Four years to the day of the JoePa beheading. How's that working out for us?

[waltsrug]

4 years huh? I miss him.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

http://onwardstate.com/2015/01/19/board-chairman-still-thinks-paterno-wasnt-fired/ for Masshole's testimony

“The decision to remove Coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn’t done. It was based upon the distraction of having him on the sidelines would have caused the university and the current football team harm. It had nothing to do with what Coach Paterno had done, or hadn’t done.”

Here is what you said in your previous post: "Except the problem is that Masshole and Frazier later testified that they fired him solely for public relations reasons"

I don't see anywhere in the testimony you now linked/quoted where it was said that JVP was fired "solely for public relations reasons". Thank you for providing the proof that you lied.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

The Board articulated three key reasons for removing JVP from his coaching position:

1) His failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002.
2) His questioning of the board’s authority in the days following Jerry's arrest.
3) What they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program.

From an institutional perspective, I believe the Board made the right decision to remove him from the job. To not have done so would have only further damaged the reputation of a university that prided itself on being a cut above most others.

No surprise here. You hated JoePa and wanted him gone for years.The man had more class and intelligence in his small finger than you do in your entire being.

We Are... Because He Was!

 

[PSUSignore]

Not really. If the University leadership had done the expedient thing and shifted blame far away from Paterno/football and directed it at "some administrators who maintain their innocence", then they would have avoided the vast majority of public scrutiny or caring. Paterno was the center of the media firestorm because no one from PSU has the sense to defend him vehemently from the start -- which would have been reasonable since he wasn't charged with anything and was a witness for the prosecution -- and put the attention/blame on the faceless administrators.

This would have been just as ignorant, but may have gotten less attention because C/S/S's names don't sell papers and generate media buzz. Pinning the blame on them to redirect it from football absolutely was not the approach to take either. For one, then the media narrative may have been that the BOT is going "all in" to protect the football team. That would have been disastrous.

Secondly, C/S/S deserved the exact same benefit of the doubt that Joe did that night in November, it's not fair to pin anything on them at that point. All of these parties are innocent until proven guilty. To date, not one of them have been proven guilty of anything. All have/had outstanding reputations, aside from Schultz who I think was largely unknown prior to this.

I still don't understand that response in November, and I never will. The simplest solution to me seems to be the most reasonable...

Within 24-48 hours of the story breaking, the BOT should have held their press conference, suspending all 4 named parties immediately, pending an investigation and patience for the the legal process to run its course. Exactly how any internal investigation would be done would be determined since it probably isn't realistic to have that ready in 1-2 days. The BOT could have outlined their plan to meet extensively to develop a plan for an internal investigation, and offer up a subsequent press conference when the details were ironed out in a few days time to share that plan publicly. They also should have pledged their complete support for the victims and with the legal process, promising full cooperation every step of the way. Finally they should have included a carefully crafted statement that softly mentioned the upstanding historical reputation of the university (and maybe even the 4 individuals), encouraging patience to wait for the facts despite an obviously emotional issue, and also stating that if any wrongdoing is found it will be dealt with appropriately and without hesitation, be it through the legal process or other means from the internal investigation. This is to point out that while the university has a reputation of good behavior and doesn't want to be hasty in jumping to any conclusions, any evidence of wrongdoing will not be tolerated in any way.

I don't see why that would have been so difficult, one simple paragraph, very carefully worded. I think that's what Spanier tried to do with his statement, however his "unconditional support" phrasing for Curley and Schultz was too strongly worded, and got him in hot water. Instead a softer approach indicating there was no evidence at this time as to what happened, and that all parties need to be treated fairly until evidence is gathered, would have been better.

 

[EPC FAN]

Here is my opinion on that specific narrow timeframe, and I know that others on here have a much better perspective and can probably blow up some of my 'theories'.... there had to be a large amount of confusion around why the BOT did not get in front of this the previous weekend, and the Paternos continued to try to reach out to the BOT members they knew and felt they had a good relationship with - trust, respect and friendship aspects included (this from the Paterno book). The BOT was circling the tree of stupidity trying to figure out what to do and who wanted to take the reins, as by this time Garban was probably saying 'hey guys... we knew this was gonna be a problem and let's do something. What do you mean 'no'?'. The Paternos most likely could not have known that the Gov was in the loop as to what actions were being planned that had political motivations behind them. They could not have anticipated that the Vioxx model would be used for handling the crisis, rather than a well-thought-out and logical plan that didn't include burning the school to the ground. Just as I will always believe Curley et. al. truly did not know what they were dealing with wrt Sandusky, I don't believe the Paternos knew what they were dealing with wrt the lengths Surma would go, along with the Gov. People tend to believe that others will act as they themselves would act in a given situation. Therefore, I think the Paternos believed that others would react with a logical, calm, rational, moral and ethical approach. When that expected reaction did not occur, even with decades-long friendships, they had to scramble to figure out what to do. They got some family advice, which may have included a 'sit tight for now until we get more info' approach, and then by the weekend Joe was hospitalized. Now it's a huge firestorm, and people were misusing Joe's "with the benefit of hindsight" quote to serve a media purpose rather than the intended one. And the weak BOT nonleaders were misusing his 'I'll step aside at the end of this season' quote to play their own victim card. This is where they should have done the right thing and talk to Joe - the best goodwill asset a university could have. Use him to help quell the firestorm rather than to stoke it.

Joe needed a war time consigliere. He needed George, not George Scott.

 

[Lisa1994]

I don't know if I'm feeding the trolls, but I'm someone who thought Joe could finish the season. It would have required a vastly different response to the scandal than the BOT chose, but it isn't hard to imagine. Joe wasn't charged. He cooperated. He reported it even. They had choices in the way to respond. But the BOT had a nefarious agenda. And here we are today...waiting for anyone employed by PSU in 2001 to be guilty of anything.

 

[Lisa1994]

Let me also add, the brilliant choice to fire both Spanier and Joe created the vacuum of leadership in the University's greatest time of need and that still exists to this day. This university hasn't recovered.

 

[rmb297]

Public sentiment? The general public has long since moved on from this mess. Why do you think that these "Epic" discoveries made by bloggers don't get national media coverage? Because it will not sell papers or generate clicks. The majority of people don't live their lives day to day based on this saga. They don't view Joe's fate as a "public beheading" but more as a university firing the head football coach, something that occurs quite frequently.

The public believed that drunken Liverpool hooligans caused the Hillsborough soccer disaster. The Liverpooll community knew it was BS -- all put forward by the police to cover for its own failures to control the crowd.

23 years later, the city of Liverpool was vindicated.

We will continue fighting for the truth if it takes 23 years or 43 years.

I'm not concerned with the public because the public has no idea what the facts are.

The public believed that Richard Jewell was the Olympic Park bomber because the media told them.

The public believed that the Duke Lacrosse team raped a stripper because the media told them.

The public believed that a gang rape occurred at UVa Phi Psi because the media told them.

The media isn't interested in the truth...not when lies make a better story.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

The Greatest of all time

 

[rmb297]

The Board articulated three key reasons for removing JVP from his coaching position:

1) His failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002.
2) His questioning of the board’s authority in the days following Jerry's arrest.
3) What they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program.

From an institutional perspective, I believe the Board made the right decision to remove him from the job. To not have done so would have only further damaged the reputation of a university that prided itself on being a cut above most others.

The Board did more damage to PSU's reputation than Sandusky did.

Reason #1 is nonsense. A football coach is supposed to "do more" than his bosses? On what planet?

Reason #2 is nonsense. Paterno didn't question the Board's authority. He correctly suggested that the Board's focus should be on more important things than football. Say, like protecting the reputation of the University by calling out the patently false statements in the grand jury presentment AND, perhaps actually stating that PSU officials went above their legal responsibility in responding to the 2001 incident.

Reason #3 was a situation created by the Board's decision to let the media control the narrative.

 

[doctornick]

This would have been just as ignorant, but may have gotten less attention because C/S/S's names don't sell papers and generate media buzz. Pinning the blame on them to redirect it from football absolutely was not the approach to take either. For one, then the media narrative may have been that the BOT is going "all in" to protect the football team. That would have been disastrous.

Secondly, C/S/S deserved the exact same benefit of the doubt that Joe did that night in November, it's not fair to pin anything on them at that point. All of these parties are innocent until proven guilty. To date, not one of them have been proven guilty of anything. All have/had outstanding reputations, aside from Schultz who I think was largely unknown prior to this.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that PSU should have accepted blame for C/S or implied/accepted they were guilty. I'm saying that the university should have put any attention on them because they were the ones who were indicted, while pointing out that they maintain their innocence and deserve their due process.

But when every any question about Paterno or the football team came up, they should have quickly and firmly pointed out that Paterno was not implicated and was a witness for the prosecution and there was no indication of any wrongdoing related to the football program. They needed to deflect any attention away from the situation that would draw media attention and have it be focused on Curley and Schultz, who -- because no one really cared about them -- would get their fair day in court and in the public eye. Well, at least in theory, but the delays in that case are an issue for another day.

Doing that would have been the right thing to do in addition to the PR friendly thing. Culey and Schultz certainly deserved (and continue to deserve) proper due process, but any media scrutiny should have been focused on the people who actually, y'know, were indicted.

 

[rmb297]

This November 6th, 2011 statement by JVP was largely ignored, however, it revealed three important things -- that probably should have been written in more concise language.

1. JVP was not told of a rape or given any graphic details by McQueary
2. JVP believed in due process and that Sandusky was innocent until proven guilty.
3. Child protective services and The Second Mile showed no cause for concern over reports of Sandusky showering with a child in 1998 and 2001.

Statement follows (my emphasis added)

"If true, the nature and amount of charges made are very shocking to me and all Penn Staters. While I did what I was supposed to with the one charge brought to my attention, like anyone else involved I can't help but be deeply saddened these matters are alleged to have occurred.

"Sue and I have devoted our lives to helping young people reach their potential. The fact that someone we thought we knew might have harmed young people to this extent is deeply troubling. If this is true we were all fooled, along with scores of professionals trained in such things, and we grieve for the victims and their families.

They are in our prayers.

"As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators.

"I understand that people are upset and angry, but let's be fair and let the legal process unfold. In the meantime I would ask all Penn Staters to continue to trust in what that name represents, continue to pursue their lives every day with high ideals and not let these events shake their beliefs nor who they are."

<end statement>

Too bad the Board didn't heed Joe's advice and let the legal process play out.

 

[doctornick]

I don't know if I'm feeding the trolls, but I'm someone who thought Joe could finish the season.

If the BoTs had properly reacted in the first 24-48 hours of the scandal, I think he reasonably would have been able to finish the season. By the time mid-week rolled around, I think he did need to be removed because they let the fires burn uncontested and there was a media shitstorm; though the obvious correct move at that point was a suspension while doing an internal investigation while emphasizing that Paterno was not charged or under investigation for any wrongdoing and was a cooperative witness for the prosecution.

 

[rmb297]

If the BoTs had properly reacted in the first 24-48 hours of the scandal, I think he reasonably would have been able to finish the season. By the time mid-week rolled around, I think he did need to be removed because they let the fires burn uncontested and there was a media shitstorm; though the obvious correct move at that point was a suspension while doing an internal investigation while emphasizing that Paterno was not charged or under investigation for any wrongdoing and was a cooperative witness for the prosecution.

Here's what happened
1. Spanier correctly reacted to the scandal in the first 24 hours by stating the charges were groundless and that Curley and Schultz had done nothing wrong.

2. Surma and his henchmen then called the BOT together to craft a second statement. From the notes of the meeting, Spanier and Garban put together the new statement and released it.

3. Surma and his henchmen then informed Spanier the statement wasn't reflective of the Board's discussion and told Spanier he could no longer communicate with the press. Surma gave the same directive to PSU media relations, informing them not even a "tweet" could go out without his permission. In short, Surma allowed the media to take control of the narrative.

4. On November 9th, Surma did as he had planned to do since he joined the BOT in 2007 -- fire Paterno. Spanier wasn't part of Surma's plan, until Corbett came along and made it possible to take both men out in one shot.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Here is what you said in your previous post: "Except the problem is that Masshole and Frazier later testified that they fired him solely for public relations reasons"

I don't see anywhere in the testimony you now linked/quoted where it was said that JVP was fired "solely for public relations reasons". Thank you for providing the proof that you lied.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

The Board articulated three key reasons for removing JVP from his coaching position:

1) His failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002.
2) His questioning of the board’s authority in the days following Jerry's arrest.
3) What they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program.

From an institutional perspective, I believe the Board made the right decision to remove him from the job. To not have done so would have only further damaged the reputation of a university that prided itself on being a cut above most others.

 

[Aoshiro]

If the BoTs had properly reacted in the first 24-48 hours of the scandal, I think he reasonably would have been able to finish the season. By the time mid-week rolled around, I think he did need to be removed because they let the fires burn uncontested and there was a media shitstorm; though the obvious correct move at that point was a suspension while doing an internal investigation while emphasizing that Paterno was not charged or under investigation for any wrongdoing and was a cooperative witness for the prosecution.

They did a lot more than that. At least a few of them were actively feeding the fire.

 

[Fizz1]

Add to that the comments of Noonan

Then PA Commissioner of State Police, High Noonan fired off attacks against Joe within 48 hours of the announcement of Joe's firing. This was purely a BOT/university matter at the time. Yet he could not resist commenting even though he was not a university spokesperson. His "best defense is a good offense" tactics were telling.

 

[91Joe95]

The Board articulated three key reasons for removing JVP from his coaching position:

1) His failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002.
2) His questioning of the board’s authority in the days following Jerry's arrest.
3) What they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program.

From an institutional perspective, I believe the Board made the right decision to remove him from the job. To not have done so would have only further damaged the reputation of a university that prided itself on being a cut above most others.

Funny, not only did they not say that at the time, their depositions don't say that. Perhaps you have some erroneous information? I'd hate to call you a liar.

As far as them having pride, too funny.

 

[BobPSU92]

More arguing with a classless troll.

 

[91Joe95]

Let me also add, the brilliant choice to fire both Spanier and Joe created the vacuum of leadership in the University's greatest time of need and that still exists to this day. This university hasn't recovered.

Spanier wasn't fired. Neither was Curley or Shultz. Only Joe was fired.

 

[Marshall30]

Funny, not only did they not say that at the time, their depositions don't say that. Perhaps you have some erroneous information? I'd hate to call you a liar.

As far as them having pride, too funny.

And those 3 reasons were pure bullshit.

 

[Misder2]

Then PA Commissioner of State Police, High Noonan fired off attacks against Joe within 48 hours of the announcement of Joe's firing. This was purely a BOT/university matter at the time. Yet he could not resist commenting even though he was not a university spokesperson. His "best defense is a good offense" tactics were telling.

Noonan desperately need the focus to be on someone,something other than himself/PSP.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

My apologies for posting here.

I forgot that this place is the den of people who have lost all logical thought processes and ways of expression when it comes to anything Paterno-related.

Think you have that backwards. After all you are the one taking an emotional and irratioanal stance about a commonplace analogy used widely in our culture.

They call it character 'assasination' for a reason. You poser emotional types have attempted to turn the tables mocking people who hold due process and due diligence and turning over every stone to seek fact characterize us as the wild radical emotional types. Be careful...if you keep taking hissy fits over nothing you will will out yourself for the extremist out of control judgemental individual you are.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Think you have that backwards. After all you are the one taking an emotional and irratioanal stance about a commonplace analogy used widely in our culture.

They call it character 'assasination' for a reason. You poser emotional types have attempted to turn the tables mocking people who hold due process and due diligence and turning over every stone to seek fact characterize us as the wild radical emotional types. Be careful...if you keep taking hissy fits over nothing you will will out yourself for the extremist out of control judgemental individual you are.

LOL

The person condoning the use of the term "beheading" to describe what happened to Paterno is calling me an extremist. You are special.

Character assassination and beheading are two completely different things. Now, go back to your circle jerk.

 

[sluggo72]

The Board articulated three key reasons for removing JVP from his coaching position:

1) His failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002.
2) His questioning of the board’s authority in the days following Jerry's arrest.
3) What they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program.

From an institutional perspective, I believe the Board made the right decision to remove him from the job. To not have done so would have only further damaged the reputation of a university that prided itself on being a cut above most others.

I am shocked you believe this was the best course of action!!

 

[Zenophile]

Fallacy: "We had to fire Joe because of the firestorm in the press."

You may recall that what ultimately became a firestorm was initially a crisis situation, albeit a very manageable one. Unfortunately the crisis escalated with each passing day that Penn State did nothing to respond to the media, per the board's express direction. To illustrate what that looked like:

-Friday, November 4th -- Charges announced; Spanier responds and is immediately hamstrung by Surma.
-Saturday, November 5th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Sunday, November 6th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Monday, November 7th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Tuesday, November 8th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban (Paterno tries to conduct a PC & is hamstrung by Surma)
-Wednesday, November 9th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Wednesday, November 9th at 10:00PM -- Paterno is fired before a live national TV audience.

A media circus was left to brew from late Friday evening until the following Wednesday evening without a single response from Penn State, but it wasn't until after they terminated Joe's employment to a live national audience that the situation spiraled completely out of control.

So bearing those facts in mind, let me ask: Who is most responsible for the mess?

 

[Misder2]

Fallacy: "We had to fire Joe because of the firestorm in the press."

You may recall that what ultimately became a firestorm was initially a crisis situation, albeit a very manageable one. Unfortunately the crisis escalated with each passing day that Penn State did nothing to respond to the media, per the board's express direction. To illustrate what that looked like:

-Friday, November 4th -- Charges announced; Spanier responds and is immediately hamstrung by Surma.
-Saturday, November 5th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Sunday, November 6th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Monday, November 7th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Tuesday, November 8th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban (Paterno tries to conduct a PC & is hamstrung by Surma)
-Wednesday, November 9th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Wednesday, November 9th at 10:00PM -- Paterno is fired before a live national TV audience.

A media circus was left to brew from late Friday evening until the following Wednesday evening without a single response from Penn State, but it wasn't until after they terminated Joe's employment to a live national audience that the situation spiraled completely out of control.

So bearing those facts in mind, let me ask: Who is most responsible for the mess?

The investigation was known for a long time prior to Nov 2011. There were also 2 early warnings issued regarding the imminent indictment. The lack of preparedness was and remains inexcusable.

 

[Nittanywalt]

I continue to be saddened by Joe's firing and his untimely passing, based on his (unknown to almost everyone) ill health.

I am heartened, however, at the number of Penn Staters who have not "forgotten", and have not simply turned the page on this matter. 4 years after the fact, and, despite the quest for truth not moving to anyone's liking and expediency, Joe remains in the minds of almost all Penn Staters, his personal belief system has become our core value system, and his statement to seek the truth remains the goal.

I know there will be the usual suspects who won't agree with me and wish to mock this post - that is fine. I am sure that I can write up their rebuttals to this post for them.

But, they fight isn't over- it's only just begun.

 

[Op2]

Surma hated Paterno and wanted to destroy his legacy.

Fallacy: "We had to fire Joe because of the firestorm in the press."

You may recall that what ultimately became a firestorm was initially a crisis situation, albeit a very manageable one. Unfortunately the crisis escalated with each passing day that Penn State did nothing to respond to the media, per the board's express direction. To illustrate what that looked like:

-Friday, November 4th -- Charges announced; Spanier responds and is immediately hamstrung by Surma.
-Saturday, November 5th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Sunday, November 6th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Monday, November 7th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Tuesday, November 8th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban (Paterno tries to conduct a PC & is hamstrung by Surma)
-Wednesday, November 9th -- No Penn State response, per Surma & Garban
-Wednesday, November 9th at 10:00PM -- Paterno is fired before a live national TV audience.

A media circus was left to brew from late Friday evening until the following Wednesday evening without a single response from Penn State, but it wasn't until after they terminated Joe's employment to a live national audience that the situation spiraled completely out of control.

So bearing those facts in mind, let me ask: Who is most responsible for the mess?

And what response could the BOT have given to the press that would have prevented the firestorm? Do you think if the PSU BOT said "We take this seriously and we're looking into it" the media would have said "Oh, okay, we'll leave now, let us know when you come to a conclusion."

From the moment this story broke on Fri Nov 4 the only possible outcomes for PSU were bad and worse. I don't know if there was some way the BOT could have done something in the preceding months to soften the blow, but by Nov 4 when the story came out the game was over.

 

[91Joe95]

And what response could the BOT have given to the press that would have prevented the firestorm? Do you think if the PSU BOT said "We take this seriously and we're looking into it" the media would have said "Oh, okay, we'll leave now, let us know when you come to a conclusion."

From the moment this story broke on Fri Nov 4 the only possible outcomes for PSU were bad and worse. I don't know if there was some way the BOT could have done something in the preceding months to soften the blow, but by Nov 4 when the story came out the game was over.

That's not true.

 

[Op2]

That's not true.

I disagree. Longtime AD as well as VP indicted. Former longtime assistant coach (and a prominent one) that was still spending time in the football facilities investigated for child sex abuse. And on top of that a legendary current HC that had just broken a wins record the week before and whose holding on to the job for so long is itself a story. It would be hard to write from scratch a story that would generate more media interest.

Sandusky was at the stadium in the luxury boxes, or whatever they're called, just the Saturday before when JVP won that record breaking game! You think the media is going to just walk away from that? I don't.

 

[91Joe95]

I disagree. Longtime AD as well as VP indicted. Former longtime assistant coach (and a prominent one) that was still spending time in the football facilities investigated for child sex abuse. And on top of that a legendary current HC that had just broken a wins record the week before and whose holding on to the job for so long is itself a story. It would be hard to write from scratch a story that would generate more media interest.

Sandusky was at the stadium in the luxury boxes, or whatever they're called, just the Saturday before when JVP won that record breaking game! You think the media is going to just walk away from that? I don't.

All unknown people with the AG stating Paterno was a cooperating witness for the prosecution who followed all the laws and procedures properly. Its pretty much why SI ignored it at first.

 

[PSUSignore]

Let me also add, the brilliant choice to fire both Spanier and Joe created the vacuum of leadership in the University's greatest time of need and that still exists to this day. This university hasn't recovered.

That is one of the most ironic things in all of this for me. The 2 people likely with the best leadership skills to lead the university and the athletic department through the minefield of the scandal were probably Spanier and Paterno. The same two people the BOT seemed to target from day 1.

 

[royboy]

And what response could the BOT have given to the press that would have prevented the firestorm? Do you think if the PSU BOT said "We take this seriously and we're looking into it" the media would have said "Oh, okay, we'll leave now, let us know when you come to a conclusion."

From the moment this story broke on Fri Nov 4 the only possible outcomes for PSU were bad and worse. I don't know if there was some way the BOT could have done something in the preceding months to soften the blow, but by Nov 4 when the story came out the game was over.

The game was over? It didn't matter what John Surma and friends said and did at that point? Crisis management didn't matter? Have you read what the crisis management experts have said about this?

That may be the stupidest comment you have made. Or you just enjoy trolling here for the heck of it.

 

[Op2]

All unknown people with the AG stating Paterno was a cooperating witness for the prosecution who followed all the laws and procedures properly. Its pretty much why SI ignored it at first.

Whether JVP, or anyone else, turns out to have done right or wrong in the long run isn't the point. At the time, it's a giant story about a salacious topic involving prominent people around a famous football program with a lot of unknowns and thus the media is going to be unstoppable.

 

[Op2]

Good points. In hindsight....it would have been great for Joe to have held his own press conference after his firing, as a private citizen, clearing his role and the program. By firing him in a public and humiliating way, the BoT had freed him to take the gloves off and go rogue.

And how do you think such a press conference would have gone?

 

[WeR0206]

And what response could the BOT have given to the press that would have prevented the firestorm? Do you think if the PSU BOT said "We take this seriously and we're looking into it" the media would have said "Oh, okay, we'll leave now, let us know when you come to a conclusion."

From the moment this story broke on Fri Nov 4 the only possible outcomes for PSU were bad and worse. I don't know if there was some way the BOT could have done something in the preceding months to soften the blow, but by Nov 4 when the story came out the game was over.

Well, for starters the Board of Trustees could've reminded the press what exactly a grand jury presentment is, it's a one-sided document from the prosecution side that is not factually based and is not something that anyone should be making decisions based on.

Secondly if The Board of Trustees did any due diligence on their part they could've told the press that both 1998 and 2001 incidents were reported outside of PennState and that if there's any failure they would have to talk to those folks (TSM) down the reporting the line from them.

They also should've separated the alleged crimes of Sandusky (one man) from the school but instead they bizarrely decided to own those crimes which is the exact opposite of what they should've done and also reminded the press that the admins have still yet to have their day in court and that they're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. They also should've reminded the press that Joe Paterno was not charged with any crime's and that he was considered a cooperating witness for the prosecution.

What I listed above is basic level public relations 101 and it it's beyond me that lawyers and CEOs of companies would've decided to go completely against all of these basic tenants of crisis management. How the board responded to the emerging crisis back in November 2011 was a calculated move and it was not just mere incompetence or panic.

 

[ApexLion]

The Board articulated three key reasons for removing JVP from his coaching position:

1) His failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002.
2) His questioning of the board’s authority in the days following Jerry's arrest.
3) What they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program.

From an institutional perspective, I believe the Board made the right decision to remove him from the job. To not have done so would have only further damaged the reputation of a university that prided itself on being a cut above most others.

Incorrect on the first two as to timing and Surma's steps. Let's not rewrite history. Most of us here (except for you and a few other clumsy spinners) try not to revise or otherwise obscure the info we have to date.

No. 1 was a Lanny talking point and it was floated to his media contacts to see if it had some legs. They ran with it and it became part of the narrative.

No. 2 was so overblown that anyone paying attention could see that was an Onward State story line. No one on the board spoke to Joe. Saying the board has more important things to worry about is not questioning authority. The comments of an old man, not an insubordinate employee. One could even argue Joe had no idea he was going to be thrown under the bus when he made his comments and its more plausible he was correct -- the Board did have more important things to worry about like lawsuits. Overblown nonsense and spin.

No. 3. Misses the point and is at the heart of the fiduciary failure. To lead means you take action that both addresses a problem and puts the organization on solid footing going forward. Suspension of the employee and an objective investigation should have taken place. Instead, our idiot non-leaders served up one of their own, thinking it would satisfy the masses. Arrogance in action.

So, are we better off four years later?

Still waiting for a response.

 

[bamasota]

Good points. In hindsight....it would have been great for Joe to have held his own press conference after his firing, as a private citizen, clearing his role and the program. By firing him in a public and humiliating way, the BoT had freed him to take the gloves off and go rogue.

There was nothing to prevent him from holding a press conference. Yet this did not happen. One could make the statement that it is possible that there was nothing he could say to clear his role or the program. The fact is he made a choice to remain silent when his input would have been welcomed by the press.