I really didn't get into this to defend Paterno, just to suggest we step back and wait until Paterno and everyone has a chance to defend themselves. But, (sigh)...
I haven't seen McQueary's statement, but I am not inclined to take it at face value. It was a long time ago and people's memories can play tricks. Does Joe agree or disagree about what McQueary says he told him?
I thought Paterno called Curley and Schultz to his home the next day.
Laughable point? From the perspective of the police? Sure. They want to know everything. But what about from Joe's perspective? Remember that we are talking about a motivation for Joe to violate chain of command.
Also, I wonder why, if calling the police in violation of the chain of command of the organization you trust and work for is such an automatic thing to do, that McQueary gets a free pass? There was no problem in translation for Mike. If anyone should have been keen to call the cops, it should have been McQueary.
I disagree that it doesn't matter what McQueary told Joe. The severity of the act is crucial if you want to use it as a reason to say chain of command be damned.
Remember, that the police already knew about Sandusky.
Think of it this way: McQueary goes to Paterno, hesitant to be too explicit, tells Joe that something inappropriate of a sexual nature happened with Sandusky and a kid. Joe goes "Not again!, well, I had better tell Tim and Gary." Then does so. It is their job to call the police. Schultz probably talked to police daily. Joe knows the police already know about Sandusky and is just waiting for Sandusky to charged already. Why call them again?
There was nothing imminent about the situation by the time Joe hears about it. Depending on what McQueary said to Paterno, there may have been nothing definate either. Weeks go by. Joe isn't in the loop. Joe knows the police know about Sandusky and nothing immediate is going on. What moment in time should Joe decide to act on his own and call the police to tell them about somebody they already know about? What would suddenly spur Joe to do something that seemed redundant or unnecessary?
Bear with me 'stache. This is less a refutation than an attempt to clarify. Please correct me where I am wrong.
1) We don't know what McQueary told Paterno. McQueary may have been reluctant to be explicit with Paterno.
2) Paterno discribed it as "disturbing", "inappropriate", and "something of a sexual nature".
3) Paterno tells his superior AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz who supervises the campus police. This is required by law.
4) Whatever Paterno tells Curley and Schultz, he knows that they are going to talk to McQueary themselves. Paterno does not attend the meeting.
5) PSU has a policy for how to handle such things. There is a chain of command. The head of the institution is the one responsible for notifying authorities. Not the football coach. Paterno would be violating the chain of command by alerting authorities and we do not know what McQueary told Paterno or what Paterno knew beyond (2).
6) The police already knew about Sandusky. They hadn't arrested Sandusky after 4 years.
7) If Paterno wasn't appraised of the specific nature of the allegations by McQueary, and trusted Curley and Schultz to do their jobs, it would not be clear that they weren't doing their jobs. Paterno could have assumed that if there was anything to it, that they would act. This especially applies to Schultz because of Schultz's connection to the police.
8) Paterno may even not have been aware that they didn't call the police.
9) They may have had a witness, but they didn't have a victim.
10) Violating the chain of command may be a fireable offense.
11) Joe is 84 years old and no longer on top of things. Even then Joe was 75.
Control of the football team, not the athletic dept.
btw, the answer as to why Sandusky continued to have on campus privileges is found in the grand jury report. It was negotiated as part of Sandusky's retirement package.
Paterno's contract is up at the end of the year and he knows he isn't going to be rehired.
Despite nearly universal condemnation of this man on this board, we just don't have enough facts to reach a valid conclusion. Did Paterno cover something up? Maybe. Maybe not. Should Paterno have called the police? Maybe. Maybe not. The police already knew about Sandusky.. Calling them wasn't necessarily going to make any difference. Everyone here seems ready to assume facts not in evidence in order to satisfy their anger.
When the facts do come out, it could be that everybody is right. But you can't know that now.
Ann Arbor Torch and Pitchfork has nothing left but empty shelves.
The school is thinking short term in trying to appease students and Paterno supporters. Long term if facts come out that indicate Paterno was even more complicit than current facts suggest the school will suffer permanent damage to its prestige for letting him coach the rest of the year.
If the facts come out that what Paterno did was reasonable much less right, and they fire Paterno, bowing to public pressure, that would damage their prestige even more.
Sat., Sep. 4 vs. Connecticut TV Ann Arbor, Mich. W, 30-10
Sat., Sep. 11 at Notre Dame TV South Bend, Ind. W, 28-24
Sat., Sep. 18 vs. Massachusetts TV Ann Arbor, Mich. W, 42-37
Sat., Sep. 25 vs. Bowling Green TV Ann Arbor, Mich. W, 65-21
Sat., Oct. 2 at Indiana * TV Bloomington, Ind. W, 42-35
Sat., Oct. 9 vs. No. 17 Michigan State * TV Ann Arbor, Mich. L, 34-17
Sat., Oct. 16 vs. No. 15 Iowa (Homecoming) * TV Ann Arbor, Mich. L, 38-28
Sat., Oct. 30 at Penn State * TV State College, Pa. L, 41-31
Sat., Nov. 6 vs. Illinois * TV Ann Arbor, Mich. W, 67-65 (3OT)
Sat., Nov. 13 at Purdue * TV West Lafayette, Ind. W, 27-16
Sat., Nov. 20 vs. No. 6 Wisconsin * TV Ann Arbor, Mich. L, 48-28
Sat., Nov. 27 at No. 8 Ohio State * TV Columbus, Ohio L, 37-7
Sat., Jan. 1 vs. No. 21 Mississippi State TV Jacksonville, Fla. L, 52-14
These guys have to give opinons on all FBS, or at least BCS, teams. Do they really spend most of their time researching? How close to the program are they?
They are just talking to talk. The opinion of someone close to the program, who has seen the practices, would matter more to me.
Both accounts indicate the Chinese team were the aggressors
I reread Wang and if Wang says the Chinese were at fault, you'll have to show me. I can't find it.
The "spectator" is a Georgetown fan who admits, more than once, to bias, and mostly complains about the officiating. And you think you can reach a fair conclusion from that?
Recent Comments
I think Paterno delegates a lot of authority.
I think it is just the way Joe operates.
And I think that's what happened here. Joe just expected everybody to do what they were supposed to do.
I think you and the others who are so critical of Joe wanted him to micro-manage this.
I really didn't get into this to defend Paterno, just to suggest we step back and wait until Paterno and everyone has a chance to defend themselves. But, (sigh)...
I haven't seen McQueary's statement, but I am not inclined to take it at face value. It was a long time ago and people's memories can play tricks. Does Joe agree or disagree about what McQueary says he told him?
I thought Paterno called Curley and Schultz to his home the next day.
Laughable point? From the perspective of the police? Sure. They want to know everything. But what about from Joe's perspective? Remember that we are talking about a motivation for Joe to violate chain of command.
Also, I wonder why, if calling the police in violation of the chain of command of the organization you trust and work for is such an automatic thing to do, that McQueary gets a free pass? There was no problem in translation for Mike. If anyone should have been keen to call the cops, it should have been McQueary.
I disagree that it doesn't matter what McQueary told Joe. The severity of the act is crucial if you want to use it as a reason to say chain of command be damned.
Remember, that the police already knew about Sandusky.
Think of it this way: McQueary goes to Paterno, hesitant to be too explicit, tells Joe that something inappropriate of a sexual nature happened with Sandusky and a kid. Joe goes "Not again!, well, I had better tell Tim and Gary." Then does so. It is their job to call the police. Schultz probably talked to police daily. Joe knows the police already know about Sandusky and is just waiting for Sandusky to charged already. Why call them again?
There was nothing imminent about the situation by the time Joe hears about it. Depending on what McQueary said to Paterno, there may have been nothing definate either. Weeks go by. Joe isn't in the loop. Joe knows the police know about Sandusky and nothing immediate is going on. What moment in time should Joe decide to act on his own and call the police to tell them about somebody they already know about? What would suddenly spur Joe to do something that seemed redundant or unnecessary?
Bear with me 'stache. This is less a refutation than an attempt to clarify. Please correct me where I am wrong.
1) We don't know what McQueary told Paterno. McQueary may have been reluctant to be explicit with Paterno.
2) Paterno discribed it as "disturbing", "inappropriate", and "something of a sexual nature".
3) Paterno tells his superior AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz who supervises the campus police. This is required by law.
4) Whatever Paterno tells Curley and Schultz, he knows that they are going to talk to McQueary themselves. Paterno does not attend the meeting.
5) PSU has a policy for how to handle such things. There is a chain of command. The head of the institution is the one responsible for notifying authorities. Not the football coach. Paterno would be violating the chain of command by alerting authorities and we do not know what McQueary told Paterno or what Paterno knew beyond (2).
6) The police already knew about Sandusky. They hadn't arrested Sandusky after 4 years.
7) If Paterno wasn't appraised of the specific nature of the allegations by McQueary, and trusted Curley and Schultz to do their jobs, it would not be clear that they weren't doing their jobs. Paterno could have assumed that if there was anything to it, that they would act. This especially applies to Schultz because of Schultz's connection to the police.
8) Paterno may even not have been aware that they didn't call the police.
9) They may have had a witness, but they didn't have a victim.
10) Violating the chain of command may be a fireable offense.
11) Joe is 84 years old and no longer on top of things. Even then Joe was 75.
Anything I have wrong here?
Control of the football team, not the athletic dept.
btw, the answer as to why Sandusky continued to have on campus privileges is found in the grand jury report. It was negotiated as part of Sandusky's retirement package.
How did you get your post above mine, wave?
He knows that he is not going to be rehired because of the politics of what's going on and because some have wanted Joe out for a long time.
Your point about letting Sandusky hang around is a good point.
Edit: But how much does Joe control that now at 84(?)?
Things will eventually quiet down and a more complete story will come out. PSU is a huge megaversity, the school isn't going anywhere.
How they handle this is going to be important for them. You can't believe that they are at the point where it doesn't matter what they do.
Paterno's contract is up at the end of the year and he knows he isn't going to be rehired.
Despite nearly universal condemnation of this man on this board, we just don't have enough facts to reach a valid conclusion. Did Paterno cover something up? Maybe. Maybe not. Should Paterno have called the police? Maybe. Maybe not. The police already knew about Sandusky.. Calling them wasn't necessarily going to make any difference. Everyone here seems ready to assume facts not in evidence in order to satisfy their anger.
When the facts do come out, it could be that everybody is right. But you can't know that now.
Ann Arbor Torch and Pitchfork has nothing left but empty shelves.
I don't post that often, but I haven't seen anyone else mention this, so I'll throw it out there.
I remember Mike McQueary as a pretty big guy. A quick google search gave McQueary's ht/wt as 6'4'', 213lbs. He was 28. Sandusky was an old man.
Why didn't McQueary stop it?
Why turn around and leave the room and call his father? And then exit the building?
Why not go up to them, shove Sandusky away and take the boy out of the room?
The kid was in jeopardy. McQueary is a big, strong athlete. Stop them and take the kid to safety.
If I am wrong here, what am I missing?
Why do I think that your comment fits with your avatar?
Would someone please explain to a moron what "third-tier" rights are?
IIRC, Reynolds tried to hurt a UofM player in that one game also, jm.
This would have been before going after Sorgi. Maybe the year before.
I'm curious, Blue. Just how did you become familiar with Zugzwang?
If you keep making insightful posts like this one, you'll be a welcome addition here, ogden.
I thought there was a bug on my computer screen.
Lions. Period.
1
You're forgetting about greyshirts, Ken.
1)
Two questions, HS.
1) If PSU were to leave the athletic conference, does that mean leaving the CIC as well?
2 Does the B1G have a buyout?
608
In this heat?
Hope you're right.
10-2. Losses to State and Iowa. Strong finish. Beat 'Bama in Outback bowl to set 2012 opener.
I don't like dbl posting, but what did I do wrong?
I almost chose 574.
The NCAA President and OSU President are ex-housemates.
Maybe ol' Vern stopped using 'roids
Wouldn't that be undefined, instead?
That might have something to do with the state of Goliath's health!
This is the angriest thread that I have read in quite awhile.
Agreed. But, maize used to be darker, less yellowy as I'm sure you know.
30 bucks for a sandwich? And you guys are students?
The rumor about Nebraska has long been: steroids
I'm glad you didn't respond directly to me.
Sheesh!
These guys have to give opinons on all FBS, or at least BCS, teams. Do they really spend most of their time researching? How close to the program are they?
They are just talking to talk. The opinion of someone close to the program, who has seen the practices, would matter more to me.
But, Delaware's are a copy of ours.
See, you're getting a backlash already!
Are you suggesting that now that Pryor is in the draft, the NCAA can take a hike?
Is that really enough to neuter an OSU?
So who do you think was most impressive?
Ecker still should have tossed him the ball.
Hi, chitown, longtime.
I reread Wang and if Wang says the Chinese were at fault, you'll have to show me. I can't find it.
The "spectator" is a Georgetown fan who admits, more than once, to bias, and mostly complains about the officiating. And you think you can reach a fair conclusion from that?
I suspect that you routinely sleep well at night. /s
I have not blamed anybody. I say this for a second time.
If this is all the evidence you need to reach a hard conclusion, you aren't a very deep thinker.