NYT Interviews PSU Trustees on Paterno Decision
Didn't see this posted; it's from yesterday's NYT. It's a long article, and I haven't gotten through the whole thing yet (enough to know that it's worthwhile, though), but here's a good quote from the first page:
The trustees also laid out what they said were three key reasons for firing Paterno: his failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002; what they regarded as his questioning of the board’s authority in the days after Sandusky’s arrest; and what they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-truste…
Here are a couple good bullet points now that I've actually read through it:
- “We deal with crisis every day at this university,” they recalled Spanier saying. “We won’t have a problem with this.” Spainer is quoted as saying this during his first conference call with the trustees.
- Spainer did not inform the trustees of the investigation, including keeping his testimony in the dark.
- Garban, the PSU Chairman of the Board of Trustees, did not read the grand jury report for more than twenty-four hours after it was published.
- Spainer altered the first press release out of the university, watering down language and releasing it in both his and the board's name.
- The day of Paterno's presser that wasn't, the board felt Spainer had "lost control" of the university and the board cancelled Paterno's press conference.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:03 AM ^
Some of the trustees were also upset that Paterno was seen leading “We are Penn State” cheers on his lawn with students and fans who had gathered after Sandusky’s arrest, which some board members viewed as insensitive.
To this day I've never heard Paterno say anything that makes me think that he appreciates the gravity of the situation or that he sees what (allegedly) happened to those boys as bigger than PSU football. What a small man he turned out to be.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
Agree completely about Paterno; he doesn't seem to have any idea what his role was in these rapes, or how anyone could see him as having a part in allowing them to continue. His behavior alone, after this story broke, is probably enough to pull the plug on his tenure.
Imagine the ridiculous amount of distaste it would take if something like this had happened under one of our last coaching staffs and Brady Hoke was leading "Go Blue" and "It's Great to be a Michigan Wolverine" cheers on his lawn two days after the news broke. I know for sure people would be calling for his head around here, and they wouldn't be alone.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^
but there was another article out there recently, I belive deadspin picked up on the quotes and that's where I read it, where JoePa claims to have "never heard of man-rape" when talking about if McQueary had been graphic in his explanation. Which is total bullshit. JoePa claims to have read the classics... and those ancient Greeks were freaky.
I originally thought maybe generationally there was something where JoePa couldn't accept his friend as a child molester, or the concept of it. When the term "Horsing around" was used, made me think of an octogenarian's refusal to accept reality. But it seems like it goes much deeper than that psychologically... I dunno. Whole situation is just so messed up.
January 19th, 2012 at 12:04 PM ^
I couldn't believe that he said that. "Man-rape" is in the Bible!
January 19th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^
I haven't seen that kind of acknowledgement from most of the PSU community. The number of people throwing temper tantrums about Paterno being fired is unreal. I think they really all do think that PSU football is more important than this whole investigation
January 19th, 2012 at 11:16 AM ^
Interesting piece put out by the times. A report about a week ago indicated the Trustees had prior knowledge of the the situation, as much as a few months before Paterno's firing. If that's the case, the Times piece looks more like a CYA by the Trustees, especially since there is a movement in State College to have the Trustees recalled (or cleanse the board).
January 19th, 2012 at 11:22 AM ^
Not surprising he questioned their authority. He also felt like the university shouldn't punish his players, even when they got in trouble on campus or with regular students. That was his domain.
JoePa lost perspective on his role and what was truly important. The reputation of the football program and the university seemed to trump everything else...and many of those little boys paid the price. Sorry Joe, your reputation will never recover.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^
Paterno fired himself. That whole open letter where he used phrases like "The BoT should not spend a moment of their time on me". Comments like how he'd just retire at the end of the season.
That entire letter was a statement that said "I am not answerable to you and leave on my own terms". If anyone of us made that to our bosses, we'd be gone as soon as they filled out the proper HR forms.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
I was surprised by how much Spainer did to get himself fired. Not only pre-2011, but even when the grand jury report was being compiled and after, he seemed clueless and hopelessly lost.
January 19th, 2012 at 12:08 PM ^
Well was he clueless or hoping he could make it to retirment before Mount Doom went up? He could have been sitting on all the information and hoping he could make it to 65 and retirement before this all happened.
January 19th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
I thought for sure that moment was the nail in the coffin for Paterno, but wasn't mentioned at all in the NYT piece. Maybe the BOT already knew what had to be done and dindn't consider the moment all that important.
January 19th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
Other than Pittsburgh and Philly the rest of PA is basically the same as WV. If you know what I mean;)
January 19th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^
Pennsylvania pretty good. Pittsburgh in the west, Philly in the east and Kentucky in the middle.
January 19th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^
I still find Paterno's postion to be baffling. Anybody with at least half of a brain (even me) wouldn't want anything to do with someone who's been accused of child molestation. That Paterno didn't try to create as much distance between himself and Sandusky as humanly possible (and remember that Joe Pa had godlike pull in Happy Valley) in 1998 still leaves me wondering if there is more to the story. Could it be possible that JoePa has been an abuser himself? Or what about those rumours that Sandusky was pimping out boys?
I know that stuff sounds a bit crazy but Paterno seems to be acting like someone with something to hide. I'm not buying the innocent, naive, old man portrayal. It will be very interesting to see what emerges from the trial of Sandusky.