Unverified Voracity Addresses Elephant Comment Count

Brian

image

the 2009 Penn State Behrend Sports Camps flyer.

The elephant in the room. Everyone else feels compelled to write something on the events unfolding at Penn State, and I do too. I don't have much to add to the universal revulsion and calls for firing:

In response, Penn State did not call the police. They did other things, but they did not call the police. Joe Paterno did not call the police, and Tim Curley did not call the police, and Gary Schultz did not call the police. The graduate assistant who witness the act did not call the police. Penn State President Graham Spanier did not call the police. A reported child molester and rapist was living and working in their midst, and working in a program that brought him into contact with boys, and not one person called the police.

Co-sign. Penn State fans are right there, too, FWIW. There's a small band of holdouts but it is a distinct minority.

The reason I'm writing this bit is not the actions in question but the reaction of the major players once they became public. While the actions themselves are terrible the ass-covering reaction of the school's president and Paterno are at least 341st on the list of terrible things that have transpired. This is part of Paterno's statement:

If true, the nature and amount of charges made are very shocking to me and all Penn Staters. While I did what I was supposed to with the one charge brought to  my attention, like anyone else involved I can’t help but be deeply saddened these matters are alleged to have occurred. …

As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators.

No. When you heard the sad thing about your former DC, knew goddamn well this was a second offense after a 1998 incident that is likely the reason for his sudden retirement, and decided it wasn't worth talking to the police because your mind rearranged it into something "inappropriate" instead of evil, you gambled. When a kid was raped after you gambled, you're done. You did not "do what you were supposed to." You were supposed to call the police.

As for Spanier, Black Shoe Diaries already lost its mind for me:

"Unconditional support"?  "Complete confidence"?  "Highest levels of honesty, integrity, and compassion?"

Seriously?  It was appropriate that these things were investigate thoroughly a decade ago.  Regardless, this is a completely abominable response to any crisis, most especially this one.

These are obviously vetted and carefully chosen words, which have the added effect of making Graham Spanier look like an idiot -- and that is casting Spanier in the most favorable light.  I don't think he's an idiot, for the record, but the remaining alternatives are much more sinister.

Even after it is crystal clear huge chunks of PSU's athletic department were complicit in Sandusky's activities they still go this route:

Who do you think you're kidding? At least own up to your massive, incomprehensive failure. Or cancel your press conference an hour before it is supposed to happen. Is there an athletic department in the country that can say "we were wrong"?

Paterno's apparently gone, as was inevitable the moment the grand jury report was released. His name should be off the Big Ten championship trophy. Either that or I want one of the post game interviews to go like this:

Q: You've won the Big Ten championship! What are you going to do now?

A: Spend a decade enabling a child rapist!

If they could stop running that Big Ten ad where Paterno says "we believe in people" (except when they are reporting serious crimes) that would be cool, too. His legacy is now Pedobear wearing JoePa's glasses.

Is this fair? Should we forget all the good Paterno has done in our "rush to judgment"? Yes, and yes. This is a failure so massive it wipes out every positive thing about JoePa, of which there were many.

Forget with consumption. Now that we've talked about horrible crimes you're probably in the mood to buy a shirt. I know I am. You are in luck, as three fabulous options have been added to the MGoStore:

PrintPrint2976_49[1]

I find it odd that people want to commemorate a concept that means Michigan's quarterback is throwing the ball five feet over his receivers' heads, but commemorate away. Also I'm going to pitch Underground that all MGoShirts should feature someone pointing at something.

Good news for people who love bad Seinfeld references. I just wanted to type that header. Now I've done it so I guess I have to say something about the unexpected commitment of Pioneer RB/WR Drake Johnson. That thing is: reminds me of James Rogers. Instate sleeper with excellent straight line speed but reputed to be more of a track star than a football player, recruited as a RB, may actually end up at WR (or, you know, in the secondary after a five year sojourn across every position on the depth chart).

Weird commit to take before figuring out where Bri'onte Dunn is going to end up, but my moles tell me Fred Jackson says he can transform into a helicopter. That will be helpful on short yardage. But seriously folks, it'll be interesting to see how Johnson and Thomas Rawls work out as the first of the Hoke tailbacks. Both are major sleepers, but running back is a spot where sleepers seem to do better than they should at a position that prizes athleticism—Hart, Le'Veon Bell, Wisconsin person du jour.

All 22… [Homer noise]. Dedicated NFL followers are peeved at the league's implausible reasons for not releasing the endzone camera angles that show every player on the field ("fans would jump to conclusions after watching one or two games"). Smart Football:

The proffered reason — that it would result in too much criticism — is so silly that it can’t possibly be true. But if it’s not true, then what is the real reason? … two possibilities: first, either we really would fail to comprehend the complex array of movement on the field by twenty-two supremely athletic but human men, and thus we need the gentle paternalism of the cameraman and producer to show us, in a kind of cinematic baby talk, “See, with this close-up the quarterback throws a pretty spiral to the receiver”; or, second, football isn’t even a game so much as it is a product to be branded in a particular way, and by restricting the All-22 the NFL can by Orwellian imagery of extreme close-ups and slow-motion shots emotionally convey to us the narratives solely how they want to in the way they want to. In either case, there it’s control of the message; the only question is why, and all the answers are depressing.

This is the same attitude that leads to the Paterno reaction (not the action, the PR): belief that enough people will be snowed that you don't have to care about the ones who aren't. It works enough to be the default strategy even when no one in the world is going to believe you, like in the recent OSU and PSU cases*. That's the only play in the playbook.

On the other hand, it's not like anyone's offering views of the whole field to me. I asked the SID about it a few years ago and got a polite, expected rejection. I think the thing the NFL fears is fans making criticisms that aren't ignorant.

*[Because I don't want to find @ramzyn leaping out of my mailbox with a machete tomorrow, let me clarify that I'm not comparing the two actions that led to the PR blunders, just the PR blunders themselves. The reaction to both the Gee/Smith circus and the Spanier stuff was "who do they think they're kidding?" The PSU stuff has an order of magnitude of extra rage on top of it, obviously.]

What is a catch anymore? Additional Hoke comment on the Hemingway 49% touchdown:

"I thought Junior made a catch," Hoke said Monday during his weekly news conference.

In bounds?

"Oh, yeah," he said. "I thought he caught the ball (and finished the play)."

Hoke downplayed the significance of it after making that statement, FWIW, and that's about what I want from the coach: an honest opinion delivered calmly.

Anyway, this section is not about that. It's about what constitutes a catch these days. It used to be, sonny, that if the ball hit the ground it was not a catch. Nowadays there's the whole control-to-the-ground, ball-not-moving, is-it-or-isn't-it-thing. And I don't like it. Back in my day, these things were clear. Now anything close gets sent up and then sent back inconclusive.

I'd prefer it if a ball that hits the ground before the receiver has the opportunity to make a football move with it was just incomplete. That's clear. If that was the rule we wouldn't be talking about the Hemingway non-catch because it would have been obvious.

Iowa skill position coveting update. Patrick Vint of BHGP relates that McNutt was an athletic quarterback until year two at Iowa, when it was discovered his hands are covered in a mild adhesive and he is pimp. Also he explains the Coker recruitment:

…he committed to Iowa between his junior and senior seasons at Dematha.  You were right on the offers, but only Minnesota and Iowa were recruiting him as a full-time halfback; everyone else saw him as a fullback/h-back.  Obviously, we know how that works out.  But the other thing is that he wasn't necessarily "missed" as much as completely under the radar.  He was injury-prone as a sophomore and junior, and his numbers weren't that impressive.  Both Rivals and Scout had him as a low-3*.  His senior year was monster, though, getting him the fourth star and some late attention from VT/Miami/Auburn (IIRC on war eagle), but Iowa had an ace in the hole: Dude's an astrophysics major, and Iowa's been all over that s--- since Van Allen in the 50's.

Yes, our beast of a starting halfback is an astrophysics major.

Must be nice to watch your meh tailback recruit hulk up during his senior season.

Etc.: Patriot-News front page is powerful stuff. Mike McQueary is next on the list of people who are coming in for well-deserved abuse. Hockey recruit updates. UMHoops previews Michigan's bench.

Comments

BigBlue62

November 8th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^

Guilty.  Reporting it to his superior and then leaving it alone is not enough - he didn't practice his due dilligence in this case.  Especially since it was someone close to him (the DC) and since it involved little kids (disgusting).

Noticed that this was posted at "1:56 PM" - is Mgoblog choosing not to participate in daylight savings?

 

"Come to Peeennnn sstttttaaaattte"

profitgoblue

November 8th, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^

After Paterno is gone, the eyes are going to focus on McQueary.  Mark my words, he's about to be done as well and its somewhat (???) unfortunate just because I don't know what the heck I would have done in his position.  Its been hashed out before in numerous threads but, like most, I'd like to think I'd use my 160lb. frame to lay someone out that I see molesting a little kid.  Of course, who knows what I'd really do in that situation.  But, regardless, he saw what he saw and he chose to stay at Penn State year after year while Sandusky used the PSU name and facilities for his own personal gain.  That is something I know I could not and would not do - I could never stay at PSU and work around a child molester.  This is why I think McQueary is the next "victim" of the explosion.

 

coastal blue

November 8th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

His reaction - to run out after he was seen and not A. Do something on the spot or B. Call the cops - reminds me of what someone would do when coming across an infidelity.

That's how I feel some people are acting here: As if Sandusky was just doing something wrong, not monstrous. As if the GA came to Paterno and said "I came across Sandusky with so and so's wife, coach and I felt like I had to tell you". As if this was somehow just an in-house problem.

There is no excuse for not calling the cops, no excuse for at least not questioning Sandusky on the spot and getting the child out of there, none, especially if his testimony is true and he heard and saw the boy being raped.

Anyone trying to justify anyone's actions in this case is trying to shield themselves from the actual scene that was occuring.

profitgoblue

November 8th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

I agree.  As a devils advocate by trade, I could argue that McQueary is technically a "victim" from having witnessed something that he had no hand in.  I truly must have been tramatic for him to see that and must have affected his professional life, at least for a few months, don't you think?  However, I shun that side of myself that sees the need to argue against what I believe and overrule myself by arguing that his hands quickly became uncleaner and uncleaner (term of art) as each day passed and he failed to (a) report what he saw to the police, and (b) resign from his position.  He's in trouble, at least in the court of public opinion.

profitgoblue

November 8th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^

I can't even stand to think about the poor kids.  I've mentally divorced the real victims from the events in my mind so I can post about this here.  If I let myself think about the poor little kids for one second, I get choked up.  Its just too sad to handle.  Those kids will never be the same for the rest of their lives because of that piece of sh-t.  I can't imagine what it must be like but I like to think that if I was the parent of one of those kids, I would not rest until Sandusky's life was in utter ruins.  And I mean R-U-I-N-S - complete and total ruins.  So much so that not even a phoenix could rise from 'dem ashes.

Vote_Crisler_1937

November 8th, 2011 at 6:47 PM ^

Many people here say they don't know what they would have done in McQueary's shoes. Well as a person who has witnessed a sexual assault, I can assure you all it is very easy to go to the police immediately. I had no reservation about making a scene to everyone in earshot and leading the cop right to the guy. Even knowing the attacker like he did, I cant imagine the self talk McQ must have needed to overcome the human reaction I know I felt to immediately act.

Boomer519

November 8th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^

I have looked around and have not found my answer. What is the tacopants refrence? I know how this blog can be if you miss one post you can be out of the loop.

JeepinBen

November 8th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^

  • "Tacopants"? Tacopants is Jason Avant's eleven-foot tall imaginary friend. Chad Henne spent much of 2005 hitting him between the numbers, which are unfortunately eight feet off the ground and made of dreams. Blessed with infinite eligibility and the ability to sneak on and off the field without alerting the referees -- made of dreams, remember -- Tacopants has taken a lesser role in the offense as Henne matures but still pops up at inopportune times. The term has its genesis in this post.
  •  

    http://mgoblog.com/content/mgofaq

    winged wolverine

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^

    All he had to do was call the police. I can't believe there are people out there who said that reporting this to his bosses was enough. And the fact that this continued for years afterwards? Unforgivable.

     

    I was one of the few that never thought Paterno's name should have been on the B1G Ten title game trophy anyway. Yost-Stagg seems much more appropriate. 

    HHW

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^

    I guess i put myself into the situation and ask what would I expect him to do if my child was involved.  I would definitely be wondering why the most powerful and respected man in Pennsylvania didn't pick up the phone and dial law enforcement.

    I've always agreed he should not be on the trophy.  The majority of the time he was coach he was independent; he's had very little impact on the B1G.  It's like BTN showing the best running backs of the '80s and including Nebraska backs, ridiculous.

    Gameboy

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

    It is pretty sad reading through the posts on PSU sites as majority are still defending JoePa. Exactly how many kids under your watch have to be molested before a significant number fans no longer support you?

    What people need to understand is this. Jerry Sanduski abused tens of children (that we KNOW about) right under the nose of JoePa, over many decades. This is not some private fair where he abused these kids in his own home. He abused these kids on campus, in football facilities, on the road trip with the team.

    It does not matter what exactly transpired between JoePa, Quaery, and the AD. The fact that JoePa fostered an environment where a serial child-rapist was able to conduct his crime right undeer JoePa's nose is enough to condemn the man. It doesn't even matter what he knew and what he didn't know. The fact that these events occurred under his watch should be enough to dismiss JoePa.

    It is just like the Catholic Church. Everyone was so busy trying to protect the institution that no one though of trying to protect the kids. It is so very, very sad.

    Sir Guy

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^

    Not to start a religious war (cause I know nobody wants to see it here or anywhere) but I thought the jab at the Catholic Church was uncalled for.  You could have left that out.

    Just to be clear, I am not saying the Church never covered up, but only that the reference was unnecessary.  

    gobluesasquatch

    November 8th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^

    But that doesn't solve anything. 

    He didn't know. You don't think this doesn't happen all the time. Look I share your frustration. Whether it's raping children, planning a horrific terror plot, or serial murder, we want to find a link, a sign, and obvious warning sign. IN retrospect, these are easy to find. But in foresight very difficult.

    Brian, while I love the sight, is prone to BLATENT lies at times. Go ahead brian, face the facts that saying his retirement in 1998 was a result of Paterno finding out about the previous investigation. Think about what you just said ... you have NO evidence of it whatsoever. If you do, please contact me and let me know. But you don't so dont' continue to spread false information. 

    Actually, we know why Sandusky retired because Paterno was going to replace him because he wasn't focusing enough on his job, rather focusing on the organization. Well documented already.

    After McQuery, then who? Who will we attack next. I say the PA legislature for not making it a law to contact the police in such an event. If they haven't charged Joe, and won't, then the arguments about moral obligation are BS. Maybe we should consider who covered up what.

    But we don't because we want blood. We want to believe this was preventable, that all crimes are preventable. They aren't. If Paterno had called the police, and they did nothing, we'd still feel the same about Joe. 



    As I've said before, you wouldn't have done better, you'd have done worse, and so would I have. 

    gobluesasquatch

    November 8th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^

    I'm being honest ... and I have no idea how I'd react. Basically because I've seen men of integrity make mistakes facing horrible circumstances. I've seen myself, facing a situation, seeing my spouse, the woman I loved, cheating on me with another man, and just walking away, pretending it didn't happen because I couldn't possibly deal with a reality that split my mind and ability to comprehend what was reality and what I thought was reality. 

    I would like to think I'd pick up the phone and call the police. That's what I'd say I'd do, but in the moment, I know very little more than you do. And please, please don't tell me about what you've done int he past, because it's just that, in the past. Every situation is unique.

    Again, I am horrified at what happened. My heart breaks for those boys abused. It is enraged that it wasn't stopped sooner. I ask - how could know one have known. Yet I'm not willing to assume that it had to been obvious because sometimes these things aren't. That's what makes is so damn sickening, because too often, even our best vigiliance can't stop evil. 

    Joe should have called the police. McQuerry shouldn't have waited to talk to anyone. I would like to say I'd have yelled something, anything when I saw what was claimed to be seen (btw - these are all still ALLEGATIONS - though seemingly pretty solid - then again, so was the case against the Duke Lacrosse "rapists" - right?) if nothing else to end it. But the shock, the horror, the sickness - I'd probably throw up, I don't know that I'd be in the right state of mind for hours, if not days. Nor do you. 

    There is a process, we are emotionally raw right now. We need to react within the law, and let the facts - not innuendo, not conspiracy theories, not assumptions (and that's all brian is doing, making irresponsible assumptions) play out and then make decisions. I feel for Joe Paterno. He's made a huge difference in many men's lives. IN the end, I think that will be his legacy. Those who look at him differently based on facts we know are the one's I'll feel sorry for. 

    Pibby Scott

    November 8th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^

    I would like to think I'd pick up the phone and call the police. That's what I'd say I'd do, but in the moment, I know very little more than you do. And please, please don't tell me about what you've done int he past, because it's just that, in the past. Every situation is unique.

    However. That is that first moment. Those first few days. And their inaction isn't relegated to the first few days, hell even weeks. However long it takes someone to pyschically come to grips with what they've witnessed.

    For example. Say you see a close pal in a shower with a boy in 2002. Then you find out nothing is done about it. Then it's the next year, and the year after, and you keep seeing that man around little boys. You keep seeing that he has his over-night camps and his charities. All sponsered by the place that employs you. You see him as late as 2008 at a practice of the team you coach with a little boy. AND YOUVE STILL DONE NOTHING.

    That I think explains the anger. The absurditiy of the time line is too big to rationalize away. Again, I don't want to put anyone on trial for their "reactions and behaviors" think of Mersault in the "Stranger". Who knows what I would have done had I been in his shoes staring at that image. I have no idea.

    What I am saying is that someone saw someone in a shower having "anal sex" with a boy then saw that man around town with other boys and still chose keeping his mouth shut and following chain of command over doing what seemed his moral obligation as a member of the community.

     

    edit: my hypothetical is clearly about Mcquery. However, if slightly shifted. It could be about JoePa. Because he was privvy to "some version" of what his G.A. staffer witness. And he too saw his old buddy going around with little boys and did NOTHING to intervene.

    contra mundum

    November 9th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^

    I agree with much of what you said. I'm not surprised that the Grad assistant didn't break things up and escort the kid out of there. The shock of seeing something like this go on, is enough to make you behave in ways you never thought you would.

    What I am surprised about, is that after being able to think and reflect..and that persons of more advanced age and presumably more maturity who did not witness the act..didn't take this thing on.

    When given enough time to reflect on things, someone should have thought of the kids and the future harm Sandusky might do and put an end to this by calling the police or DHS and reporting it. That after all this time, no one has, means they put themselves and their wants and desires ahead of the safety of these children.

    Pibby Scott

    November 8th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^

    I say the PA legislature for not making it a law to contact the police in such an event. If they haven't charged Joe, and won't, then the arguments about moral obligation are BS.

    Isn't it kind of fallacious to equate law and morality; or, legal obligations with moral obligations. We all know very well certain moral actions aren't always lawful nor are all laws "moral". Law is a process and at no time is it the authority on what constitutes "moral" action.

    Go ahead brian, face the facts that saying his retirement in 1998 was a result of Paterno finding out about the previous investigation. Think about what you just said ... you have NO evidence of it whatsoever. If you do, please contact me and let me know. But you don't so dont' continue to spread false information.

    Perhaps Brian is wrong for stating unequivocally that that is the reason Sandusky wasn't the heir to the PSU throne, however the chain of events seems to suggest otherwise. Again, either the PSU community is pretty ignorant and were snowed into a sort of senselessness or were, at best, willfully ignorant. Either way, the onus is now on JoePa to clarify the chain of events. Because it looks pretty bad.

    Also, your tone is pretty aggressive. It doesn't help your argument.

    jmblue

    November 8th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^

    Actually, we know why Sandusky retired because Paterno was going to replace him because he wasn't focusing enough on his job, rather focusing on the organization. Well documented already.

    If this is true, it makes JoePa look even worse. You're suggesting that JoePa was unconcerned about the 1998 investigation into Sandusky's alleged sexual assaults, and that his only reason for pushing Sandusky out was football-related.

    HollywoodHokeHogan

    November 8th, 2011 at 9:13 PM ^

    posts in this and all the other threads.  At first I thought you were just being contrarian, but now I just think you're a bad person.  You wouldn't have done worse?  Ok.  You're a bad person.  You can assert that I would have done worse too, but that's just baseless assertion.  I don't know if you have witness a sexual assualt, not reported it, and are trying to make yourself feel better, or if  you're just a bad person and you wrongly think everyone else is too.  Your claim that if JoePa did everything legally require, then the moral arguments "are BS" would be laughable if I didn't think you actually believed it.

    harmon98

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

    the last few days of PSU news reminds me of a quote in The Sun Also Rises:

     

    "How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked. 
     
    "Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly." 

     

    Sir Guy

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

    Just a thought on the shirts.  Perhaps the enthusiasm about tacopants has to do with perhaps he (or his cousin) is out on the field again for large amounts of time.  We all know Denard has pinpoint accuracy, and Tacopants must be his target.

    steve sharik

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

    Not defendable, but understandable.

    What if Bo was still coaching and he did these things?  I guaran-damn-tee you that the majority of the fan base and "Michigan Men" would be defending him, most of them vehemently.

    It's just another example of not judging a book by its cover, which, like, duh, but I think it's so hard to believe b/c of the things we've all heard about JoePa over decades.

    The lesson should be clear for sports fans, or furthermore any fans of celebrities: Don't conclude if the person is good or bad unless you know that person intimately.

    And like John U. Bacon discovered and wrote about in Three and Out, people's morals aren't black and white, but shades of gray.

    dragonchild

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^

    I hold people to high standards, and I learned that at Michigan.  Michigan isn't perfect, but one thing I was always proud of is that the school frowns on making excuses.

    If one of Hoke's ACs was caught molesting children, you honestly think I'm going to get defensive?  It may not be your intent, but do you realize that you made a very serious and demeaning insult at EVERYONE in this blog?  And these are people who give Borges heat for failing to convert a 4th-and-1 in his first season here, for crissakes!

    dragonchild

    November 8th, 2011 at 7:08 PM ^

    I've always held people to high MORAL standards.  But when I was an 18-year-old idiot fresh out of high school, I was a whiner and a coward.  I would make excuses and not act when the occasion called for it.  It's my own personal experience, sure, but going to U-M beat that out of me.  Now I hold myself, and others, to high BEHAVIORAL standards.  I wouldn't hold back if someone here defended a similar scandal at U-M.

    Nowadays if I met the 18-year-old me I'd punch that whiny coward in the face.  Though I still think even then I'd have the guts to call the cops on a child rapist.  JoePa really failed a low bar here.

    MGoNukeE

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^

    Any way we can get "MICHIGAN" printed before the "FERGODSAKES" to imitate all the major and club shirts that Michigan students wear? I'd like to be labeled as a Fergodsake while on campus.

    Though there might be a licensing issue, in that random people can't just create their own "Michigan BLANK" T-shirt as they choose. If that's the case, I'll just have to start the official Fergodsakes Club on campus.

    Edit: found the original thread where this idea started:

    http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/michigan-fergodsakes-t-shirts

    cp4three2

    November 8th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^

    Yost has 7 more Big Ten titles than Paterno and instead of letting a pedophile roam the lockerroom, he built the Big House.  I thought Joe's name should have been on the coach's trophy, buy I don't think that's going to happen either. 

     

    It's going to be pretty weird if PSU wins the Stagg-Paterno trophy weeks after Paterno resigned.