements. But sometimes people err in the face of adversity, and it appears that this was the case.

All that being said, it was silly from day one for the NCAA to strip him of wins. There was really never a justification for that. This was a moral issue and not a football issue, and the NCAA should have steered clear. Now, they are paying the price.

[Turk]

Why the NCAA did what they did. I thought from the beginning that this was a legal matter and the NCAA should let the legal authorities hand out the penalties.

SoCal

My thoughts exactly, and that's probably the consensus position among most neutral observers.


If they hadn't made a deal they would have absolutely gotten destroyed in a lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania. They really didn't have a choice.

Well, the NCAA already took a big hit this week when a Pennsylvania judge upheld a law that decreed the $60 million had to remain in the Commonwealth. (Knock me over with a feather). If Penn State chose not to settle, the NCAA would have had to reveal its decision-making process, which has proven time and time again to be "let's make $#!t up and see what sticks." The NCAA's role in this matter is now over. The fines have been satisfied, the schollys restored, and the original sanctions reduced, no matter whether the NCAA's motive was good-faith encouragement or shameless self-preservation.


One is not legally obligated to try to save a drowning person. Nor is one legally obligated to fire a child rapist. Personally, I suspect the latest reports are accurate that Paterno did nothing legally criminal. The bigger issue to me is, and always has been, how much did he know and how little did he do about it? As the most powerful man in Happy Valley, he could have put a stop to this (at the very least a the university). So while I do think Paterno is innocent of any legal crimes, it is much harder to say he was innocent of any moral failings in this case. That is not to say he wasn't otherwise a great man; he certainly has a long list of commendable achievements. But sometimes people err in the face of adversity, and it appears that this was the case.

All that being said, it was silly from day one for the NCAA to strip him of wins. There was really never a justification for that. This was a moral issue and not a football issue, and the NCAA should have steered clear. Now, they are paying the price.

I think CDu has a pretty good read on it here. My personal opinion is that Paterno had lost touch and delegated all the non-football stuff. By that point in Paterno's career, whatever Sandusky was doing outside of coaching Penn State football players fell into the category of non-football stuff. The biggest open question is whether Paterno deliberately looked the other way or was merely old and clueless (or perhaps protected by the underlings).

The football wins penalty was the most ridiculous part of this tragedy. Stripping wins is usually done when the coach knowingly uses ineligible players, or the players do something that they know would make them ineligible. Sandusky's crimes had nothing to do with Penn State's roster.

More importantly, as a resident of Pennsylvania, I was subject to random and unpredictable corporal punishment from both parents and teachers, and all forward-thinking people now recognize this form of discipline as child abuse. Now that the $60 million is to remain in the Commonwealth, I need to lawyer up and see if I can get myself a little piece of that action. (Alas, as an altar boy, the priests I served were men of intelligence, grace, humor, and compassion, so I missed my chance there). The young Turks need some new shoes!

[Kfanarmy]

.... The biggest open question is whether Paterno deliberately looked the other way or was merely old and clueless (or perhaps protected by the underlings)...

I think Joe Paterno did what he thought he was supposed to do. He told his superiors; the college was obligated to report to the law. Some, want to believe that he helped cover something up, by not going to the police himself. That as a football coach he was so all-powerful that the PSU leadership would have confided their decision not to notify police or investigate. With the same lack of evidence, I'm want to believe that he trusted: the administration to ensure that an investigation was undertaken, that the report was passed to the right authorities, and that if nothing happened, it meant they didn't find anything. That is my hope; it is what I choose to believe.

[OldPhiKap]

Paterno won the games.

The Sandusky matter is morally reprehensible. But not an NCAA violation.

Adolph Rupp had morally reprehensible traits, too, but they don't violate the rules governing basketball at the time.

It is possible to recognize the games the guy won, while disliking the way he chose to deal with Sandusky.

The NCAA doesn't even do what it is supposed to do well. Heaven forbid they try to regulate morality too.

(And before anyone responds -- my personal belief is that Paterno should have fired Sandusky as soon as he learned about this. I do not condone Paterno's choice. But absent an NCAA rule on it, the remedy lies outside of NCAA sanctions)

[sagegrouse]

I think Joe Paterno did what he thought he was supposed to do. He told his superiors; the college was obligated to report to the law. Some, want to believe that he helped cover something up, by not going to the police himself. That as a football coach he was so all-powerful that the PSU leadership would have confided their decision not to notify police or investigate. With the same lack of evidence, I'm want to believe that he trusted: the administration to ensure that an investigation was undertaken, that the report was passed to the right authorities, and that if nothing happened, it meant they didn't find anything. That is my hope; it is what I choose to believe.


Paterno won the games.

The Sandusky matter is morally reprehensible. But not an NCAA violation.

Adolph Rupp had morally reprehensible traits, too, but they don't violate the rules governing basketball at the time.

It is possible to recognize the games the guy won, while disliking the way he chose to deal with Sandusky.

The NCAA doesn't even do what it is supposed to do well. Heaven forbid they try to regulate morality too.

(And before anyone responds -- my personal belief is that Paterno should have fired Sandusky as soon as he learned about this. I do not condone Paterno's choice. But absent an NCAA rule on it, the remedy lies outside of NCAA sanctions)


Oh my!! The Army brigadier in charge of Abu Ghraib had no knowledge of any of the torture, and she was history -- immediately! It isn't whether Paterno is liable for criminal violations; it is whether or not he was the captain of the ship when it ran aground morally.

NCAA or no NCAA. The criminal nature of what was going on is without precedent in NCAA annals -- so the NCAA officials made it up as they went along. I believe they expected Penn State to oppose the penalties and to negotiate a milder outcome. But, in the wake of the Freeh Report and the exit of Spangler, Penn State did not contest the penalties. Therefore, the penalties were unduly harsh. Stuff happens.

Paterno? Paterno! At one time he actually said, "They told me it was 'sodomy.' I didn't know what that was." At that point I unplugged my hearing aid and said I would never ever believe anything that man said. How stupid does he think we are?

Now, tomorrow, I'll be kicking myself for posting on this thread, after I said I was done with Joe Pa, Penn State, and Sandusky and the many, many clues to his nature and actions that were conveniently overlooked.

[OldPhiKap]

The question is very limited here -- whether an NCAA rule was violated or not. Criminality, morality, and other concers -- as valid as those are, and I assume we agree on all of those -- are different questions.

If a law was broken, he should have been charged.
If he acted immorally, he should be condemned.
If he failed to run a program befitting the school he should have been fired.

If he did not violate an NCAA rule, it is beyond their power.

[Kfanarmy]

Oh my!! The Army brigadier in charge of Abu Ghraib had no knowledge of any of the torture, and she was history -- immediately! It isn't whether Paterno is liable for criminal violations; it is whether or not he was the captain of the ship when it ran aground morally.

The two situations are incomparable. The reality is, given the time frame, assertion that the BG didn't know anything is laughable. 2nd she had absolute control of the site in question and all but some Intel activities inside. 3rd she was charged specifically with running those facilities.

Finally, had she discovered and referred those invloved for courts martial and nothing was done, her head would likely not have rolled.

The level of control would only have been comparable if Joe Paterno had police and district attorney-like powers to enable preliminary investigation, arrest, and preferral of charges over all employees and U.S. visitors to all athletic facilities at PSU. He is a high profile employee who received second hand information from another employee and passed it to his superiors. All else is conjecture.

[DukieInKansas]

Paterno won the games.

The Sandusky matter is morally reprehensible. But not an NCAA violation.

Adolph Rupp had morally reprehensible traits, too, but they don't violate the rules governing basketball at the time.

It is possible to recognize the games the guy won, while disliking the way he chose to deal with Sandusky.

The NCAA doesn't even do what it is supposed to do well. Heaven forbid they try to regulate morality too.

(And before anyone responds -- my personal belief is that Paterno should have fired Sandusky as soon as he learned about this. I do not condone Paterno's choice. But absent an NCAA rule on it, the remedy lies outside of NCAA sanctions)

I believe that Sandusky was retired in 2002, when McQueary came to Paterno after catching Sandusky in the shower. He did, however, still have the privilege of access to the facilities.

[peterjswift]

Full disclosure - I'm a PSU fan. I almost attended their engineering school (even had a healthy amount of scholarships to go there, but after orientation, I ended up deferring admission by a semester and then settled on a different school). I've been to a quite a few PSU games, and as luck would have it, I've been to some of the most memorable games in the recent decades (PSU vs. OSU 2005, Joe Pa's last game, and PSU vs. OSU 2014 - 2OT loss). I live in central Pennsylvania, so I realize I am not getting the normal view of things that outsiders get. I also realize that this is a controversial topic on this board, and I've done a fair job of resisting involvement in previous threads on the topic - and it is probably pointless to try to change anyone's mind on the topic or even bring it up again...and yet, here I go.

If there is a benefit to living inside the "PSU bubble" - it is that there are diehard apologists who continually peel away the layers of confusion and gray areas to get to the truth of the matter - whether to exonerate Joe Pa, or to condemn him (there are diehards in State College on BOTH sides of that). It is very easy to write off fans and those looking at life through blue colored glasses as too biased to recognize the truth, and it is very easy to ignore anything from an admittedly biased source - but I think writing off biased reports is done with some degree of peril. I think biased observers can maintain a degree of objectivity, and biased observers contributions to the story are valid, though they should likely be held to a higher standard. That being said, the story is not as cut and dry as the media portrays it and is understood through most of the country, and this is unfortunate. In some ways it is reminiscent of the Duke Lacross case - where many people still have the impression from the initial media blitz, and never heard the truth months later - though the parallels end there, as Sandusky is most certainly guilty of incredibly heinous crimes.

There is a lot of shame for PSU in this entire story. Like it or not, PSU employed a child molester for years. This would be awful for any organization to find out, and that sort of thing sticks for a long time - even if it was discovered early in Sandusky's career and he was fired and arrested...just having your school's name connected to a child molester or child rapist is horrible. I also think that a lot of students, alumni and fans also responded poorly as they became very defensive of their school and its reputation, rather than focusing on compassion for the victims. I maintain that this is a minority, and that defending the school and reputation and concern/compassion for victims isn't mutually exclusive, but it still happened.

At the same time, I do really think that the defensive mindset and "circling the wagons" wasn't solely about blind devotion to PSU or to Paterno, but also because of unfair and unprecedented action by the NCAA. This doesn't excuse the mentality or the actions, but I think it does paint a different picture of what was going through the minds of the students at various rallies. And, as many cameras were on the poor actors in those situations, there were very few cameras on the enormous candlelight vigils, the fundraising campaigns to support organizations working with exploited youth, etc. Seeing giants fall from grace makes great news. Seeing compassion and concern for victims doesn't, so those in "happy valley" definitely have a different experience of what happened during the media circus surrounding Paterno's firing, Sandusky's arrest, and the ensuing months.

Anyhow - I invite everyone to read Kevin Horne's "Open Letter to Keith Olbermann" - it might not be easy to read, since there's no doubting Kevin's bias and his anger at recently being eviscerated by Olbermann, but at the same time he is bringing up a number of issues that rarely get raised outside of State College, and I don't believe that is because they aren't valid - I think it is because they don't fit the narrative that everyone is used to with this story. Here's a link:

http://onwardstate.com/2015/01/20/an-open-letter-to-keith-olbermann/