did psu really face death penalty?

[snap infraction]

Jan 29, 2015 12:01:06 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jan 29, 2015 11:37:29 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

taking away the wins has never been an effective ncaa punishment. and the sandusky affair does not take away all the good things joepa did in his life and in his career at psu. but i still find it flabbergasting, in context of what WAS known about sandusky, his prior investigation (does anyone really think that the head coach wasn't aware of that, w/the lifetime of connections he had? ditto for the other psu execs?) and then the '01 'incident', that this guy was then given that kind of access on campus.

it's also amazing to me that paterno supporters don't get how their intense focus on the wins comes off, when you set it alongside the hideous acts done by under the tent of the university, the athletic program and the football program.

For a bunch of that supposedly only care about restoring the dignity of their university they sure as hell are tone deaf when it comes to restoring football wins.

I'm with you regarding Paterno....this forever taints his name and legacy, but it does not negate all the other good things he did in his life. The Paterno family is making him out to be a victim and he's not one, imo. He had every opportunity to shed light and he had the juice to not be worried about his job, etc. One word from him would have blown the thing wide open. Instead, he chose to do the minimum that was required. That doesn't make him a victim in my book.

the paterno family just wants the truth to get out.  that's all this is about to them.  was part of the truth that paterno was railroaded?  yes.  does that make paterno a victim?  relative to sandusky victims, not really.  but still a victim nonetheless.  

[oujour76]

Jan 29, 2015 11:57:07 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

keep the following in mind:

1.  sanudsky was an ex psu employee who worked for a charitable organization that benefited young boys.  that was his pipeline for victims.  not penn state.  this same charity has someone evaded all responsibility even though it's ceo at the time was a licensed psychologist and a mandated reporter who was told of the sandusky accusation by penn state officials.

An ex-employee who traveled to road games and bowl games with kids. Simply by allowing that gives responsibility to Penn State. You're talking about an organization with business and social connections with higher ups at Penn State, including Joe Paterno BTW. If you think that Penn State football wasn't the connection and pipeline to those kids, you are f-ing dreaming.


2.   whatever mcqueary witnessed in the shower, it was not outrageous enough to go to the police directly.  it was not outrageous enough to stop whatever he saw.  he went to his dad and family friend first.  this same family friend is a mandated reporter too and he testified under oath that mcqueay to not relay that what he witnessed was sexual.  and after the 2001 incident, mcqueary still played a golfing outings with sandusky.  

So, now it's McQueary's responsibility and fault. An assistant is expected to put his career on the line and take on Jerry Sandusky but Joe Paterno is expected to do the bare minimum and then be declared a victim for doing so. Got it.

3.  mcqueary testified under oath that he was uncomfortable being graphic so he was purposely vague with coach paterno.  So what? McQueary was uncomfortable, so that means Joe Paterno gets a pass for not digging deeper?

4.  paterno testified to the grand jury in 2011 that he was told of something sexual.  yet, this testimony came after paterno found out the severity of the accusations against sandusky.  there is no evidence that paterno was told of something sexual that nite in the locker room as his grand jury testimony was probably his attempt to help the prosecution.  

So, you're saying he lied to the Grand Jury? In order to help them? Got it.

5.  no other reports of any sexual assaults by sandusky at any facility at penn state were reported until after the indictment of sandusky.   Well, that's something I guess. Maybe they can put a plaque or something on the wall commemorating this achievement.

6.  409 is a symbol of the ncaa's ridiculous overreach in the case.  it is celebrated b/c it is the ncaa acknowledging that they shouldn't have been involved as most psu fans were very offended by emmert's grandstanding and blaming the university culture for sandusky.  it has nothing to do with the legacy of paterno.   Bullshit. It's about the wins.

7.  paterno's legacy is still evolving as there is still the criminal trials of the other administrators which will shed additional light on what happened.   His legacy will never be the same. Penn State promoted him as the face of Penn State football and this stuff happened on his watch. That fact will never change. Paterno was supposedly the all knowing and all seeing coach who did things the right way. You can't be promoted for years as all of that and then have a pedophile under your nose for 20+ years and expect to maintain your name and legacy. It cannot be done. There is little to no sympathy for Joe Paterno outside of Happy Valley because Joe Paterno is not a victim. A victim is someone who is powerless. Like a 12-year old boy having his ass expanded with nobody even caring enough to find out what his name is much less do something about it. Paterno was in a position of authority and influence. He didn't use that influence and his name and reputation are paying for it. And no amount of "complexity" is ever going to change that.

[snap infraction]

Jan 29, 2015 12:45:05 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Jan 29, 2015 11:57:07 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

 keep the following in mind:

1.  sanudsky was an ex psu employee who worked for a charitable organization that benefited young boys.  that was his pipeline for victims.  not penn state.  this same charity has someone evaded all responsibility even though it's ceo at the time was a licensed psychologist and a mandated reporter who was told of the sandusky accusation by penn state officials.

he was given an office on campus. In the athletic dept. why did you leave that out?

2.   whatever mcqueary witnessed in the shower, it was not outrageous enough to go to the police directly.  it was not outrageous enough to stop whatever he saw.  he went to his dad and family friend first.  this same family friend is a mandated reporter too and he testified under oath that mcqueay to not relay that what he witnessed was sexual.  and after the 2001 incident, mcqueary still played a golfing outings with sandusky.  

omg. Talk about rationalization. You think the fact that McQueary went to paterno first is proof that 'it wasn't tthat bad'??

3.  mcqueary testified under oath that he was uncomfortable being graphic so he was purposely vague with coach paterno. 

in an earlier post you claimed McQueary was unreliable because he changed his version 3 times. Now you say THIIS version is reliable? Wow, that's covenient.

4.  paterno testified to the grand jury in 2011 that he was told of something sexual.  yet, this testimony came after paterno found out the severity of the accusations against sandusky.  there is no evidence that paterno was told of something sexual that nite in the locker room as his grand jury testimony was probably his attempt to help the prosecution.  

probably? Does that mean paterno lied under oath? Are you sure this is where you want your argument to go?

5.  no other reports of any sexual assaults by sandusky at any facility at penn state were reported until after the indictment of sandusky.  

so that means you don't take this report seriously? Especially when he'd been investigated previously?

6.  409 is a symbol of the ncaa's ridiculous overreach in the case.  it is celebrated b/c it is the ncaa acknowledging that they shouldn't have been involved as most psu fans were very offended by emmert's grandstanding and blaming the university culture for sandusky.  it has nothing to do with the legacy of paterno.  

409 has nothing to do w paterno's legacy. That's what PSU supporters think. Sure. Ok.

7.  paterno's legacy is still evolving as there is still the criminal trials of the other administrators which will shed additional light on what happened.  

i wish I'd done more. Those were joes words. Does it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, paterno really meant what he said? That he knew he had the position, he power and influence, to have acted and regrets that he didn't?

keep the following in mind:



1. sanudsky was an ex psu employee who worked for a charitable organization that benefited young boys. that was his pipeline for victims. not penn state. this same charity has someone evaded all responsibility even though it's ceo at the time was a licensed psychologist and a mandated reporter who was told of the sandusky accusation by penn state officials.



he was given an office on campus. In the athletic dept. why did you leave that out?



An office that was negotiated at the time of his retirement.  Jay Paterno stated Sandusky was only around the football building in the early morning to work out.  I left that part out too.   


2. whatever mcqueary witnessed in the shower, it was not outrageous enough to go to the police directly. it was not outrageous enough to stop whatever he saw. he went to his dad and family friend first. this same family friend is a mandated reporter too and he testified under oath that mcqueay to not relay that what he witnessed was sexual. and after the 2001 incident, mcqueary still played a golfing outings with sandusky.



omg. Talk about rationalization. You think the fact that McQueary went to paterno first is proof that 'it wasn't tthat bad'??


That's exactly what I think.  If you witness a child being raped, do you intervene and/or call the cops?  Or do you go home to tell your dad?  It made no sense that not only did McQueary not intervene or call the cops, but went golfing with Sandusky after it all went down.  I think Sandusky was grooming his victim, which is different than molesting and that's what McQueary saw, which is why he didn't know how to interpret what he saw.  



3. mcqueary testified under oath that he was uncomfortable being graphic so he was purposely vague with coach paterno.



in an earlier post you claimed McQueary was unreliable because he changed his version 3 times. Now you say THIIS version is reliable? Wow, that's covenient.


 I do think McQueary's testimony was unreliable and I should note that he has yet to be cross examined.  



4. paterno testified to the grand jury in 2011 that he was told of something sexual. yet, this testimony came after paterno found out the severity of the accusations against sandusky. there is no evidence that paterno was told of something sexual that nite in the locker room as his grand jury testimony was probably his attempt to help the prosecution.



probably? Does that mean paterno lied under oath? Are you sure this is where you want your argument to go?



 I think McQueary's and Paterno's recollection of events altered once they knew what Sandusky was.  Paterno was an old man.  Is it that unreasonable to believe that maybe his mind drifted to include a sexual element of what he was told after being told of what Sandusky was being accused of?  Do our memories not change when given additional details about something?  Do you consider that a deliberate lie or just an inaccurate statement?  Especially when his own testimony made it look worse than his actual actions?  

 I should also further note that Cynthia Baldwin's personal notes, taken before the grand jury testimony, did not say Paterno saw something sexual.  And that in his grand jury testimony, Paterno mumbled and said "I don't know" about a dozen times and was never cross examined.  

5. no other reports of any sexual assaults by sandusky at any facility at penn state were reported until after the indictment of sandusky.



so that means you don't take this report seriously? Especially when he'd been investigated previously?


Not really.  I just noted this b/c there's this notion that Sandusky was rampantly abusing children on campus and it was constantly ignored.  The incident that has everyone up in arms occurred in 2001 yet people act like Sandusky was molesting kids at mid field of beaver stadium every week with everyone watching from the press box.  




6. 409 is a symbol of the ncaa's ridiculous overreach in the case. it is celebrated b/c it is the ncaa acknowledging that they shouldn't have been involved as most psu fans were very offended by emmert's grandstanding and blaming the university culture for sandusky. it has nothing to do with the legacy of paterno.



409 has nothing to do w paterno's legacy. That's what PSU supporters think. Sure. Ok.



Believe what you want to believe.  



7. paterno's legacy is still evolving as there is still the criminal trials of the other administrators which will shed additional light on what happened.



i wish I'd done more. Those were joes words. Does it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, paterno really meant what he said? That he knew he had the position, he power and influence, to have acted and regrets that he didn't?


Do you know anyone else who would have said something different?  Of course he felt bad, knowing what he knew in 2011.  It's all in hindsight.  




Read more: aolcfboutcasts.proboards.com/thread/14158/psu-face-death-penalty?page=2#ixzz3QEm14xzn

[snap infraction]

Jan 29, 2015 13:45:12 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jan 29, 2015 11:57:07 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

keep the following in mind:

1.  sanudsky was an ex psu employee who worked for a charitable organization that benefited young boys.  that was his pipeline for victims.  not penn state.  this same charity has someone evaded all responsibility even though it's ceo at the time was a licensed psychologist and a mandated reporter who was told of the sandusky accusation by penn state officials.

An ex-employee who traveled to road games and bowl games with kids. Simply by allowing that gives responsibility to Penn State. You're talking about an organization with business and social connections with higher ups at Penn State, including Joe Paterno BTW. If you think that Penn State football wasn't the connection and pipeline to those kids, you are f-ing dreaming.


2.   whatever mcqueary witnessed in the shower, it was not outrageous enough to go to the police directly.  it was not outrageous enough to stop whatever he saw.  he went to his dad and family friend first.  this same family friend is a mandated reporter too and he testified under oath that mcqueay to not relay that what he witnessed was sexual.  and after the 2001 incident, mcqueary still played a golfing outings with sandusky.  

So, now it's McQueary's responsibility and fault. An assistant is expected to put his career on the line and take on Jerry Sandusky but Joe Paterno is expected to do the bare minimum and then be declared a victim for doing so. Got it.

3.  mcqueary testified under oath that he was uncomfortable being graphic so he was purposely vague with coach paterno.  So what? McQueary was uncomfortable, so that means Joe Paterno gets a pass for not digging deeper?

4.  paterno testified to the grand jury in 2011 that he was told of something sexual.  yet, this testimony came after paterno found out the severity of the accusations against sandusky.  there is no evidence that paterno was told of something sexual that nite in the locker room as his grand jury testimony was probably his attempt to help the prosecution.  

So, you're saying he lied to the Grand Jury? In order to help them? Got it.

5.  no other reports of any sexual assaults by sandusky at any facility at penn state were reported until after the indictment of sandusky.   Well, that's something I guess. Maybe they can put a plaque or something on the wall commemorating this achievement.

6.  409 is a symbol of the ncaa's ridiculous overreach in the case.  it is celebrated b/c it is the ncaa acknowledging that they shouldn't have been involved as most psu fans were very offended by emmert's grandstanding and blaming the university culture for sandusky.  it has nothing to do with the legacy of paterno.   Bullshit. It's about the wins.

7.  paterno's legacy is still evolving as there is still the criminal trials of the other administrators which will shed additional light on what happened.   His legacy will never be the same. Penn State promoted him as the face of Penn State football and this stuff happened on his watch. That fact will never change. Paterno was supposedly the all knowing and all seeing coach who did things the right way. You can't be promoted for years as all of that and then have a pedophile under your nose for 20+ years and expect to maintain your name and legacy. It cannot be done. There is little to no sympathy for Joe Paterno outside of Happy Valley because Joe Paterno is not a victim. A victim is someone who is powerless. Like a 12-year old boy having his ass expanded with nobody even caring enough to find out what his name is much less do something about it. Paterno was in a position of authority and influence. He didn't use that influence and his name and reputation are paying for it. And no amount of "complexity" is ever going to change that.

1.  not sure sandusky traveling to bowl games w/ children means that psu administrators, especially paterno, knew that sandusky was a pedophile.  thinking someone is inappropriate vs thinking they are a child molestor are two separate things.  

2.  i didn't say mcqueary should "take on" sandusky.  but mcqueary saw the incident first hand. paterno didn't.  big difference.  if mcqueary saw a child being raped, he would have stopped it by intervening or calling the cops.  

3.  is paterno supposed to involved himself with criminal investigations that he doesn't believe himself to be qualified to investigate?  is that what you want from the football coach?  mcqueary was told by a mandated report to pass it up the chain to his direct boss.  then paterno did the same exact thing.  

4.  i never said he deliberately lied...unless paterno decided to not only lie, but lie in a way that painted himself worse.  i think his recollection of events was altered based on new information (sandusky was being accused of molesting several children).  inaccurate statement does not equal lie.

5.  sarcasm duly noted.

6.  ok...

7.  this is where i disagree and this is a great time to point out a great irony in all this:

there's this idea of paterno being saintly and omnipotent...and it wasnt' paterno that put this idea out there...but rather the media that loved filling their feel-good story quota with those types of puff pieces.  and when reality struck and Paterno proved to be human and not able to handle the sandusky situation he is hammered by that very group that put him in a pedestal for so long.  all this despite the fact that he has never mentioned that he's some expert in child abuse and has always maintained that didn't want to jeopardize any possible investigation into the issue.  so because Paterno didn't live up to some fictional version of reality which he never subscribed to, he was vilified and brought down.  

[oujour76]

Jan 29, 2015 14:12:56 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

That's exactly what I think.  If you witness a child being raped, do you intervene and/or call the cops?  Or do you go home to tell your dad?  It made no sense that not only did McQueary not intervene or call the cops, but went golfing with Sandusky after it all went down.  I think Sandusky was grooming his victim, which is different than molesting and that's what McQueary saw, which is why he didn't know how to interpret what he saw.  

[/b]


/quote]

I think had it been Jerry Sandusky the janitor that McQueary would have had a lot easier time "interpreting" what he saw. And I think he would have intervened and then called the cops in about 3 seconds. And I doubt that Spanier, Curley and Schultz would have expressed any concern about being "compassionate" to the janitor. I think they would have asked the D.A. to hang the guy by his nuts.

McQueary didn't have the stripes to take on Jerry Sandusky. But, Joe Paterno (and others) certainly did after McQueary went to them. What is it about that that you don't understand?

It's amazing that you want to sling crap at McQueary for his inaction, but you bend over backwards to explain away Joe Paterno's inaction.

[oujour76]

Jan 29, 2015 13:44:16 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

the paterno family just wants the truth to get out.  that's all this is about to them.  was part of the truth that paterno was railroaded?  yes.  does that make paterno a victim?  relative to sandusky victims, not really.  but still a victim nonetheless.  

So....by your definition above, is Mike McQueary also a victim?

[snap infraction]

Jan 29, 2015 15:41:21 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jan 29, 2015 14:12:56 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

That's exactly what I think.  If you witness a child being raped, do you intervene and/or call the cops?  Or do you go home to tell your dad?  It made no sense that not only did McQueary not intervene or call the cops, but went golfing with Sandusky after it all went down.  I think Sandusky was grooming his victim, which is different than molesting and that's what McQueary saw, which is why he didn't know how to interpret what he saw.  

[/b]


/quote]

I think had it been Jerry Sandusky the janitor that McQueary would have had a lot easier time "interpreting" what he saw. And I think he would have intervened and then called the cops in about 3 seconds. And I doubt that Spanier, Curley and Schultz would have expressed any concern about being "compassionate" to the janitor. I think they would have asked the D.A. to hang the guy by his nuts.

McQueary didn't have the stripes to take on Jerry Sandusky. But, Joe Paterno (and others) certainly did after McQueary went to them. What is it about that that you don't understand?

It's amazing that you want to sling crap at McQueary for his inaction, but you bend over backwards to explain away Joe Paterno's inaction.
[/quote]

it's amazing that you overlook the fact that mcqueary was a first hand witness, not paterno.  

and i'm not slinging crap at mcqueary for his inaction b/c i don't think he saw something that warranted action.  i think he saw the same thing sandusky was accused of in 1998, which was a grooming procedure.  if mcqueary had seen what he later testified that he saw, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have either intervened or called the cops.  which is my point. 

and lastly...you've used your janitor analogy before.  and my response to that is of course it would have been handled differently. if that same janitor used a slightly excessive amount of sick time, or showed up late to his shift one too many times,  he would have been fired too.   a truth in life is that expendable employees are given the benefit of the doubt much less often.  an expendable employee faces different consequences than a non expendable employee when acting inappropriately.  

here's what happened imo...whatever mcqueary told paterno...paterno didn't believe it to be illegal but still rather highly inappropriate which is why it fell in an area between calling the police and dismissing it entirely.  paterno genuinely believed he was not qualified to handle the situation so he pushed the issue to administrators who he believed would handle it appropriately. for whatever reason that will be decided in a court of law, it wasn't. 
 
out of curiousity...although i believe it is nearly impossible to prove that paterno knew about 1998...would it change your opinion on the situation if it turns out definitely that paterno did not know about 1998?  
    

[oujour76]

Jan 29, 2015 16:22:12 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

it's amazing that you overlook the fact that mcqueary was a first hand witness, not paterno.  

and i'm not slinging crap at mcqueary for his inaction b/c i don't think he saw something that warranted action.  i think he saw the same thing sandusky was accused of in 1998, which was a grooming procedure.  if mcqueary had seen what he later testified that he saw, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have either intervened or called the cops.  which is my point. 

and lastly...you've used your janitor analogy before.  and my response to that is of course it would have been handled differently. if that same janitor used a slightly excessive amount of sick time, or showed up late to his shift one too many times,  he would have been fired too.   a truth in life is that expendable employees are given the benefit of the doubt much less often.  an expendable employee faces different consequences than a non expendable employee when acting inappropriately.  

here's what happened imo...whatever mcqueary told paterno...paterno didn't believe it to be illegal but still rather highly inappropriate which is why it fell in an area between calling the police and dismissing it entirely.  paterno genuinely believed he was not qualified to handle the situation so he pushed the issue to administrators who he believed would handle it appropriately. for whatever reason that will be decided in a court of law, it wasn't. 
 
out of curiousity...although i believe it is nearly impossible to prove that paterno knew about 1998...would it change your opinion on the situation if it turns out definitely that paterno did not know about 1998?  
    

IMO, Joe Paterno's biggest failure was a failure of leadership and I think that is what he was meant with the "should have done more" statement.

Joe Paterno was not a shy, retiring guy and no grass ever grew under his feet. He was the only one at Penn State who hired outside counsel right off the bat...that was no accident. He wasn't closing ranks. IMO, he was separating himself and that pissed off the BOT and others in a big way. You saw that by how quickly they threw him under the bus when the shit hit the fan.

When Joe Paterno wanted something done or to find something out, he knew how to make that happen.

My personal belief is he recognized that what McQueary told him was a ticking time bomb...and I don't think he wanted any part of that particular tar baby so he kicked it upstairs. Again, jmo.

As for 1998, imo there is no way that the head coach of any football program, much less a Joe Paterno, would not know that an assistant was being investigated by the local police.

[mscott59]

Jan 29, 2015 13:39:15 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Jan 29, 2015 11:22:43 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

i tire of the 'this is more complex than those of you outside state college can fathom' crap. the paterno family went to court saying the freeh report was inaccurate. paterno was asked to participate in the freeh-led investigation. he could have 'corrected' or at least given his perspective on the series of events, but refused, although after that date he still conducted an interview w/a journalist and continued working on his book w/posnanski, while still 'getting deadly amounts of radiation.' he.... chose...

and how the hell am i incorrect re not all the principals chose to speak w/freeh if paterno, schultz and curley, 3 of the principals, chose not to participate?

you said they chose not to speak.  spanier did and was ignored.  the others couldn't for reasons i specified.  i guess they could have but chose not b/c of their own trials.  you made it sound like they didn't talk with freeh b/c they knew freeh was going to be fair  as for paterno, would talking to freeh really have mattered?  the conclusions for the report was written the day freeh was hired.  

if paterno had some sort of history of cheating in order to win at all costs, this would all be a different story.  but he didn't.  and i am supposed to believe that after 50 something years with the most impeccable reputation possible he suddenly decided to put football glory ahead of human decency?    cmon.  really?  

what do you think paterno's motive was?  b/c to me...it was that he though he was unqualified to handle what mcqueary told me so i passed it along to other who were more qualified.  does that not at all seem reasonable?  does that make him a bad person all of a sudden?

What I wrote re paterno talking to freeh and yout interpretation/insertion of your own meaning are on different pages.

[snap infraction]

Jan 29, 2015 17:24:28 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jan 29, 2015 16:22:12 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

it's amazing that you overlook the fact that mcqueary was a first hand witness, not paterno.  

and i'm not slinging crap at mcqueary for his inaction b/c i don't think he saw something that warranted action.  i think he saw the same thing sandusky was accused of in 1998, which was a grooming procedure.  if mcqueary had seen what he later testified that he saw, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have either intervened or called the cops.  which is my point. 

and lastly...you've used your janitor analogy before.  and my response to that is of course it would have been handled differently. if that same janitor used a slightly excessive amount of sick time, or showed up late to his shift one too many times,  he would have been fired too.   a truth in life is that expendable employees are given the benefit of the doubt much less often.  an expendable employee faces different consequences than a non expendable employee when acting inappropriately.  

here's what happened imo...whatever mcqueary told paterno...paterno didn't believe it to be illegal but still rather highly inappropriate which is why it fell in an area between calling the police and dismissing it entirely.  paterno genuinely believed he was not qualified to handle the situation so he pushed the issue to administrators who he believed would handle it appropriately. for whatever reason that will be decided in a court of law, it wasn't. 
 
out of curiousity...although i believe it is nearly impossible to prove that paterno knew about 1998...would it change your opinion on the situation if it turns out definitely that paterno did not know about 1998?  
    

IMO, Joe Paterno's biggest failure was a failure of leadership and I think that is what he was meant with the "should have done more" statement.

Joe Paterno was not a shy, retiring guy and no grass ever grew under his feet. He was the only one at Penn State who hired outside counsel right off the bat...that was no accident. He wasn't closing ranks. IMO, he was separating himself and that pissed off the BOT and others in a big way. You saw that by how quickly they threw him under the bus when the shit hit the fan.

When Joe Paterno wanted something done or to find something out, he knew how to make that happen.

My personal belief is he recognized that what McQueary told him was a ticking time bomb...and I don't think he wanted any part of that particular tar baby so he kicked it upstairs. Again, jmo.

As for 1998, imo there is no way that the head coach of any football program, much less a Joe Paterno, would not know that an assistant was being investigated by the local police.

people take the  "i should have done more statement" as an acknowledgement of guilt.  and they shouldn't.  what he knew in 2011 about sandusky was far different than what he knew in 2001.  and with the additional details given to him in 2011, of course he wished he had done more.  like i said...do you know anyone who wouldn't?

yes he was separating himself from others b/c i think he realized that the people he kicked the issue to messed up.  and those people will have a trial to defend themselves.   i don't think paterno knew in 2001 that the administrators handled things poorly.  especially when mcqueary testified that he told paterno that he was satisfied with how everything was handled.  i think he realized it in 2011 when sandusky's crimes came to light and he was better able to connect all the dots.  

i think it's a leap to conclude that he recognized sandusky was a ticking time bomb.  like i said before, i think he felt sandusky's actions were not illegal but inappropriate and not worthy of being dismissed entirely.  i think he felt that this grey area that he was no qualified to deal with so he passed it along to others.   how did people assign such a sinister motive to paterno's actions when it seems his actions were reasonable given what he knew at the time.....read below...

 b/c the initial reports in the case were based off of a faulty grand jury presentment, many people added incorrect details to provide additional context so they could conclude some sort of sinister motive for paterno's actions.  the grand jury presentment incorrectly stated multiple times that mcqueary witnessed a child being raped.  and he then passed along these sordid details to paterno.  paterno is a very public figure well known by even non football fans.  and once paterno became implicated for not calling the police after hearing about a child being raped, the media became involved and put a ton of pressure on. this led to a series of horrible decisions by penn state leaders who was operating under incredible duress b/c everyone was angry.  

freeh was then hired to placate the public.   what was not known at the time freeh was hired was that the ncaa would involved themself in the freeh investigation.  it was not known that the ncaa would then attempt to use the investigation to grandstand and improve their own weakened public perception. it was not known that the ncaa and freeh had discussions about the ncaa outsourcing future enforcement activities to freehs firm.  and as you have said, the bot was very angry at the paterno's and freeh and gov corbett were able to sort of redirect this anger to justify blaming the football culture that surrounded paterno for everything.  which is why, if you read the e-mails sent around by psu bot members prior to the release of the freeh report, you see they are rationalizing his conclusions before the report was even released.  and now, in recently released depositions, they are saying they believed freeh's conclusions was speculation.  

and fwiw, i believe that psu leaders truly believed that once the freeh report was released, everyone's anger would be directed and paterno and the football program and not at the board's leadership or the ncaa.  i think their ego's got in their way and the miscalculated badly.  and they weren't prepared for the fallout.  

and that leaves us to where we are today...once time passed, many people around college football realized that it was a bit foolish to equate opposing the ncaa's action with sympathizing with child molestation.  they slowly realized that the ncaa overstepped big time.  the football team rising from the ashes from near death became a prevailing storyline around college football.  the threat of testifying under oath and disclosing private correspondence between leaders of the ncaa/freeh/psu became a very real possibility. and the ncaa quickly surrendered.   this was celebrated by psu fans who watched a source of pride be villainized due to an incorrect assessment of what happened.  

 

[oujour76]

Jan 30, 2015 10:13:52 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

people take the  "i should have done more statement" as an acknowledgement of guilt.  and they shouldn't.  what he knew in 2011 about sandusky was far different than what he knew in 2001.  and with the additional details given to him in 2011, of course he wished he had done more.  like i said...do you know anyone who wouldn't?

yes he was separating himself from others b/c i think he realized that the people he kicked the issue to messed up.  and those people will have a trial to defend themselves.   i don't think paterno knew in 2001 that the administrators handled things poorly.  especially when mcqueary testified that he told paterno that he was satisfied with how everything was handled.  i think he realized it in 2011 when sandusky's crimes came to light and he was better able to connect all the dots.  

i think it's a leap to conclude that he recognized sandusky was a ticking time bomb.  like i said before, i think he felt sandusky's actions were not illegal but inappropriate and not worthy of being dismissed entirely.  i think he felt that this grey area that he was no qualified to deal with so he passed it along to others.   how did people assign such a sinister motive to paterno's actions when it seems his actions were reasonable given what he knew at the time.....read below...

 b/c the initial reports in the case were based off of a faulty grand jury presentment, many people added incorrect details to provide additional context so they could conclude some sort of sinister motive for paterno's actions.  the grand jury presentment incorrectly stated multiple times that mcqueary witnessed a child being raped.  and he then passed along these sordid details to paterno.  paterno is a very public figure well known by even non football fans.  and once paterno became implicated for not calling the police after hearing about a child being raped, the media became involved and put a ton of pressure on. this led to a series of horrible decisions by penn state leaders who was operating under incredible duress b/c everyone was angry.  

freeh was then hired to placate the public.   what was not known at the time freeh was hired was that the ncaa would involved themself in the freeh investigation.  it was not known that the ncaa would then attempt to use the investigation to grandstand and improve their own weakened public perception. it was not known that the ncaa and freeh had discussions about the ncaa outsourcing future enforcement activities to freehs firm.  and as you have said, the bot was very angry at the paterno's and freeh and gov corbett were able to sort of redirect this anger to justify blaming the football culture that surrounded paterno for everything.  which is why, if you read the e-mails sent around by psu bot members prior to the release of the freeh report, you see they are rationalizing his conclusions before the report was even released.  and now, in recently released depositions, they are saying they believed freeh's conclusions was speculation.  

and fwiw, i believe that psu leaders truly believed that once the freeh report was released, everyone's anger would be directed and paterno and the football program and not at the board's leadership or the ncaa.  i think their ego's got in their way and the miscalculated badly.  and they weren't prepared for the fallout.  

and that leaves us to where we are today...once time passed, many people around college football realized that it was a bit foolish to equate opposing the ncaa's action with sympathizing with child molestation.  they slowly realized that the ncaa overstepped big time.  the football team rising from the ashes from near death became a prevailing storyline around college football.  the threat of testifying under oath and disclosing private correspondence between leaders of the ncaa/freeh/psu became a very real possibility. and the ncaa quickly surrendered.   this was celebrated by psu fans who watched a source of pride be villainized due to an incorrect assessment of what happened.  

 

I think you have tunnel vision in this whole matter. Paterno's failure, in my view and as I already stated, is one of leadership. And I wouldn't put too much stock in the NCAA "surrender"....most lawsuits settle out of court for monetary reasons and settling this one doesn't shield the NCAA or that correspondence from the criminal suits. As for Paterno being "villianized".....Penn State did that far more than anybody else.

[snap infraction]

Jan 30, 2015 10:45:43 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jan 30, 2015 10:13:52 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

people take the  "i should have done more statement" as an acknowledgement of guilt.  and they shouldn't.  what he knew in 2011 about sandusky was far different than what he knew in 2001.  and with the additional details given to him in 2011, of course he wished he had done more.  like i said...do you know anyone who wouldn't?

yes he was separating himself from others b/c i think he realized that the people he kicked the issue to messed up.  and those people will have a trial to defend themselves.   i don't think paterno knew in 2001 that the administrators handled things poorly.  especially when mcqueary testified that he told paterno that he was satisfied with how everything was handled.  i think he realized it in 2011 when sandusky's crimes came to light and he was better able to connect all the dots.  

i think it's a leap to conclude that he recognized sandusky was a ticking time bomb.  like i said before, i think he felt sandusky's actions were not illegal but inappropriate and not worthy of being dismissed entirely.  i think he felt that this grey area that he was no qualified to deal with so he passed it along to others.   how did people assign such a sinister motive to paterno's actions when it seems his actions were reasonable given what he knew at the time.....read below...

 b/c the initial reports in the case were based off of a faulty grand jury presentment, many people added incorrect details to provide additional context so they could conclude some sort of sinister motive for paterno's actions.  the grand jury presentment incorrectly stated multiple times that mcqueary witnessed a child being raped.  and he then passed along these sordid details to paterno.  paterno is a very public figure well known by even non football fans.  and once paterno became implicated for not calling the police after hearing about a child being raped, the media became involved and put a ton of pressure on. this led to a series of horrible decisions by penn state leaders who was operating under incredible duress b/c everyone was angry.  

freeh was then hired to placate the public.   what was not known at the time freeh was hired was that the ncaa would involved themself in the freeh investigation.  it was not known that the ncaa would then attempt to use the investigation to grandstand and improve their own weakened public perception. it was not known that the ncaa and freeh had discussions about the ncaa outsourcing future enforcement activities to freehs firm.  and as you have said, the bot was very angry at the paterno's and freeh and gov corbett were able to sort of redirect this anger to justify blaming the football culture that surrounded paterno for everything.  which is why, if you read the e-mails sent around by psu bot members prior to the release of the freeh report, you see they are rationalizing his conclusions before the report was even released.  and now, in recently released depositions, they are saying they believed freeh's conclusions was speculation.  

and fwiw, i believe that psu leaders truly believed that once the freeh report was released, everyone's anger would be directed and paterno and the football program and not at the board's leadership or the ncaa.  i think their ego's got in their way and the miscalculated badly.  and they weren't prepared for the fallout.  

and that leaves us to where we are today...once time passed, many people around college football realized that it was a bit foolish to equate opposing the ncaa's action with sympathizing with child molestation.  they slowly realized that the ncaa overstepped big time.  the football team rising from the ashes from near death became a prevailing storyline around college football.  the threat of testifying under oath and disclosing private correspondence between leaders of the ncaa/freeh/psu became a very real possibility. and the ncaa quickly surrendered.   this was celebrated by psu fans who watched a source of pride be villainized due to an incorrect assessment of what happened.  

 

I think you have tunnel vision in this whole matter. Paterno's failure, in my view and as I already stated, is one of leadership. And I wouldn't put too much stock in the NCAA "surrender"....most lawsuits settle out of court for monetary reasons and settling this one doesn't shield the NCAA or that correspondence from the criminal suits. As for Paterno being "villianized".....Penn State did that far more than anybody else.

the grand jury presentment doomed paterno when it falsely stated he received a report of a child being raped.  the court of public opinion went against paterno at that point.  the psu leadership then sort of fed the growing hysteria with their decision to cancel paterno's press conference a few days after the indictments were announced and then really poured gas on the fire when they unceremoniously fired paterno.  psu leadership had a small window to fight bak against the narrative.  instead they chose to perpetuate it.  

as for the ncaa surrendering...the decision the punish penn state through it's executive committee instead of it's enforcement committee was the most controversial enforcement decision ever made by the ncaa.  even the president of the united states commented on it when it happened.  they staunchly defended.  mark emmert and ed ray went on a media tour where they visited every major media outlet in the week following their decision.  how the hell could they just go back on all of that simply b/c of monetary reasons?

the  pa politicians was playing poker with 4 of a kind and the ncaa had a 9 as their high card. and the ncaa was no longer dealing with horrible poker players that they could bluff.   that's why the ncaa folded.  





 

[mscott59]

Jan 30, 2015 10:13:52 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Jan 29, 2015 17:24:28 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

IMO, Joe Paterno's biggest failure was a failure of leadership and I think that is what he was meant with the "should have done more" statement.

Joe Paterno was not a shy, retiring guy and no grass ever grew under his feet. He was the only one at Penn State who hired outside counsel right off the bat...that was no accident. He wasn't closing ranks. IMO, he was separating himself and that pissed off the BOT and others in a big way. You saw that by how quickly they threw him under the bus when the shit hit the fan.

When Joe Paterno wanted something done or to find something out, he knew how to make that happen.

My personal belief is he recognized that what McQueary told him was a ticking time bomb...and I don't think he wanted any part of that particular tar baby so he kicked it upstairs. Again, jmo.

As for 1998, imo there is no way that the head coach of any football program, much less a Joe Paterno, would not know that an assistant was being investigated by the local police.

people take the  "i should have done more statement" as an acknowledgement of guilt.  and they shouldn't.  what he knew in 2011 about sandusky was far different than what he knew in 2001.  and with the additional details given to him in 2011, of course he wished he had done more.  like i said...do you know anyone who wouldn't?

yes he was separating himself from others b/c i think he realized that the people he kicked the issue to messed up.  and those people will have a trial to defend themselves.   i don't think paterno knew in 2001 that the administrators handled things poorly.  especially when mcqueary testified that he told paterno that he was satisfied with how everything was handled.  i think he realized it in 2011 when sandusky's crimes came to light and he was better able to connect all the dots.  

i think it's a leap to conclude that he recognized sandusky was a ticking time bomb.  like i said before, i think he felt sandusky's actions were not illegal but inappropriate and not worthy of being dismissed entirely.  i think he felt that this grey area that he was no qualified to deal with so he passed it along to others.   how did people assign such a sinister motive to paterno's actions when it seems his actions were reasonable given what he knew at the time.....read below...

 b/c the initial reports in the case were based off of a faulty grand jury presentment, many people added incorrect details to provide additional context so they could conclude some sort of sinister motive for paterno's actions.  the grand jury presentment incorrectly stated multiple times that mcqueary witnessed a child being raped.  and he then passed along these sordid details to paterno.  paterno is a very public figure well known by even non football fans.  and once paterno became implicated for not calling the police after hearing about a child being raped, the media became involved and put a ton of pressure on. this led to a series of horrible decisions by penn state leaders who was operating under incredible duress b/c everyone was angry.  

freeh was then hired to placate the public.   what was not known at the time freeh was hired was that the ncaa would involved themself in the freeh investigation.  it was not known that the ncaa would then attempt to use the investigation to grandstand and improve their own weakened public perception. it was not known that the ncaa and freeh had discussions about the ncaa outsourcing future enforcement activities to freehs firm.  and as you have said, the bot was very angry at the paterno's and freeh and gov corbett were able to sort of redirect this anger to justify blaming the football culture that surrounded paterno for everything.  which is why, if you read the e-mails sent around by psu bot members prior to the release of the freeh report, you see they are rationalizing his conclusions before the report was even released.  and now, in recently released depositions, they are saying they believed freeh's conclusions was speculation.  

and fwiw, i believe that psu leaders truly believed that once the freeh report was released, everyone's anger would be directed and paterno and the football program and not at the board's leadership or the ncaa.  i think their ego's got in their way and the miscalculated badly.  and they weren't prepared for the fallout.  

and that leaves us to where we are today...once time passed, many people around college football realized that it was a bit foolish to equate opposing the ncaa's action with sympathizing with child molestation.  they slowly realized that the ncaa overstepped big time.  the football team rising from the ashes from near death became a prevailing storyline around college football.  the threat of testifying under oath and disclosing private correspondence between leaders of the ncaa/freeh/psu became a very real possibility. and the ncaa quickly surrendered.   this was celebrated by psu fans who watched a source of pride be villainized due to an incorrect assessment of what happened.  

 

wow.

[oujour76]

Jan 30, 2015 11:19:41 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

the grand jury presentment doomed paterno when it falsely stated he received a report of a child being raped.  the court of public opinion went against paterno at that point.  the psu leadership then sort of fed the growing hysteria with their decision to cancel paterno's press conference a few days after the indictments were announced and then really poured gas on the fire when they unceremoniously fired paterno.  psu leadership had a small window to fight bak against the narrative.  instead they chose to perpetuate it.  

as for the ncaa surrendering...the decision the punish penn state through it's executive committee instead of it's enforcement committee was the most controversial enforcement decision ever made by the ncaa.  even the president of the united states commented on it when it happened.  they staunchly defended.  mark emmert and ed ray went on a media tour where they visited every major media outlet in the week following their decision.  how the hell could they just go back on all of that simply b/c of monetary reasons?

the  pa politicians was playing poker with 4 of a kind and the ncaa had a 9 as their high card. and the ncaa was no longer dealing with horrible poker players that they could bluff.   that's why the ncaa folded.  
 

Lawsuits (usually) settle when it becomes cheaper for both to do so rather than continue. If PA was holding 4-of-a-kind why did they settle?

[snap infraction]

Jan 30, 2015 11:51:49 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Jan 30, 2015 10:13:52 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

people take the  "i should have done more statement" as an acknowledgement of guilt.  and they shouldn't.  what he knew in 2011 about sandusky was far different than what he knew in 2001.  and with the additional details given to him in 2011, of course he wished he had done more.  like i said...do you know anyone who wouldn't?

yes he was separating himself from others b/c i think he realized that the people he kicked the issue to messed up.  and those people will have a trial to defend themselves.   i don't think paterno knew in 2001 that the administrators handled things poorly.  especially when mcqueary testified that he told paterno that he was satisfied with how everything was handled.  i think he realized it in 2011 when sandusky's crimes came to light and he was better able to connect all the dots.  

i think it's a leap to conclude that he recognized sandusky was a ticking time bomb.  like i said before, i think he felt sandusky's actions were not illegal but inappropriate and not worthy of being dismissed entirely.  i think he felt that this grey area that he was no qualified to deal with so he passed it along to others.   how did people assign such a sinister motive to paterno's actions when it seems his actions were reasonable given what he knew at the time.....read below...

 b/c the initial reports in the case were based off of a faulty grand jury presentment, many people added incorrect details to provide additional context so they could conclude some sort of sinister motive for paterno's actions.  the grand jury presentment incorrectly stated multiple times that mcqueary witnessed a child being raped.  and he then passed along these sordid details to paterno.  paterno is a very public figure well known by even non football fans.  and once paterno became implicated for not calling the police after hearing about a child being raped, the media became involved and put a ton of pressure on. this led to a series of horrible decisions by penn state leaders who was operating under incredible duress b/c everyone was angry.  

freeh was then hired to placate the public.   what was not known at the time freeh was hired was that the ncaa would involved themself in the freeh investigation.  it was not known that the ncaa would then attempt to use the investigation to grandstand and improve their own weakened public perception. it was not known that the ncaa and freeh had discussions about the ncaa outsourcing future enforcement activities to freehs firm.  and as you have said, the bot was very angry at the paterno's and freeh and gov corbett were able to sort of redirect this anger to justify blaming the football culture that surrounded paterno for everything.  which is why, if you read the e-mails sent around by psu bot members prior to the release of the freeh report, you see they are rationalizing his conclusions before the report was even released.  and now, in recently released depositions, they are saying they believed freeh's conclusions was speculation.  

and fwiw, i believe that psu leaders truly believed that once the freeh report was released, everyone's anger would be directed and paterno and the football program and not at the board's leadership or the ncaa.  i think their ego's got in their way and the miscalculated badly.  and they weren't prepared for the fallout.  

and that leaves us to where we are today...once time passed, many people around college football realized that it was a bit foolish to equate opposing the ncaa's action with sympathizing with child molestation.  they slowly realized that the ncaa overstepped big time.  the football team rising from the ashes from near death became a prevailing storyline around college football.  the threat of testifying under oath and disclosing private correspondence between leaders of the ncaa/freeh/psu became a very real possibility. and the ncaa quickly surrendered.   this was celebrated by psu fans who watched a source of pride be villainized due to an incorrect assessment of what happened.  

 

wow.

i'd like to think this is everyone's reaction to reading that post:

i.imgur.com/JrVjz.gif