Comprehensive Thursday Penn State Thread
Your Penn State thoughts for today go here. ALL of them.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
I absolutely disagree. I don't know what the details of the conversation between McQueary and JoePa were, but it's possible, as JoePa says, that the horrible nature of what McQueary saw got diluted as it went up the chain of command. As the first hand witness, how could he stand by and watch as his superiors covered it up? I just don't get how JoePa is fired for a moral lapse but McQueary gets a pass for being AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME and not doing anything, either during the incident or subsequently.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^
The time line indicates that JoPa already knew about Sandusky being accused in 1998. McQueary probably did not know.
And, I would not be surprised at all if JoPa, and others, told McQueary to keep his mouth shut -- or else.
The board of trustees could have easily removed McQueary. They did not.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^
This is not true. McQueary was not upfront and truthful when telling JoePa what he saw. He said that Sandusky was showring with a boy and something sexual may have been going on. Horseplay is what it has been quoted. He never told Joe that Sandusky was sodimising a 10 year old boy. He also did nothing to help this boy or stop it, regardless of the power Sandusky held or his job status. He cannot be fired for reporting a crime, and being 28, he wasn't some dumb kid. He was a man and had an obligation to help this child and he flat out dropped the ball.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^
McQueary says he was upfront and explicit; Paterno says he was not. How do we know whose memory to trust here? Why are you taking Paterno's version as truth?
November 10th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^
There's no way you can convince me that McQueary is going to go into Joe Paterno's office and NOT tell the complete story of what he saw. You're talking about a young assistant seeing a 30 year friend of the famous head coach commiting a terrible crime involving a child and he's going to go in there and say, "Hey, Coach - just thought you'd want to know I saw your former DC and friend in the shower with a boy kind of fooling around". First of all, it would have taken him a lot of nerve to go in there and tell what he saw. There's no half way to do that. Second, I can't believe even if McQueary did not tell all the details that Paterno wouldn't have asked for more information.
Either way, someone is lying here. I just don't believe it's McQueary.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
They can't both be telling the truth, but that doesn't necessarily mean one of them is lying. I think the chances are pretty good that they both are telling it the way they remember it. It happened a decade ago, it had to be an incredibly stressful conversation for both of them, and I wouldn't expect either of them to accurately remember exactly what was said.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
Many people seem to be forgetting that JoPa and the administration decided to cover this up, sweep it under the carpet!
And you believe those folks version of what happened? Why?
November 10th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^
I do? Look three posts up the thread.
I don't believe anyone. Anyone that thinks they know what happened is deluding themselves. None of us do.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
You do not know that. You're speaking as if you're an insider, but none of us know the real details. None of us.
November 10th, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^
It was JoPa that said "the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lash Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a youn boy". It does not say that this is what JoPa was told by McQueary. It says this is what JoPa told Curly
The report goes on to say, "Approximately one and one-half weeks later ... the graduate assistant reported to Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers."
Why would McQueary have told JoPa of just fondling and then later told Curley it was anal sex?
Isn't it more likely that JoPa downplayed the incident to protect his friend Sandusky?
I just heard on ESPN that McQueary has said he told JoPa the specifics.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
implications of a 60 year old man sodomizing a 10 year old boy.
Apparently there is some discrepancies in what JoePa and the administrators were told by Mcqueary, but only he knows what he actually saw.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
Bullshit! "a young adult in his 20's", you mean a 28 year old man, a former player and a coach entrusted with the safety of players at PSU.
Ok, I will give you that maybe he was temorarily incapable of reacting (by stepping outside to puke), but then he saw Sandusky for YEARS after this....and did nothing? Oh wait, he was promoted to a paid coaching position and now runs the program on the field during game days.
There is no excuse, we prosecute 12 year olds for Murder as adults because they "knew right from wrong" but a 28 year old coach did not, so he gets a pass?
So, basically no-one in thier 20's should held accountable for anything, because they are young and conflicted?
November 10th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
Who knows if McQueary hasn't done anything... The DA is probably keeping a lot of information under wraps so they don't affect the investigation.
Ultimately, McQueary still has access to the Football Building, and Sandusky, Paterno, Curley, and Spanier have all been banished.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
and report it to the police, he didn't. He went to Joe Pa, and probably was told not talking to anyone else. I don't think that he is as responsible as others in the cover-up but he has no excuse and could've done more. At least, he could try to distant himself from the program and find a job somewhere else. he had 9 years to do so. He didn't. Now this is under the light and his life is going to be ruined for his bad decision at the time. He will be recklessly heckled on the road and i don't think that he will last before the season is over. I sort of feel sorry for the guy, but he deserves it 100%.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
Question: what is preventing random people from "coming out" and saying they were abused by Sandusky, too? I mean, with the level of detail described in the Grand Jury report, I feel like someone could make up an account that followed the pattern similar to the other cases, just to try to pile up the number of accusations against Sandusky. And who's going to question that, you know?
I've wondered that ever since I heard that the number of victims who have stepped forward has doubled over the past couple of weeks. Now, I'm not trying to say that anybody has made anything up, but what measures can be taken, from a legal standpoint, to verify the truthfulness of the accounts?
November 10th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^
I'd think there are some hard records of kids in the program. And for example the kid that traveled to bowl games and whatnot, there should be some hard proof that he actually did travel with Sandusky. Not to say that is proves he was abused, but at least it establishes credibility to the stories.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
There has been at least one more unknown victim that has come forward this week. But it all flows through the prosecutors office and the ADA's will do what they always do when they get information. They'll research and follow the sources to get to the hard facts the best they are able.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:12 PM ^
I can't imagine the damage done by being molested. All data shows that only about 10-15% of people actually molested ever come out. They are afraid it will reflect poorly on them!
The probability that someone who was not abused would try to fabricate a story (presumably to get money in a settlement) is .000000000000001%.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
only psycho's would make such things up.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
there was an interview with a guy on CNN earlier today who claimed to be a victim and he seemd highly suspicious. He said that he would go to sports events with Sandusky, that sandusky would touch his leg, they would go to Sandusky's family picknics, but that nothing else really happened. It sounded exactly like something from the indictment.
There are going to be some people who try and take advantage of this situation.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^
of one of these victims. But, I can imagine that a lot of them either can't face the public embarassment and shame of having something like this happen to them, or simply have tried hard to put the experience behind them and don't want to be forced to relive the details through a court trial. This is one aspect that makes this crime so horrible. The victims spend most of their lives suffering in silence from the psychological damage.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
I am not even going to go there. It is too horrific just to think about...
But I have another question.
One of the shocking things about all this was that PSU had a great reputation on how clean the program was.
But based on all that we have found out over the last 5 days, how really clean are they? It is PATENTLY CLEAR that there is a culture of coverup in PSU. If they did not give 2nd thought about covering up for a pedophile, why would they even bat an eye about covering up any NCAA violations? If there was some payola going on or some extra benefits handed out, I would think they would have covered it up easily.
I mean, even the sordid affair with Sanduski would have been covered up forever, if Sanduski did not get outed by that high school. How do we know there aren't countless NCAA violations that were covered up by PSU to maintain their sterling reputation?
November 10th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^
Somewhere there is a Michigan, OSU and PSU fan that interact regularly (work together, neighbors...). The allegations against M come out first, the OSU and PSU fans wag their fingers and say "not us". Then the OSU scandal drops, the PSU fan points at both and says "you're worse then him, but we're much better than both of you." Finally the disgusting PSU mess unfolds.
The point is, very few of us really know what goes on inside of these programs and relying on a public perception can be incredibly misguided. Be careful where you put blind faith and be ever diligent in guarding against those who would put victories on the field above strong moral and ethical behaviour.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
I was wondering whether students are attending classes, professors delivering routine lectures, plans to attend the game Saturday, etc. . .
Please Note: My question is not intended to detract from the seriousness of the criminal acts that appear to have occured at PSU. I have been following theses threads closely and it is clear that MGOBLOG nerves are raw and people are taking offense where no offense is intended.
November 10th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^
Posted in the other thread, but the Onion is on point here. Sometimes satire is the best way to get a message across:
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/sports-media-asks-molestatio…
November 10th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^
What is sad is the article also represents the attitude of so called "fans" outraged with Paterno firing...
November 10th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
I was just watching some of the rioters on sportscenter; absolutely clueless. Absolutely classless. I just can't believe that some people can't see anything but the implications to the damned football team right now.
I'm not 40, but I'm a man. Still, I stood over the crib and cried after I put my son in bed last night. Those poor, poor kids...
November 10th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^
Well said Mgobleu...I am over 40 and agree totally.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
who was talking about "poaching" PSU's recruits reads this and realizes just how tasteless and wrong they were for ever bringing up the subject.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
Yep, I thought Ace's comment at the beginning of his post today was spot on.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:12 PM ^
I was wondering if the NCAA would grant the players some kind of waiver to transfer to another school without sitting out a year. I for one would not want to take a shower in those stalls again after hearing all that went on in there. I also as a parent wouldn't want my child at Penn St any longer as they've shown that the victims weren't nearly as important to them as trying to uphold the institutions reputation. I think this is an unprecedented situation and I am curious as to how this will play out. Any thoughts, although I don't know that I trust the NCAA to make a smart decision in this case. Please understand I'm not trying to say I hope we get recruits out of this, I'm just saying I'd want to get as far away from there as I could as fast as possible.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
what I was thinking. How could you even look at those showers. It sounds like a situation where you're buying a house where someone was murdered or commited suicide. Creepy.
However, it seems like the abuse happened in the coaches locker rooms, not the players.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
Seriously, if you are a parent of a football recruit, how could you send your kid to that school??? McQueary is the recruiting coordinator fergodsakes!
You know for a FACT that PSU will always protect the institution over any welfare of a kid/student. If your child got into trouble at PSU, you don't know that they will take care of your kid (unless doing so lined up with PSU's interest).
How could you send your kid to an environment like that?
November 10th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^
You know for a FACT that is what they did in this case. You don't know for a FACT that they will ALWAYS protect the institution over the kid/student going forward. There may be more to come, but those in the highest leadership positions that were involved are gone. The PSU BOT has sent a message, maybe not soon enough or not strong enough, but sent nonetheless. In fact, I suspect they'll make every effort possible to take the best care of those kids to try and put this behind them ASAP. Further, I think if anyone complains about mistreatment of any kind, they'll be listened to, not brushed off.
November 10th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^
Yes, I DO KNOW for a FACT. Because that is exactly what McQueary said in the grand jury testimony. He is the friggin' recruiting coordinator fergodsakes.
He, FOR A FACT, kept quiet after witnessing a MONSTROUS deed. So, how could you trust sending your son to that program, knowing that the recruiting coordinator has no qualms about keeping quiet with something like that?
We don't even have to discuss anyone else. We KNOW FOR A FACT that McQueary will toe the company line, even in the most heinous circumstances. How could you send your child to that environment?
November 10th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
i can't believe people rioted in favor of keeping paterno. i'm just so stunned and baffled by that.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^
No one bothered to flip Sandusky's car or rip up his lawn. But when it appeared the BoT might disrupt their season, then it was time to tear shit up. Just disgusting.
I really worry other victims might be afraid to come forward after seeing the mob's reaction.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^
Just curious, did Paterno say/do anything in regards to the riot? Seems like if he said, "Stop it, go home and go to sleep or go study." It would stop. Another opportunity for Paterno to do the right thing that he is going to miss.
November 10th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
Actually he did say that to the crowd that gathered outside his house that night. He told them to go study. No idea if those kids dispersed, but overall it did nothing. The undergrads weren't rioting over ethics or defending Paterno at that point. They were acting out because they're afraid the BoT will go nuclear on the football program and it won't be good anymore.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
we got fun and games.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^
Bolivian'd. One week.
I feel like this should go without saying, but we have implemented a "no pedophilia jokes" rule for the foreseeable future.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
Eh. Thought I'd test the water. But you're right, too soon. Fair MGoPunishment is fair.
November 10th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^
wow you certainly are in Bolivia
November 10th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
You'd think a no pedophilia joke thing would have been in place before and be a law around here...
November 10th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^
I'm Engin77, and I endorse this policy.
November 10th, 2011 at 3:31 PM ^
how about instead of "foreseeable future" we say "forever".
Thanks.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^
Not even close to being funny. Banhammer plz
November 10th, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7215871/nebraska-cornhus…
I'd be concerned about going myself.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^
I hope everyone keeps calm in Happy Valley on Saturday.