FC: At Penn State, the struggle over Paterno's legacy continues
- Thread starter mn78psu83
- Start date
Both parts of your first sentence are critical: arm yourself with facts, don't just express your opinion; speak to people politely and avoid heated arguments at all costs.
I've had both success and failure when I've been asked for my opinion from people who discover I'm a PSU fan (I live near Baltimore). Those who are really interested will listen to a calm explanation as long as I distinguish between what I know to be true, what I'm speculating on and what is purely my opinion.
People who want to argue because they already dislike PSU and Joe will argue no matter what I say or how I say it. I tell them so and then move on. I refuse to ruin my day with that kind of nonsense.
Likewise, posters like Osprey Lion end up, alongside that other paragon of a poser Michnittlion, on the ignored list.
Actually, Aoshiro, I think you're pretty close to it. I've often thought Joe's "With the benefit of hindsight" statement was a lot like the reflections of people who have lost a friend or loved one to suicide and then see the clues in context that they did not recognize at the time. I believe Joe realized, once Sandusky's perversity was illuminated, that he was inattentive to an opportunity to correct the University's negligence.
No question, Joe initially did the right thing, in terms of University HR protocol at the time and procedures for reporting of CSA even today. However, Joe possessed the effective authority to call Schultz or Spanier and ask whether the University was taking any action after weeks and months had passed following McQueary's conversation with Curley and Schultz. Is Joe obligated to do so? No. Would such a phone call have risked interfering in an active investigation? Technically, yes. Wouldn't it have been great if Joe had made such a call and had been told, "Butt out, Joe, an investigation is under way and you must keep your distance from it." But there was no investigation and therefore no risk of legal interference.
Given what McQueary and Paterno have both reported on the record, there should have at least been an investigation of McQueary's report. I think Joe recognized that he could have asked some pointed questions in 2001 about why nothing was apparently being done and perhaps stimulated some University action. Joe was focused on rebuilding his program at the time and just missed it. It wasn't conspiratorial, it wasn't a lack of courage or moral probity, it was just an oversight. It was a mistake. In the big picture of this tragedy, it was a relatively small mistake, but one which I believe Joe recognized in hindsight.
Last edited:
Sorry a little late to this party.
Suffice to say that there is a difference of opinion. Suffice to say that, when the story hit the streets, the sheer magnitude of the allegations, and Jerry's (former) position as a member of the football staff, coupled with false assumptions about Joe's level of authority and power, led, in part to his dismissal. Add to that some relatively specious actions on the part of the Board of Trustees during the 9 months that followed, including, but not limited to, the Freeh Report - which may have good findings, but clearly does not substantiate the position of the BoT with respect to Joe and his family, and the NCAA and their actions.
But, the question on the table is Joe's legacy. Legacy means different things to different people, and in my opinion, Joe's legacy is not one of wins and losses. It is, and I believe will be demonstrated through the legal system, of doing the right thing at the right time. Further, as demonstrated by the young Mr. Mauti and Mr. Zordich, it is standing up for what you believe in, even if everyone else thinks you are wrong. And, I stand by Joe Paterno for that reason -and until someone provides unimpeachable evidence to the contrary - evidence, mind you, not speculation or assumptive reasoning - I will continue to stand by Joe Paterno.
As far as his influence on Penn State, I would like someone to provide evidence that Penn State is worse off now (or in Nov 2011), than before Joe Paterno got here. If you cannot provide me this evidence, then I will have to assume you are making additional speculative arguments that simply do not hold water.
And, MichnittLion, or whatever name you choose to you - you commented Joe got us on probation. No - not true. The actions by the NCAA, as evidenced by the legal efforts of local representatives, were not based on evidence that Joe did anything against the law, or any shred of NCAA rules. The actions by the NCAA were a heavy handed attempt to cull favor with a public, through the media, that had lost confidence in the way the NCAA handled issues with their member institutions.
By the way - if you have one internet message name, does that mean you have several internet message names?
Suffice to say that there is a difference of opinion. Suffice to say that, when the story hit the streets, the sheer magnitude of the allegations, and Jerry's (former) position as a member of the football staff, coupled with false assumptions about Joe's level of authority and power, led, in part to his dismissal. Add to that some relatively specious actions on the part of the Board of Trustees during the 9 months that followed, including, but not limited to, the Freeh Report - which may have good findings, but clearly does not substantiate the position of the BoT with respect to Joe and his family, and the NCAA and their actions.
But, the question on the table is Joe's legacy. Legacy means different things to different people, and in my opinion, Joe's legacy is not one of wins and losses. It is, and I believe will be demonstrated through the legal system, of doing the right thing at the right time. Further, as demonstrated by the young Mr. Mauti and Mr. Zordich, it is standing up for what you believe in, even if everyone else thinks you are wrong. And, I stand by Joe Paterno for that reason -and until someone provides unimpeachable evidence to the contrary - evidence, mind you, not speculation or assumptive reasoning - I will continue to stand by Joe Paterno.
As far as his influence on Penn State, I would like someone to provide evidence that Penn State is worse off now (or in Nov 2011), than before Joe Paterno got here. If you cannot provide me this evidence, then I will have to assume you are making additional speculative arguments that simply do not hold water.
And, MichnittLion, or whatever name you choose to you - you commented Joe got us on probation. No - not true. The actions by the NCAA, as evidenced by the legal efforts of local representatives, were not based on evidence that Joe did anything against the law, or any shred of NCAA rules. The actions by the NCAA were a heavy handed attempt to cull favor with a public, through the media, that had lost confidence in the way the NCAA handled issues with their member institutions.
By the way - if you have one internet message name, does that mean you have several internet message names?
Paterno wasn't "inattentive." He did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do with the information that he had at the time. All the rest is bullshit 20-20 hindsight, which is completely unfair and irrational. It's bullshit to call it a "mistake."
Your argument only holds water if McQueary went back to Paterno and told him that he was concerned that his report wasn't taken seriously. But McQueary never did that.
And go to the test board to see how civil he is with people with whom he disagrees.......just be prepared to be called a racist.
-------
Um, what? If you have (say) stomach pain, they do tests and rule out cancer and then diagnose you with (say) acid reflux, then when you have the same symptoms 3 years later you're likely to just assume it's acid reflux again. And most doctors would assume that as well if you'd already gotten the million dollar work up.
If you came back with some new or different symptoms, that might prompt a work up. But the same symptoms would naturally be assumed to be the same disease.
Evan - sounds like the perfect response in your book would require a moment of imperfection from Joe (e.g., violating policy and procedure with continued oversight after reporting up).
Of course its ancient history to these students. Some of them were only 13 and 14 when the JS scandal broke.
And if it was cancer and you sent the patient home; notify your professional liability carrier.
How is it that some people, four years later, are still so stupid with respect to Joe and this situation?
Why? If a patient sued in that situation, they wouldn't win unless the doctor misdiagnosed something the first time around. If their initial evaluation was done properly and they had a reasonable diagnosis, there would be no reason to repeat tests for the same symptoms. Malpractice lawsuits win when a physician does something wrong, not makes a reasonable assessment based on available information.
There's no reason a recurrence of the same symptoms would trigger a new workup. Again if you are talking about new/different symptoms, it's a different story.
Now, if you are suggesting that the patient had cancer at the time of the first visit but it was improperly missed at that time, then that is a different story. But your anecdote seems to imply that the situation was handled correctly at the onset of symptoms.
There were no allegations. Nobody ever accused Jerry of any sexual wrongdoing in 1998.
Well, in fairness, some of them are just liars.
When has the prosecution presented any evidence that 2001 was not reported appropriately?
Are you drinking?
Doctornick
" If their initial evaluation was done properly and they had a reasonable diagnosis, there would be no reason to repeat tests for the same symptoms. Malpractice lawsuits win when a physician does something wrong, not makes a reasonable assessment based on available information. "
No reason to repeat the tests 3 years later? How about 5 years, 10 years. 20 years?
How about the possibility that the initial workup missed something; or are all tests 100% perfect?
Like I said; notify your carrier. We just disagree on this one and I hope it never happens to you.
As has been discussed here before, the prosecution's dilemma is that reports that are deemed to be unfounded after 30 days are expunged. At most, evidence will surface that the 2001 incident was reported if the report was not expunged or all defendants will claim that it was not reported (Schultz previously stated that he believed it was reported). The prosecution will not be able to prove that it was not reported given that a report could have been expunged.
Again, since you didn't get it the first time, you assume facts not in evidence.
The prosecution hasn't proven that it wasn't reported.
I don't believe Joe did anything wrong involving Sandusky in 2001. However, in my mind, he ruined his legacy by selfishly continuing to coach until he was 85 at the expense of the program. Back to Jerry, this whole scandal revolves around the McQuery/shower incident in 2001 and that was 14 freaking years ago. We're still arguing over the various roles people played at that time and it's becoming more and more meaningless. Joe is gone and it's been 4 years since C/S/S were charged and it doesn't look like a trial will ever happen.
Here is what has become a faded memory:
That brief period of time a year or so ago when MichNittWit tried to fit that thinking cap on......but it just wouldn't take.
Remember that time?
Now:
Then you must have had a very low opinion of Paterno in the first place if his continuing to coach past the point that you feel he should have retired was enough to ruin (your word) his legacy in your mind. Just a reminder, at the time he was fired, PSU was 8-1, in first place in their B1G division, and had a top 10 recruiting class lined up to sign come February. Yep, the program was in shambles!!
Sorry, but I think you are being ridiculous, especially with respect to the part in bold. Joe's legacy is mostly wrapped up in the sandusky matter at present, and unfortunately, many outside Penn State still feel he looked the other way callously or covered it up. Most people looking only at Joe's football legacy see 409, the most bowl wins all-time, a slew of both football and academic All-Americans, and high graduation rates. Few dwell on the notion that he was selfish and stayed too long. That is not Joe's legacy.
I hate how Joe selfishly led the team to a 51-13 record from 2005-2009 (with 2 legitimate shots at a national title and 4 bowl wins) while graduating players at a higher rate than most college football programs with ZERO NCAA violations.
I've had that happen a couple of times in the context of "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."
That line always makes me think of Gilligan's Island
My initial post took issue with your position that the University should have emphasized to the public that the '98 investigation led to no criminal charges being filed. All I intended to convey was that within the parameters of the fact scenario as reported to the public, to emphasize your point may have made matters worse due to the knowledge of the 98 investigation.
There are facts on the record record to support the allegation that the 2001 incident was not reported. Neither Schultz or Curley testified with any certainty that the matter was reported; which of course is consistent with their testimony that they were only told there had been horseplay which is hardly the subject of reporting. Other than Schultz's throw away reference that he thought they may have been reported, there are no facts to support the alternative. Are these facts sufficient to get a conviction; I don't know, but that wasn't the subject of the posts.
In the context of the initial post/reply, what relevance does the 1998 investigation have if in fact the 2001 matter had been reported? I think the clear answer is none.
Yes, that's right.
Do people remember that ESPN, of all media sources, had a special show with Joe Paterno and Coach K on in the summer of 2011?
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205157983
"Hosted by ESPN college football and basketball studio and game host Rece Davis, the show will explore topics such as coaching, ethics, integrity, friendship, legacy, pressures and issues associated with intercollegiate athletics, working with student-athletes, and more. Also, the special will examine each coach's roots and the importance of family throughout their lives.
"These leaders have achieved an extraordinary level of success, but their biggest accomplishments are the lessons they have learned along the way and the passion they have for sharing those lessons with others," said Dan Steir, ESPN senior coordinating producer. "Difference Makers will reveal the essence of both men and what motivates them to continue to impact those around them."
Just months later, Paterno's national reputation was in tatters, no small thanks to the unbalanced coverage by that same ESPN.
Most folks in these parts think Paterno covered things up to protect football. What I've done to counter this is give examples where he didn't cover things up to protect his program--examples being Curtis Enis and his suit from an agent and Jurevicus' loss of academic eligibility. Most folks have heard of both these players, as Enis was a former Mr. Football in Ohio and JJ played for the Browns. So I ask, if Joe handled those cases by immediately suspending the player, why would he not have handled Sandusky in the same way?
The important thing is contained in the title of this thread. It is "At Penn State". The rest of the world doesn't care about Paterno or his legacy.
His future legacy will be the same as it is today. So no matter how many threads are dedicated to this topic, how many letters to the editor are written
or how many members of the BOT leave nothing else is going to change. Those of you that continue to obsess over Paterno's legacy can keep fighting
the good fight. But in 5 or 10 years when nothing has changed, you can reflect on my thoughts.
His future legacy will be the same as it is today. So no matter how many threads are dedicated to this topic, how many letters to the editor are written
or how many members of the BOT leave nothing else is going to change. Those of you that continue to obsess over Paterno's legacy can keep fighting
the good fight. But in 5 or 10 years when nothing has changed, you can reflect on my thoughts.
The people who allege a cover-up to protect football can never explain how exactly football would have been hurt if a retired assistant coach had been revealed as a pedophile. When confronted with this lack of motive, then they back pedal and claim that Spanier et al should have connected the dots. So various experts on child welfare were unable to connect the dots but an ancient football coach and three university administrators should have been able to do so? Hogwash.
I doubt it! Hopefully the truth will eventually come out and maybe you'll have to eat your words. I guess we'll see.
The question many people have is why was there no investigation into McQuery's allegations. Someone dropped the ball and most here seem to think it was the BOT rather
than those that were told about Sandusky's shower activities. And those included "an ancient football coach and three university administrators".
We have been waiting for that elusive truth for almost 4 years. Don't hold your breath.
We've already seen a change in scholarship numbers restored, wins restored, bowl eligibility, etc. You don't seem to acknowledge those results or credit the fight so far.
Those who believe the University and Joe Paterno have been unfairly smeared will continue to work. If you don't like it, tough.
If the endeavor is never undertaken, nothing will change and the liars will have won. Those who will continue to fight for the truth to be revealed, will succeed eventually.
Those, like you, who don't care that a very good man's reputation has been demeaned after giving 62 years of service-in-excellence to the University. That service has included a dedication to and giving to the University, bringing up responsible adults, and never had an NCAA violation while bringing pride to the School.
I will "reflect" on what you have stated right now and then forget it. The World is full of people like you who will demean those who fight to correct wrongs. Note that I don't care that you will do nothing to insure justice; I just don't understand why you would write a post essentially criticizing those who fight to correct wrongs.
Last edited:
Perhaps someday you are going to be second-guessed on a decision that you made -- in good faith -- based on the information that you HAD AT THE TIME.
Perhaps you will be condemned by people who think that you should have acted differently based on information that CAME OUT LATER.
Perhaps you will even be fired.
If that happens, you will richly deserve it.
