November 9th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
Here's a writer that wants PSU football destroyed as a testimony to what happens to those who abuse power (link). There is nothing that restores what was lost to these kids.
Your question implies there's some threshhold of "enough"
I don't see a resignation from Paterno as anything other than revenge and blind rage. Its not restitution to the victims (I haven't seen them call for it anywhere) and it sure isn't going to offer them any comfort.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
Nothing is going to be sufficient restitution nor provide comfort to the victims, but I assume that you don't advocate doing nothing. I get what you are saying, but actions, even symbolic, matter to people who have been victimized.
There is also an institutional responsibility on PSU's part to make clear statements about where they stand on the issues via their actions.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
I appreciate the recognition that I'm not advocating for doing nothing. I guess I'm still not convinced that Paterno knew the severity of the accusation. Between his testimony and Mcquery's, I'm more inclined to believe Paterno was told something nebulous and so he passed it for further investigation. I absolutely agree that the ball was dropped beyond that by the PSU administration but once you've handed it off to the office responsible for investigating such claims (which oversees campus police) I can understand (but not condone) why JoePa didn't get on the hotline to the local police chief in State College - in the PSU world it was handed off to the police. And based on his previous comments and just released statement, I tend to believe his version of things rather than Mcquery's.
Institutional actions need to come down hard on those clearly in the wrong. I don't think the situation regarding JoePa is clear enough.
Maybe part of my hesitation to grab my pitchfork is that I just watched a former mentor have his life destroyed because he touched a teenage boy's stomach in Driver's Ed. Was it weird and inappropriate - sure, it was godawful dumb, especially in today's society. Is he a pedophile, I don't think so and I don't think his wife thinks so either. I can't believe Mcquery told JoePa that a child was anally raped in his facilities by a friend of his and not see JoePa on as much of a warpath as a geriatric can muster, or Mcquery for that matter.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
I see where you're coming from, but here's the thing: EVEN IF Sandusky is innocent, McQuery's story to JoePa was at least the 2nd time (1998) Sandusky had been openly accused of inappropriate behavior. EVEN IF McQuery's statement was nebulous (but really, how nebulous could it be? Any whiff of "bad stuff with little boys" is pretty bad) it seems like JoePa's response and follow up was very minimal. At the very least JoePa should have made sure the admin didn't take a week and a half to talk to McQuery, and made sure someone talked to the boy. He did neither.
It's sadly true that false or exaggerated accusations can utterly ruin an innocent man's life, as you believe has happened to your mentor. And if Sandusky is innocent, he should be cleared, absolutely. But even if he is, JoePa didn't do enough.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
This was probably unclear but I'm very convinced that Sandusky is guilty. I just don't think it was as clear and as evident to people in the situation as it is to the masses reading the Grand Jury transcript with hindsight. We live in a society that has massively changed its approach to these incidents since 1998/2002.
I agree that JoePa should have done more, even he acknowledges that he wishes he had done more. I just don't think he's one of the ones deserving of punishment here because I don't think he was covering for his friend (as many have accused him on here and elsewhere of doing).
However, if its discovered that he was covering up for Sandusky, then by all means, strip all the accolades, etc. If it was a honest mistake and oversight and screwup to not do more (trusting it would be pursued by those better equipped to investigate) then I don't see anything needed further from JoePa than the regret expressed and a revamping of PSU policies to deal with these situations (assuming they hadn't already been revamped).
November 9th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^
The '98 thing keeps getting brought up as a reason why people should've been suspicious of Sandusky. But Sandusky was cleared back then. Really, it proves my earlier point that even an investigation brings a shadow. Or at least, lots of people are saying it should. "He was investigated! You should be suspicious of him!"
So don't you think that that investigation might have had some bearing on Paterno's thinking the next time around? Put me in the NOT SCUM category for this reason. Paterno gets a rather nebulous report of something happening. Sandusky is a really, really good friend, and he was investigated for this before and nothing came of it. He was cleared. No problem. But that investigation tarnished his good name. Do I put my really, really good friend, who's a great guy, tremendous charity work, through that kind of thing again? Do I add more tarnish to his name over something which could turn out to be nothing just like last time? It wasn't anything before, it probably isn't anything again.....
How people can fail to see the existence of this kind of dilemma is beyond me. Anyone who's ever taken an ethics class ought to know the #1 lesson from them: situations which look black and white almost never are. In hindsight, Paterno made a wrong choice. What if this was nothing again, but Paterno reports it? You're already saying we should be suspicious because of an investigation that turned up nothing. We know now that it shouldn't have turned up nothing, but Paterno didn't know that.
November 9th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
Do I put my really, really good friend, who's a great guy, tremendous charity work, through that kind of thing again? Do I add more tarnish to his name over something which could turn out to be nothing just like last time? It wasn't anything before, it probably isn't anything again.....
When your really really good friend who is "a great guy" gets accused of inappropriate behavior with children for a second time, then it's time to evaluate 1) if he should be your really really good friend; and 2) if he's really a great guy.
As for the notion that "it wasn't anything before, it probably isn't anything again," how often to people get baselessly accused of pedophilia TWICE? These aren't accusations of minor recruiting violations. These are accusations of arguably the most vile and unspeakable acts imaginable. At some point, the multiple accusations should set off an alarm. The ostrich defense works only if you let it.
November 9th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^
My brother had his computer seized one time at college by the authorities, who thought they'd caught him downloading kiddie porn. It was returned a week later with an apology. Sorry about that, wasn't you after all, nothing to see on this computer. I forget what the mistake was, but it wasn't him.
But I guess that's strike one. If he gets accused a second time, shall I automatically assume he's a pedophile and tell him to go fuck himself, I hope he rots in jail and gets sodomized by serial killers?
November 9th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
I hope you recognize the difference between being erroneously accused of downloading something improper, and being accused of actually being a pedophile twice. You're comparing apples and...I don't know...something that is clearly not apples. When someone you know gets accused of being a pedophile twice, you need to at least ask yourself why the fuck he keeps getting accused of this.
As for your brother, if he has his computer seized a second time for allegedly downloading kiddie porn, no, you don't have to "automatically assume he's a pedophile and tell him to go fuck himself." But you probably should ask him this: "what the fuck is it that you're doing that makes the authorities keep thinking your downloading kiddie porn?"
Again, your analogy is piss-poor (and I mean really, PISS POOR), but I went with it for you. Here, JoePa should have at least asked Sandusky why he kept being accused of this. He didn't, which is a shame, because unlike in your analogy, 1) there was an eyewitness to the awful acts who told JoePa what was happening; and 2) SANDUSKY ACTUALLY WAS MOLESTING CHILDREN. JoePa's inaction enabled it to contine happening, and for that reason JoePa is a piece of shit.
I have to assume you don't have kids. I have two very little ones, and for that reason, everything about this situation, including the adminstration's efforts to sweep it all under the rug, really really upsets me.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
2) SANDUSKY ACTUALLY WAS MOLESTING CHILDREN.
I thought I wouldn't have to explain this part, but I guess I do: you know that is also what happens in kiddie porn, don't you? By definition? There's a reason it's a federal felony to have the stuff. It's also kind of interesting that you think it does not make you a pedophile to have a collection of it.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
It's also kind of interesting that you think it does not make you a pedophile to have a collection of it.
I'm sorry...are you calling me a pedophile? Because FUCK YOU. NO SERIOUSLY, FUCK YOU. You are a despicable piece of shit, and I truly apologize that I have to type this, and can't say it to your face.
I told you that this situation really upsets me because I have two young children and your response is to insituate that I'm a pedophile?
FUCK YOU. SERIOUSLY, FUCK YOU.
It's also a bummer that you missed my point that being erroneously accused of downloading something illegal once is not the same thing as being accused of molestation twice. Because in addition to being a fucking asshole, you are also mind-numbingly fucking stupid.
In conclusion, fuck you, beacuse you are a total piece of shit.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
I'm sorry...are you calling me a pedophile?
If you got a collection of kiddie porn. Do you?
Otherwise, I am not, and I must be as stupid as you say because I can't figure out where "you are a pedophile" appeared in my post, and your deep-end reaction is exactly why it might be a little dicey to accuse someone of pedophilia, no?
November 9th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^
Really? You don't think your statement "It's also kind of interesting that you think it does not make you a pedophile to have a collection of it" is not some sort of poorly-veiled jab at me? Clearly that was intent, which is understandable, since you're clearly an asshole.
As for this: "your deep end reaction is exactly why it might be a little dicey to accuse someone of pedophilia, no?"
Who exactly, is being wrongly accused of pedophilia here (other than me in your idiotic fucking comment)? Are you worried about Sandusky? Sadly, there already appears to be a mountain of evidence against him. As for the guy you've been championing, Paterno, no one is accusing him of being a pedophile. Just of fostering an atmosphere where an accused pedophile can walk around campus without being reported to police, and without any real repurcussion. Don't worry though. The worst anyone can call Paterno is a total piece of shit.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^
Really? You don't think your statement "It's also kind of interesting that you think it does not make you a pedophile to have a collection of it" is not some sort of poorly-veiled jab at me?
No, it was not. This would be a poorly-veiled jab at you: You're an oversensitive dickhead. This would be an even better one: Methinks you doth protest too much.
However, the only one actually doing any name-calling is you. I'm not accusing you of being a pedophile. (I might start thinking you're a dickhead if you're gonna keep losing your shit, though.) But I'm really wondering why you were implying that molesting children makes one a pedophile but getting off to images of the same thing does not. In other words, explain this:
I hope you recognize the difference between being erroneously accused of downloading something improper, and being accused of actually being a pedophile twice. You're comparing apples and...I don't know...something that is clearly not apples.
Other than the degree of severity, yes, you'll have to explain the difference. Because judging by your reaction to things, kiddie porn is more than just "something improper" to you.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^
No, it was not. This would be a poorly-veiled jab at you: You're an oversensitive dickhead. This would be an even better one: Methinks you doth protest too much.
Let me start by saying, go fuck yourself.
As to the rest, if my comments in any way suggested that I don't think that downloading kiddie porn is a horrible, despicable crime that should be punished by jailtime, my apologies. I certainly did not intend to downplay the severity of that crime. To be clear, just as you are committed to being a fucking asshole, I am committed to being a good father to my two young children, and protecting them from such evil.
As to your analogy, my point was being accused of downloading it once (and then having the error in that accusation confirmed) is far different than being accused of molestation twice, especially when 1) the first accusation was never confirmed as being in error, as the downloading in your analogy; and 2) the second accusation (which to be clear, was rape) involved an eyewitness account of it actually happening.
If you still don't understand the distinction, other than to consider it it one of a "degree of severity," I cannot help you further.
Let me conclude by saying, go fuck yourself. If my comments make me an "oversensitive dickhead," so be it. Far better than being an asshole, and accusing people of being pedophiles.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^
I can see why you're upset, but take a breath and realize that MaizeandBlueWahoo has obviously abandoned all logic and decorum in this thread. There's obviously some complicated emotional resonance for him on this issue, and you're not going to get anywhere arguing with him. I'd be upset too if someone made an insinuation about child porn in my direction - no matter how childishly the insinuation was made - but rest assured that no one on the board is going to take that insinuation seriously about you. Probably best just to let it go at this point.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
Fair enough, and good advice. Thanks. Sorry about all the profanity.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
Your apology is accepted.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:14 PM ^
Great. Now go fuck yourself.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^
You are a prick. I did not call you a pedophile and I did not explode with a geyser of profanity. That was all you. I provide an analogy, which I regret ever doing - God forbid anyone tell a personal story around here - which you jump on as "piss-poor" and start spewing swear words at me left and right. I'm half surprised you didn't go up to the guy who admitted being abused himself and tell him "you're not a father so you wouldn't understand." And somehow I'm the one who's "abandoned all sense of decorum" and you're the one raising kids. Go jump in front of a fucking cement truck.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^
I didn't read his comments as "you, Blue2000" but as "you, generic person that might have kidde porn on his computer.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
Oh, f....
That's what this is about. Thank you, Huntington, because, no sarcasm, I literally have had no idea what set him off. So when I said:
It's also kind of interesting that you think it does not make you a pedophile to have a collection of it.
I should have said:
It's also kind of interesting that you think it does not make one a pedophile to have a collection of it.
Sigh. I apologize for my ambiguity. Good God, no, I was not saying "you, Blue2000, have a collection of kiddie porn on your computer and that makes you a pedophile."
November 9th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^
No, you should not automatically assume he is a pedophile. But you ABSOLUTELY should look into a bit deeper than just saying to yourself "well, they were wrong once, they are probably wrong again so nothing to investigate here".
Especially considering the heinous nature of the crime.
November 9th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^
I don't see how getting multiple accusations, even if nothing came from the first one, could be treated as anything other than a serious red flag requiring further inquiry.
Being accused twice would be enough for me to make sure I got to the bottom of what was goimg on.
AND, in 1998 he ADMITTED his crime to the mother but, for some crazy reason, the Police decided not to prosecute. How does JoePa not hear of this admission?
C'mon, man. He knew, absolutely knew, and did nothing.
Total scum.
November 9th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
AND, in 1998 he ADMITTED his crime to the mother but, for some crazy reason, the Police decided not to prosecute. How does JoePa not hear of this admission?Why should he have? I doubt the mother had a direct line to Paterno. I doubt he and Sandusky discussed it over a beer. If charges were not pressed, there'd be no way for Paterno to know of that admission. You can't make an assumption like that. "He absolutely knew" is just not a statement you can make.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:12 PM ^
That there's anything to the fact that Sandusky retired right after that investigation? You don't think other people at PSU, including Joe, heard about it?
November 9th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
Actually I can as head coaches know everytime one of their players is in trouble with the law whether charges are filed or not: fights, weed, speeding, DUI, MIP, etc. They are always informed by the local PD of what is going on.
Now you expect me to believe the Police wouldn't have called Joe Pa when his longtime DC, and the heir apparent as HC, was implicated/admitted he was molesting children?
Sorry, I don't believe that for one second. The most powerful man on campus has no idea that Sandusky is being investigated for child molestation? No chance.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^
Knowing he's investigated? Sure. But I didn't say that. Knowing about the admission to the mother? I can easily believe he wouldn't have known about that. You know how privacy laws are; not only those, but there's also the part where nobody ever comments on an ongoing investigation (other than that they exist) because that's how they get compromised. Paterno might've known about the admission or he might not have, but it shouldn't surprise if he didn't.
November 9th, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^
so it's very likely that, at a minimum, he knew Sandusky was being investigated in '98 and then in '02 he has a trusted GA, an ex-player, come in and tell him that SOMETHING was going down with a 10 year old and Sandusky in the shower.
That is more than enough evidence that he SHOULD have gone the extra mile and found out for himself what the hell was going on here. You don't turn a blind eye to that....I'm sorry, you just don't.
Then, a grand jury has him testify in an investigation into Sandusky's alleged child molestation over the years and he still doesn't ban him from campus - Sandusky was STILL WORKING OUT AT PSU last week!?!?!?!?
WTF!?!?!?
Does he really have no moral compass at all?
EDIT: Also, if you don't think the PD told Joe Pa everything, you don't know the cozy relationship there is between the local PD (campus police especially) and the HC of the football program at a national power school like PSU.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
You mean, he wasn't charged with a crime. My understanding is that there's pretty good evidence that he was showering naked with a kid, hugged him in an inappropriate manner, and recognized how wrong it was when confronted by the mother of the child. If Paterno told himself that the upshot was, "well, looks like the book's closed on Jerry's pedophilia!' in the aftermath of the 1998 stuff, maybe that's understandable. No one wants to believe that about people they think they know well.
But then in 2002 he heard about Sandusky raping a kid in the showers, and you think it's understandable that Paterno again just didn't want Sandusky's name to be unfairly tarnished? How the fuck would it be unfair? Did he think McQueary was maybe on PCP and just hallucinated the shit? Did he think McQueary was playing an elaborate prank that might go too far? This wasn't an ambiguous, mighta been some kinda creepy horseplay type of situation, as least as its presented in the grand jury report. This was anal sex.
And don't give me the bullshit that Paterno's lawyer cooked up - that Paterno wasn't really clear about what McQueary was trying to tell him. One of two things may have happened: McQueary, obviously upset, starts to tell Paterno something about Sandusky with a child in the showers, and Paterno cuts him off right there, says 'this is something that should be reported to the AD.' That reaction is only possible if you're not completely shocked at what you're hearing and you're already in the mode of passing the buck and covering your ass. The other possible reaction would be for Paterno to say, 'Stop. What the fuck are you saying? What exactly the fuck did you see? Tell me again - what the fuck are you saying?' No one on Earth hears something that sounds like an accustion of child rape and then says, 'well, I'm not exactly sure what I just heard, but I guess it's not for me to try to get some clarification' unless they're very consciously trying to avoid that clarity.
November 9th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
We're talking about the same McQueary that we are hammering for not stopping the act in progress, not going to the police, not doing anything other than watching for a second and then leaving, right? This is the same McQueary? The guy who did, like, the third-worst thing he could have done short of just keeping it entirely to himself or joining in?
Why the hell, then, is he suddenly a perfectly lucid, credible guy who obviously told Paterno the whole story without hesitation and is obviously telling the truth when he said he had? Apparently, McQueary is scum when we are talking about McQueary alone, but he's just this side of a victim when it comes to his conversation with Paterno.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
OK, first, I think McQueary is also morally culpable here. Maybe a little less than Paterno, considering the difference in each person's authority and power within that program. I don't know where you found people treating him like a victim, but I think that's a bit of a straw man.
Drawing the connection between McQueary being immoral for not reporting this to the police - something we know now - and his credibility to Paterno in the moment he reported the rape, requires some interesting, anachronistic mental gymanstics. Wait - I'll break that down for you. That connection doesn't make any fucking sense, because integrity in reporting the criminal acts of your superiors to police has nothing to do with 'lucidity.' It also doesn't make sense to assert that Paterno might reasonably question the credibility of McQueary becauase he (Paterno) had the prescience to know that McQueary was the kind of guy who in the future wasn't going to report child rape to the police. (Which might also indicate that Paterno knew that he himself was also not going to report the shit to the police, and things become a bit confusing.)
Regardless, there's a bit of a gap between someone being the paragon of integrity - which it appears McQueary ain't - and being likely to completely fabricate a story of child rape, with no conceivable motive, no less. Unless it comes out that McQueary was completely mentally unstable - and he's lasted on the staff a long time, if that were the case - the only way Paterno questions the credibility of the story McQueary tells him is because he willfully doesn't want to believe it.
Look, it's too bad for you that your brother was investigated for child porn. I mean that - that's a really shitty situation to be in. But your brother's thing and the Sandusky situation are two discrete things, and it seems like you might be conflating the two. Judging by your comments in this thread, you're not a dumb guy, but you're completely unable to formulate coherent opinions about this situation. I really think you should sit the rest of this one out.
November 9th, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^
That's.....really insulting, actually. I got one guy completely losing his shit, calling me every name in the book, because he's convinced I'm calling him a pedophile no matter how many times I say I'm not, and I'm the one who can't be coherent about this.
You're presenting two options with McQueary - that either he's got mental problems or that he told the entire truth to Paterno. Surely there are other possibilities. I repeat: this guy already has a screwup on his record. Why is it hard to believe he'd make more? Or, that he would lie to protect himself and say he told Paterno everything nine years ago, knowing full well nobody could really prove otherwise? We're presented with two versions, one from McQueary that says one thing, and one from Paterno that says another. I don't know which to believe, but if you held a gun to my head and made me pick, it wouldn't be the version from the guy who's already been shown to have screwed up once.
And sure, obviously there is a difference between downloading "improper images" and actually raping a kid. If any of us could come up with a situation precisely like this one, there'd be a hell of a lot less of a discussion. But then, I shouldn't need to explain the similarities either.
November 9th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^
First off, JoePa said to the grand jury that McQueary told him there was sexual things going on in the shower.
Second, everything else you are arguing is ridiculously stupid. All of this happened 10 years ago. If JoePa thought McQueary wasn't telling the truth or was dishonest in any way, why was he on staff? If JoePa thought what McQueart told him didn't mean much, why did he call a meeting with the president the next day and why did they ban that sick fuck from the facilities? Your argument is horrible and you don't really know what you are talking about.
November 9th, 2011 at 7:43 PM ^
Here's the problem. The idea that Paterno was told something "nebulous" has been brought up a couple times. But in grand jury testimony, Paterno said he told Curley that he had been told that Sandusky was "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature" with a boy in the locker room.
Now, that's nebulous in the sense that it somewhat downplays the severity and leaves out the details of the alleged assault, but IT'S STILL A CRIME, AND A BAD ONE. What specifically happened was nebulous. Whether what happened was worthy of being reported to the cops was not - again, coming from Paterno's own testimony.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
This was not tummy touching. All respect to your friend but Paterno and PSU need to fix this.
We give way too much power to football coaches in this country. With power comes responsibility.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^
I agree that what Sandusky is accused of (and I think guilty of) is far more serious. My point wasn't to bring that up in the sense Sandusky was innocent. Sorry for the confusion.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
Enough is...fire the coaching staff...cancel the season (you can't get another coaching staff in there at this point without getting the support of the coaches in place or asking the kids to coach themselves.)...have a university wide discussion/training of the responsibilities of adults for child safety...make this discussion mandatory for everyone...this is a teachable moment...about something very important...more important than stupid football. Use it.
The leadership in football and in athletics at Penn State did not protect children. PSU students were in the streets supporting that leadership. Good god.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
that such a response punishes a lot of people that had nothing to do with this - players, recruits, students, alumni, etc
It's using an ax for surgery instead of a scalpel
November 9th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
Schools have canceled seasons for considerably less. Public servants are mandatory reporters (at least in my state.) A training is appropriate. These students are too young to have to sort this out without support and leadership.
November 9th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
The response to this from all B1G and/or NCAA has to be unprecedented, since the situation is unprecedented. The abuses here make the SMU scandal trivial by comparison, and if the allegations prove true, then the "death penalty" probably is in order for PSU football . Precisely what Paterno heard or said or understood is really beside the point. The grand jury report depicts a systemic failure to follow the most obvious ethical course. I had a hard time reading it. This isn’t one or two bad actors; a series of administrators from head coach up not only didn’t stop Sandusky, they continued to let him use their institution to promote kids’ programs and use their facilities. As a father who sends my kids to summer sports camps, this whole story turns my stomach and makes me shake with rage.
If the reason behind the cover-up and blind-eye-turning was to preserve the brand value of Penn State football, then the best way to insure that this kind of abuse isn't covered up in the future at Penn State or anywhere else is to make the institutional cost of violation so high that no head coach, AD, or university president would ever make this kind of mistake again. So I say death penalty for Penn State football for at least 5 years.
That would suck for the majority of honest and decent football players at Penn State; all should be allowed to transfer without penalty. None of the rest of Penn State’s programs should be touched. But when an institution's leaders decide that a football program is more important than preventing child rape, then that institution forfeits its right to a football program.
November 9th, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^
You know, it is all okay because everyone who got abused by Sanduski gets a free ticket to the game.
Sad, but that seems to be attitude over there...
November 9th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^
It is mind-boggling that the board has not fired JoePa and McQueary. How can they rationalize anything but this action in these emergency meetings they're holding? They are continuing the inaction/cowardice that has resulted in this mess. Letting him finish the season is a slap in the face of the victims.
Delaney should step in, but I doubt he will because he's an ass.
If Nebraska took a stand they would have my respect. Someone in a position to do so needs to expose PSU on a national stage and bring about what the PSU board is too weak to do themselves.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
Likely going to be be a forced retirement by all accounts. Word was BOT was not going to renew his contract after all this.
Be interesting to see if the Paterno family leaked this so as to avoid the BOT just straight up firing him at their Friday meeting.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
Take your time Joe-Pa...just like all the time you afforded Sandusky.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
head, hit....
November 9th, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^
Brilliant. Sums up everything.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
he's trying to get out from under his own firing. But he did it in a somewhat thoughtful way, saying he didn't think the U should have to spend another minute worrying about him given all that's going on, and that he wished he'd done more:
"I am absolutely devastated by the developments in this case. I grieve for the children and their families, and I pray for their comfort and relief. I have come to work every day for the last 61 years with one clear goal in mind: To serve the best interests of this university and the young men who have been entrusted to my care. I have the same goal today. That's why I have decided to announce my retirement effective at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can. This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more. My goals now are to keep my commitments to my players and staff and finish the season with dignity and determination. And then I will spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to help this University."
Some will argue that it's the least he could do--and I agree. But it's something more than the pattern of avoidance and refusal to face facts we've been seeing.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
I don't see how they can have him at another game - not that he will actually be "coaching". Further evidence they don't really get it yet. Compared to Michigan and the other BIG schools Penn State is a very insular situation...used to much more media control than we are. This could look pretty bad come Saturday when the cameras are on that sideline.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
Obviously, at Penn State they believe this is the appropriate thing to do.... he didn't break the law, he is a legend, they "owe him" to let him finish his career with a win on New Years (aka 1/2/12)
But to the rest of the nation it will appear like the University is taking a position on JoPa's actions after being told about the rape. Whether the institution knew then, or when it actually found out, is now (with this decision) completely irrelevant. This decision blends the timeline and they are enabling those who knew then to be protected now. The institution had a chance to make a stand and a moral position, but it failed.
Seems that PSU is continually taking the stand that all their officials, then and now, are doing the appropriate thing for the University...and the University will back them.
What was once an issue with certain coaches and certain administrators has now merged with the University as a whole. The whole institution is at fault, maybe knew, is protecting its own. Whether factual or not, this sure gives the rest of the country that impression.
Shameful.