the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
- Member for
- 2 years 39 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
|52 weeks 8 hours ago||werd up||
i've been uh killing and robbing people since uh like totes evz
|1 year 2 weeks ago||has sex||
with anything that moves
|1 year 13 weeks ago||?||
inscrutable, impossible to understand or interpret.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||bogus||
WHY NO DEFENSE AT END TIMES?
|1 year 23 weeks ago||You are claiming||
Why why why....I can't enjoy it as much. It made it all seem...fake.
Which it probably was.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||i suppose||
this is the logical result of your position. and for demonstrating it truthfully, I commend you. However, I couldn't disagree with you more.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||And the AdvoCare v1000||
sounds like a powersuit a Nurse might wear one day in the future at the expense of patient empathy. That is all.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Wow||
What an utterly abysmal schedule. So many horrible games. And so many teams were screwed I don't even know where to begin. But let me try....How in the hell does the Eighth ranked team in the country fall to the....what the hell is even this bowl? The maaacko? the Mako bowl? What is this, Final Fantasy?
Sheesh. I just feel crummy about the whole thing. Yes we deserve it and all that, but the way things worked out, it just doesn't feel right.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Dantonio has averaged 10 wins a season||
Every season he won ten games. That is what I would describe, were I describing it, ergo, an excellent average given the variables therein and lackthereof, forewith. Posthaste. We're going Roses regardless of the Season.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||it's ok||
he's talked to her about this. it's all cool.
and also, is this thread worthy?
yeah. it's kinda funny in the way that sports fans can be some of the most depressing people in america kinda funnny.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||actually if baylor wins||
and kansas state loses, michigan could go to the fiesta.
at least according to this little thing i've been using here
|1 year 25 weeks ago||do j morgan and novak||
have the exact same grin/smirk?
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Song to play||
as we're kicking his and Ohio's ass or whoever's ass happens to be sitting on the Shoe.
"I am trying to break your heart", Wilco...on account of Meyer's heart being you know fragile like easily breakable? Or does this work for Dantonio too?
Sheesh. I might not be making sense. But you all understand anyway.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Question||
"He is accused of breaking into a locked dorm room at 10 p.m. Sept. 29 and stealing the game."
I like that it is THE GAME. I wonder which these reporters are referring to. It's certainly not D&D because that takes place in your heart and no one can take that from you.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Nein!||
Google Jeff Magnum Occupy Wall St. It's a very nice performance.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||following assumptions||
1. One of your best friends is accused of doing something sexual in a shower with a young boy. You "follow protocol" and report it to the AD. Nothing seemingly happens with the investigation. Are you assuming Joe assumed Sandusky was somehow exonerated? It's his best friend, or one of them, right, and we can at the least assume Joe would be concerned about his best friend. So Joe follows up, right? He finds out what is going on with his friend? What does he find out in 2002? Nothing? His friend is in the clear? He doesn't bother to find anything out? Why? He "followed protocol" and it's out of his head?
He should be held accountable for either not disclosing what he found out or for not being interested in finding out if anything happened to one of his good friends accused of having sex with a boy. In what other ways can you defend him here?
2. Joe's running a massive football operation under dimishing capabilities. Imagine the work he does all week long, and how much could go on while the assistants are game planning and Joe is napping (okay, I need some humor right now). But seriously, Sandusky could come and go without notice pretty easy, especially depending on where his office is in relationship to Joe's.
It's funny that you chastise those of us for our "assumptions" and yet you ask at the same time for people to "imagine" (which means, assume the reality of the following hypothetical situation: for neither you nor I know "exactly" what it means to run a D1 program) the amount of work Joe had to do each week in running his football program and that is how he somehow managed not to see one of his good friends on campus for nearly a decade after hearing first hand from someone who saw him a shower with a young boy. Moreover, Jerry Sandusky still held his position within his Charity. Joe knew what he had been accused of and was apparently okay with what work he assumed Jerry was doing with and around children in his Second City Charity. That is one assumption. Or we assume Joe put it out of his mind "because it was too hard to believe". We should hold Joe accountable in either scenario.
3. Joe is the biggest target because he is the most powerful figure in the Happy Valley Football Community. Either he used that power to sweep something under the rug or he misused that power by "putting things completely out of his mind". He should be lampooned for either being incompetent and morally irresponsible (I've said elsewhere, moral and legal obligations to a community are not the same) or for being in some way responsible for what looks like a "cover-up".
4. What we know is that he reported to the AD that Sandusky was seen involved in some sort of sexual act with a child.
Then you write "hardly a cover up". That was in 2002. You're again assuming Joe wasn't the least bit curious as to the outcome of the non-investigation that took place. We're all assuming Joe was aware of the fact that the police were not involved in the 2002 allegtions.
We know that they (Paterno and co.) believed the accusations were serious enough as to bar Sandusky from bringing boys to school, and we know everyone involved in the accusations were made aware of these results. All parties have said so.
From there, it is correct to assume one of two things. Either Joe didn't see fit to bring the police in because he had "done enough" by reporting it up the chain of command. In thinking he had done enough, Joe is also giving tacit approval to the actions of the Instiution to which he was reporting. He must have felt they had also done enough in their "non criminal investigation" into the allegations against Sandusky, given, again, that he had felt he had done enough in the first place. Or, Joe is that ignornant of the law, that he assumes something sexual happening in the boys lockerroom at PSU between an adult and boy is an instiutional matter and not a criminal matter. Again, he has power, and he either used it incorrectly, ignornantly, or criminally.
There's no credible explanation for Joe's behavior. Either way, he needs to be held accountable. You can empathasize with the man, understand that he was put into a position of great difficulty because of one of his friends; but being empathic doesn't mean that you are forbidden from 1. making conclusions and 2. judging the man's behaviors based on those conclusions that you've rationally come to, given the evidence. Joe failed in his role as a figurehead and as a leader of a public institution and he failed spectacularly.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||i like this sentence||
The mind comes up with all kinds of reasons to dismiss what it hears that doesn't jibe with what it thinks it knows.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||this rings true||
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.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||see this post||
for why this blog Eats All Other Blogs and Blog Communities for Breakfast
|1 year 27 weeks ago||there's an article on deadspin w/ the author.||
It's not loading for me but through this article you can read about it.
Particularly strange is the author's introduction to the book.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||pretty ripe||
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.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||i like that||
you have indented your paragraphs. It makes your nonsense that much more "readable".
|1 year 27 weeks ago||2002||
Navarre was throwing into the OSU endzone from the OSO 30 yardline. It "didn't feel" that close.
But that's just my opinion. And it my recollection of the end of that game could be totally wrong. Because I haven't looked it up.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||i'm sorry||
if i'm under the impression that any defense slightly better than the "bleeding eyes" level of 2010 gets us one or two more wins and probably saves RR's job.
Screw it. I'll come out and say it. I thought he should've been granted a fourth year without question and to have the talk about whether to re-up after the 4th, but in all liklihood should be the fifth. Three years just isn't enough time to establish a college program. But whatever. I'm leaving the hill, I think. Or I'm trying to. Losses like this make it hard. I've been trying not to feel bummed about this all since the Josh Groban thing.
*this also shouldn't imply I don't like Hoke. I do like Hoke.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Hi Tubauberalles!||
My Situation is good, apart from it being and becoming in the process. difficult. However, Pibby knows how to take care of himself. I'm going to keep reading and posting my own brand of inane thinking in hopes that someone seeks to "engage me" for a little verbal "tête à tête amoureux"*
*i goggled this.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||in a perfect world||
we have 2008 defense with 2010 offense and we're all happy.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||i'm sorry||
this is just a terrible argument.
Certainly we have better players than this year's Iowa team. The kids above have proven that.
Secondly, one of the ideas (or the one I thought so tantalizing) about RR was his offensive scheme coupled with the power of the M brand to bring in some nasty classes. Superior Athletes in a Superior System equals us kicking the fuck out of everyone once things are in place. *
*this includes stuff like you know...a...um...defense. (Damn you for forcing the 335 down everyone's throat!)
When you just hope to "out talent" everyone you end up in the 2007 Rose Bowl Game and later that night passed in Chicago thinking spiders are crawling all over you.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||this iowa team||
is much worse than last year's team.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||it's been said in an earlier post||
and it bears repeating.
i get maybe not rolling out/running in the redzone with 16 secs the first three plays. maybe denard gets tackled etc etc time runs out.
but the 4th down call, we have two seconds, either way it's over. why we no run option here? argh. quick slant there?! ugh doom.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||because razors||
are so expensive i've taken to "face plucking" and boy is that ever painful.
but right now everything is painful so i'm sort of lost in a wash of pain.