Some Support for Paterno

[oujour76]

Sept 10, 2013 8:37:15 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Sept 9, 2013 20:01:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

thanks for posting the link, harry. as for the link to the football program... didn't Sandusky still have an office inside the football complex? we all know this was undiscovered waters in terms of what the ncaa AND psu chose to do in response to this. but psu put their signature on the punishment. if school leaders didn't feel it was warranted, then they should not have agreed to it and should have fought the ncaa in court, if that's what it have gone to in order to resolve it.

mark scott
tosu 81

You're welcome. Not 100% sure but I think Sandusky did still have an office in the football complex. I feel the same way as you do on PSU going along with the whole deal...if they believed it was over the top (and it was imo) the time to fight was then and there. And I believe the consent decree says right up front that it is irrevocable. That's a powerful legal document to overturn. We'll see how it shakes out.

[oujour76]

Sept 10, 2013 9:30:37 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Sept 9, 2013 20:01:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

The Freeh report concludes that paterno and other high ranking officials "repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse." Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The one word answer has to be agree. Unless you believe that no critical facts were concealed by anybody.

Do you believe that no critical facts were concealed?

[ihs82]

Sept 10, 2013 10:57:25 GMT -5 daleko said:

Sept 10, 2013 9:32:43 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Not one kid was raped in a PSU shower, let alone multiple kids. Not only was Sandusky found innocent on that charge in his trial, the victim himself stated he was not abused that night. That's the reason the prosecution never asked him to testify.

Depending on the jurisdiction, rape can be defined as not necessarily including penetration, however slight. Based on your comment, I'm guessing Penn is one of them that requires it. Coercion, manipulation, control, psy persuasion, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature with a minor are all factors, in defining rape as a sexual assault. Do you honestly think that that was his first and only time assaulting someone in the PSU shower?

IHS, you want to comment that the NCAA had no jurisdiction, that the penalty was too severe? Have at it. But spare me the no one knew defense. That he was real sneaky bringing little boys on PSu road trips, sharing a hotel room, bringing them on campus and taking naked showers with them for what was probably 20 yrs. They knew or should have known what was happening wasn't, at the very least, appropriate and that they could have and should have done something to put an end to it long before it became "front page". And "they" includes JP, imo. He had the support, the position and the power to end it. Define it as omission or commission, matters not to me. Had they stopped the inappropriate early, maybe this never becomes a larger PSu issue.

the first part is exactly what i'm arguing. ncaa had no jurisdiction and the penalty was not fair to the students, alumni, business owners, ex letterman, current players and staff and others harmed by sanctioning the football program.

the 2nd part I don't disagree with you on. but there is a huge difference between commission and omission. omission is the result of poor judgement. commission is the result of malicious intent. while the consequences are still the same for either case, the degree of the punishment should vary.

[ihs82]

Sept 10, 2013 11:10:39 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Sept 10, 2013 9:30:37 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

The one word answer has to be agree. Unless you believe that no critical facts were concealed by anybody.

Do you believe that no critical facts were concealed?

not by paterno. and the ncaa doesn't get involved if paterno wasn't implicated by freeh.

[mscott59]

Sept 10, 2013 9:36:35 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Sept 10, 2013 8:37:15 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

psu was coerced into that agreement with the threat of the multi year suspension of its football program. with the public sentiment at the time, it was the only way they thought they could live to see another day. it was still a giant mistake not to fight it.

no no no. coerced? they AGREED to the punishment. my god man, if someone's accusing me of a crime, and I know i'm innocent, i'm going to fight it. not accept 10 years in jail as opposed to a life sentence for a guilty plea. can't you see this? you're mad at the ncaa when the focus of your anger should be, and this is so appropriate, your alma mater. whether the freeh report is 100% accurate, 75%, 50%, 25%, or 0%, the ultimate blame lies squarely on those who used the pen to sign their name, and the university's, to the agreement. you need to stop blaming the ncaa, freeh, public sentiment, etc and start looking in the collective mirror. you don't sacrifice 5 years of a program that, both to the country and in many cases to its alumni, defines the university, just for pr purposes.

mark scott
tosu 81

[mscott59]

Sept 10, 2013 11:22:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Sept 10, 2013 10:57:25 GMT -5 daleko said:

Depending on the jurisdiction, rape can be defined as not necessarily including penetration, however slight. Based on your comment, I'm guessing Penn is one of them that requires it. Coercion, manipulation, control, psy persuasion, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature with a minor are all factors, in defining rape as a sexual assault. Do you honestly think that that was his first and only time assaulting someone in the PSU shower?

IHS, you want to comment that the NCAA had no jurisdiction, that the penalty was too severe? Have at it. But spare me the no one knew defense. That he was real sneaky bringing little boys on PSu road trips, sharing a hotel room, bringing them on campus and taking naked showers with them for what was probably 20 yrs. They knew or should have known what was happening wasn't, at the very least, appropriate and that they could have and should have done something to put an end to it long before it became "front page". And "they" includes JP, imo. He had the support, the position and the power to end it. Define it as omission or commission, matters not to me. Had they stopped the inappropriate early, maybe this never becomes a larger PSu issue.

the first part is exactly what i'm arguing. ncaa had no jurisdiction and the penalty was not fair to the students, alumni, business owners, ex letterman, current players and staff and others harmed by sanctioning the football program.

the 2nd part I don't disagree with you on. but there is a huge difference between commission and omission. omission is the result of poor judgement. commission is the result of malicious intent. while the consequences are still the same for either case, the degree of the punishment should vary.

not fair to the students? how?? I could swear i saw highlights from Saturday's game vs e. mich. no games were cancelled... students aren't banned from attending beaver stadium. alumni? business owners? how?? no games were cancelled... those groups aren't banned either from attending games or selling stuff in/around the stadium. ex-lettermen? how?? no games were cancelled. current players/staff? hmm. curious you put them last on the list... because they're the first groups I agree w/you. the sins of those in authority should not affect them.

mark scott
tosu 81

[oujour76]

Sept 10, 2013 11:25:14 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Sept 10, 2013 11:10:39 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

not by paterno. and the ncaa doesn't get involved if paterno wasn't implicated by freeh.

But, of course. This is all about Joe Paterno. And my answer to whether or not Paterno actively concealed information is I don't know for sure. I do know he was a smart guy and no grass grew under his feet and he was not easily duped. And I know he was the only one smart enough to retain his own lawyer when the shit hit the fan. That shows a clarity of thinking that is hard to reconcile with the "poor old Joe" image you and others are trying to sell. It's hard for me to fathom how a guy like that never knew or suspected anything about "Uncle Friendly" who was his DC for many years.

In any event, why do you believe the NCAA doesn't get involved if Paterno wasn't included? The other 3 guys were were still big parts of the institution.

[ihs82]

Sept 10, 2013 11:45:38 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Sept 10, 2013 9:36:35 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

no no no. coerced? they AGREED to the punishment. my god man, if someone's accusing me of a crime, and I know i'm innocent, i'm going to fight it. not accept 10 years in jail as opposed to a life sentence for a guilty plea. can't you see this? you're mad at the ncaa when the focus of your anger should be, and this is so appropriate, your alma mater. whether the freeh report is 100% accurate, 75%, 50%, 25%, or 0%, the ultimate blame lies squarely on those who used the pen to sign their name, and the university's, to the agreement. you need to stop blaming the ncaa, freeh, public sentiment, etc and start looking in the collective mirror. you don't sacrifice 5 years of a program that, both to the country and in many cases to its alumni, defines the university, just for pr purposes.

mark scott
tosu 81

the public outcry and anger against penn state was so strong in the immediate aftermath of the release of the freeh report that penn state had to believe they had no chance of winning a battle against the ncaa, and emmert knew it. the court of public opinion was so one sided and everyone was so angry. a decision to contest the ncaa would have inflamed a very emotional public even more. I am not speaking in hyperbole. the hysteria against penn state was insanely intense. people at the time didn't want to hear reason, they just wanted punishment. the ncaa gave the people what they wanted w/o hurting themselves (taking psu off tv or canceling the season). I know it sounds like an excuse but it's not. penn state was coerced into signing.

[ihs82]

Sept 10, 2013 11:53:38 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Sept 10, 2013 11:22:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

the first part is exactly what i'm arguing. ncaa had no jurisdiction and the penalty was not fair to the students, alumni, business owners, ex letterman, current players and staff and others harmed by sanctioning the football program.

the 2nd part I don't disagree with you on. but there is a huge difference between commission and omission. omission is the result of poor judgement. commission is the result of malicious intent. while the consequences are still the same for either case, the degree of the punishment should vary.

not fair to the students? how?? I could swear i saw highlights from Saturday's game vs e. mich. no games were cancelled... students aren't banned from attending beaver stadium. alumni? business owners? how?? no games were cancelled... those groups aren't banned either from attending games or selling stuff in/around the stadium. ex-lettermen? how?? no games were cancelled. current players/staff? hmm. curious you put them last on the list... because they're the first groups I agree w/you. the sins of those in authority should not affect them.

mark scott
tosu 81

i'm not sure how to explain how crippling one of the universities greatest asset's while blaming "hero worship" and the "university culture" is harmful to students, alumni and all fans.

[ihs82]

Sept 10, 2013 12:27:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Sept 10, 2013 11:25:14 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

But, of course. This is all about Joe Paterno. And my answer to whether or not Paterno actively concealed information is I don't know for sure. I do know he was a smart guy and no grass grew under his feet and he was not easily duped. And I know he was the only one smart enough to retain his own lawyer when the shit hit the fan. That shows a clarity of thinking that is hard to reconcile with the "poor old Joe" image you and others are trying to sell. It's hard for me to fathom how a guy like that never knew or suspected anything about "Uncle Friendly" who was his DC for many years.

In any event, why do you believe the NCAA doesn't get involved if Paterno wasn't included? The other 3 guys were were still big parts of the institution.

paterno.com/Expert-Reports/Jim-Clemente.aspx#.Ui9eXmbD8y8 read this if you want to learn how pedophiles trick and deceive people they interact with everyday...even really smart people.

I guess you should ask Sue Paterno why she let her kids and grandkids go swimming with Sandusky. Obviously, Joe told Sue Sandusky was a pedophile so it makes no sense that Sue would trust her kids in that sort of situation. Until more proof is produced to show otherwise, can we at least entertain the thought of giving Paterno some benefit of the doubt here? I mean if we are going to use his history of being a smart guy as some sort of evidence that he had to know better, can't we use his history of being an ethical and law abiding person as proof that he would have done more had he suspected more?


The NCAA makes decisions based on public perception and the public was only interested in the story b/c of Paterno's involvement. If Paterno is not implicated by Freeh, Emmert isn't getting told by everyone in the country that he has to do something. The NCAA would have declined to get involved, citing the same reasons they didn't get involved with UNC or Auburn....they could find no NCAA rule that was violated.

[daleko]

Sept 10, 2013 11:22:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Sept 10, 2013 10:57:25 GMT -5 daleko said:

Depending on the jurisdiction, rape can be defined as not necessarily including penetration, however slight. Based on your comment, I'm guessing Penn is one of them that requires it. Coercion, manipulation, control, psy persuasion, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature with a minor are all factors, in defining rape as a sexual assault. Do you honestly think that that was his first and only time assaulting someone in the PSU shower?

IHS, you want to comment that the NCAA had no jurisdiction, that the penalty was too severe? Have at it. But spare me the no one knew defense. That he was real sneaky bringing little boys on PSu road trips, sharing a hotel room, bringing them on campus and taking naked showers with them for what was probably 20 yrs. They knew or should have known what was happening wasn't, at the very least, appropriate and that they could have and should have done something to put an end to it long before it became "front page". And "they" includes JP, imo. He had the support, the position and the power to end it. Define it as omission or commission, matters not to me. Had they stopped the inappropriate early, maybe this never becomes a larger PSu issue.

the first part is exactly what i'm arguing. ncaa had no jurisdiction and the penalty was not fair to the students, alumni, business owners, ex letterman, current players and staff and others harmed by sanctioning the football program.

the 2nd part I don't disagree with you on. but there is a huge difference between commission and omission. omission is the result of poor judgement. commission is the result of malicious intent. while the consequences are still the same for either case, the degree of the punishment should vary.

MLB baseball gives the Commish a "for the good of the game' latitude as long as it doesn't conflict with state/local/fed laws and the labor contract. Though not explicitly noted the NCAA essentially used that concept. As with baseball, don't like it, leave or fight it at the time.

The not fair portion isn't relevant. The game is still played, vendors still sell stuff and 5 kids got schollys somewhere else. Now maybe somewhere way downstream 5 kids had to foot there own way through school, play Div II/III or get academics. <shrug> No bowl games for current players? They could have gone elsewhere. Very fair so far. Did the school suffer? You bet, but that's what penalties are about. Because Alumns put their psy health on the rise or fall of a FB team, is not unfair. That's on them. Get a grip. Work day and real life starts on Monday.

They suspected it early and failed to take prudent action. Commission or omission? How about unintentional depraved indifference, if I was being kind or just depraved indifference if I wasn't? The "I didn't see the speed reduction sign" after you hit someone in a highway construction zone at 75 isn't a defense. Not just once but many times. In this case everyone had a heads up and failed to take prudent action to prevent/retard this horrible incident. WTF were they thinking letting a old guy take young boys on road trips? And they paid the price, which they agreed to. Now they don't want to. Too bad for them. You can spin it any way you want to but they know more of the story than you do and they agreed to it. That speaks volumes.

[daleko]

Sept 10, 2013 13:08:15 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Sept 10, 2013 12:27:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

paterno.com/Expert-Reports/Jim-Clemente.aspx#.Ui9eXmbD8y8 read this if you want to learn how pedophiles trick and deceive people they interact with everyday...even really smart people.

I guess you should ask Sue Paterno why she let her kids and grandkids go swimming with Sandusky. Obviously, Joe told Sue Sandusky was a pedophile so it makes no sense that Sue would trust her kids in that sort of situation. Until more proof is produced to show otherwise, can we at least entertain the thought of giving Paterno some benefit of the doubt here? I mean if we are going to use his history of being a smart guy as some sort of evidence that he had to know better, can't we use his history of being an ethical and law abiding person as proof that he would have done more had he suspected more?


The NCAA makes decisions based on public perception and the public was only interested in the story b/c of Paterno's involvement. If Paterno is not implicated by Freeh, Emmert isn't getting told by everyone in the country that he has to do something. The NCAA would have declined to get involved, citing the same reasons they didn't get involved with UNC or Auburn....they could find no NCAA rule that was violated.

But once '98 happened the red flags were up and they all, incl JP, failed to take prudent action. At best, if it was an error of omission, it was culpable and they had to pay the price. At worst they all turned their heads hoping for the best.

[oujour76]

Sept 10, 2013 12:37:36 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Sept 10, 2013 11:45:38 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

the public outcry and anger against penn state was so strong in the immediate aftermath of the release of the freeh report that penn state had to believe they had no chance of winning a battle against the ncaa, and emmert knew it. the court of public opinion was so one sided and everyone was so angry. a decision to contest the ncaa would have inflamed a very emotional public even more. I am not speaking in hyperbole. the hysteria against penn state was insanely intense. people at the time didn't want to hear reason, they just wanted punishment. the ncaa gave the people what they wanted w/o hurting themselves (taking psu off tv or canceling the season). I know it sounds like an excuse but it's not. penn state was coerced into signing.

I'd agree Penn State felt publicly pressured. But coerced? That is a very strong word and I don't think it applies here. Coercion happens when one party has no method or means of defending itself. And Penn State had both method and means to do so...the choices may have been crappy ones but the University still chose not to defend itself at that time.

[ihs82]

Sept 10, 2013 15:05:51 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Sept 10, 2013 12:37:36 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

I'd agree Penn State felt publicly pressured. But coerced? That is a very strong word and I don't think it applies here. Coercion happens when one party has no method or means of defending itself. And Penn State had both method and means to do so...the choices may have been crappy ones but the University still chose not to defend itself at that time.

coercion is the use of force or intimidation to gain compliance. it has nothing to do if a party has a mean for defending itself. I don't see how threatening a university with a multiyear suspension of its football program unless they agree to "voluntarily" agree to something under the public duress the university was under can be seen any other way. I know psu is a voluntary member of the ncaa. but we all know that's a weak argument. there are no alternatives to produce the revenue the football program generates.

[mscott59]

Sept 10, 2013 13:00:09 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

Sept 10, 2013 11:53:38 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

not fair to the students? how?? I could swear i saw highlights from Saturday's game vs e. mich. no games were cancelled... students aren't banned from attending beaver stadium. alumni? business owners? how?? no games were cancelled... those groups aren't banned either from attending games or selling stuff in/around the stadium. ex-lettermen? how?? no games were cancelled. current players/staff? hmm. curious you put them last on the list... because they're the first groups I agree w/you. the sins of those in authority should not affect them.

mark scott
tosu 81

i'm not sure how to explain how crippling one of the universities greatest asset's while blaming "hero worship" and the "university culture" is harmful to students, alumni and all fans.

Sigh. Ihs, i feel sorry for you. The football experience has not been taken away from students, alums, former players, vendors. You really need to take a breath here. The stadium was still there, games were still played last year. If students and other fans chose to stay away instead of attending, or supporting their school, now you say the NCAA is to blame for that too??? Again, sigh.

Mark Scott
Tosu 81