You may find this amazing but does ESPN have a double standard going

[cronk]

Regarding Brady vs how they handled the Joepa story...

@MikeAndMike: “If you’re going to destroy the legacy of one of the greatest players ever, I need more than 'probably.” -@Espngreeny http://t.co/drqyT0MSdR

I know, I know, you are all shocked by this as well...

 

[bjf1984]

Regarding Brady vs how they handled the Joepa story...

@MikeAndMike: “If you’re going to destroy the legacy of one of the greatest players ever, I need more than 'probably.” -@Espngreeny http://t.co/drqyT0MSdR

I know, I know, you are all shocked by this as well...

Shame on you Cronk.....rookie mistake on your part. Listening to that Cheeseburger Inhaler and his Sissy Sidekick should put you in the penalty box for at least a double-minor.

;-)

 

[cronk]

Shame on you Cronk.....rookie mistake on your part. Listening to that Cheeseburger Inhaler and his Sissy Sidekick should put you in the penalty box for at least a double-minor.

;-)

Oh I didn't listen, Scott Paterno just RT'd it...

 

[psuro]

I heard Golics freebases Pizza Hut meat lovers pie.

 

[Howie'81]

Regarding Brady vs how they handled the Joepa story...

@MikeAndMike: “If you’re going to destroy the legacy of one of the greatest players ever, I need more than 'probably.” -@Espngreeny http://t.co/drqyT0MSdR

I know, I know, you are all shocked by this as well...

I stopped listening to both of them. They are too ignorant for words.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Hey, what if it was your football?

 

[demlion]

Regarding Brady vs how they handled the Joepa story...

@MikeAndMike: “If you’re going to destroy the legacy of one of the greatest players ever, I need more than 'probably.” -@Espngreeny http://t.co/drqyT0MSdR

I know, I know, you are all shocked by this as well...

Green and Golic are probably liars, so it is no wonder they find this insufficient as a criticism.

 

[KPG55]

Many reasons to dislike ESPN and M&M, not the least of which Colic is the modern equivalent of Fred Flintstone. But these are far different stories. When everyone jumped on the fire Paterno bandwagon there was a best case /worst case scenario. Best case was no direct involvement by Paterno but "he should have done more" (Joe's words) to avoid letting Sandusky loose. That turned out to be the truth as best we can tell. Worst case scenario was the Freeh scenario but worse. Add in Paterno's crustiness to the press, no surprise the jackals picked the worst case.

To the Paterno naysayers today that say even in the best case scenario that someone needed to go the extra mile to stop this and put in on Paterno, can't say that they are wrong. What percentage do I put on Joe Pa's legacy regardless of this "mistake", 99% as a man and leader. And to hold Paterno to a 100% infallibility standard while these sleazebags jump on each others bones and invent stories to raise ratings, only insurance companies and lawyers may scrape the barrel any lower.

I happen to agree on the probability litmus test on this one.

 

[wrm125]

Hope someone points out the double standard there. Just read all of the texts. The evidence against Brady is far more damning than any evidence against Joe...

 

[NittanyAmerica]

IBTL

N i t t a n y A m e r i c a

 

[KC-KS-Lion]

What a waste of Notre Dame and Northwestern educations. At least Greenie's parents probably paid for his.

As an aside, George Mitchell was interviewed on NPR promoting his recent book. I was waiting for mention of his role as Penn State athletic integrity monitor. Maybe it was too hard to justify, even for George.

 

[colt21]

Many reasons to dislike ESPN and M&M, not the least of which Colic is the modern equivalent of Fred Flintstone. But these are far different stories. When everyone jumped on the fire Paterno bandwagon there was a best case /worst case scenario. Best case was no direct involvement by Paterno but "he should have done more" (Joe's words) to avoid letting Sandusky loose. That turned out to be the truth as best we can tell. Worst case scenario was the Freeh scenario but worse. Add in Paterno's crustiness to the press, no surprise the jackals picked the worst case.

To the Paterno naysayers today that say even in the best case scenario that someone needed to go the extra mile to stop this and put in on Paterno, can't say that they are wrong. What percentage do I put on Joe Pa's legacy regardless of this "mistake", 99% as a man and leader. And to hold Paterno to a 100% infallibility standard while these sleazebags jump on each others bones and invent stories to raise ratings, only insurance companies and lawyers may scrape the barrel any lower.

I happen to agree on the probability litmus test on this one.

Best case was no direct involvement by Paterno but "he should have done more" (Joe's words) to avoid letting Sandusky loose. That turned out to be the truth as best we can tell.

Good points but disagree with this statement. Best case scenario was not "he should have done more".....from a Child Welfare and Child Protective Services Law perspective he did exactly what he should have.

What he said was 'paraphrasing' - he wished he had done more -- that is a whole different connotation

 

[BobPSU92]

Many reasons to dislike ESPN and M&M, not the least of which Colic is the modern equivalent of Fred Flintstone. But these are far different stories. When everyone jumped on the fire Paterno bandwagon there was a best case /worst case scenario. Best case was no direct involvement by Paterno but "he should have done more" (Joe's words) to avoid letting Sandusky loose. That turned out to be the truth as best we can tell. Worst case scenario was the Freeh scenario but worse. Add in Paterno's crustiness to the press, no surprise the jackals picked the worst case.

To the Paterno naysayers today that say even in the best case scenario that someone needed to go the extra mile to stop this and put in on Paterno, can't say that they are wrong. What percentage do I put on Joe Pa's legacy regardless of this "mistake", 99% as a man and leader. And to hold Paterno to a 100% infallibility standard while these sleazebags jump on each others bones and invent stories to raise ratings, only insurance companies and lawyers may scrape the barrel any lower.

I happen to agree on the probability litmus test on this one.

Joe's exact words in 2011 with respect to the 2001 incident were, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Joe never said he should have done more. If you wish to have credibility on this topic, you must get Joe's quote correct and understand its meaning.

 

[PSU-Knocker]

Joe's exact words in 2011 with respect to the 2001 incident were, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Joe never said he should have done more. If you wish to have credibility on this topic, you must get Joe's quote correct and understand its meaning.

No, that would destroy the myth. Yes, I'm sarcastic.

 

[Howie'81]

Many reasons to dislike ESPN and M&M, not the least of which Colic is the modern equivalent of Fred Flintstone. But these are far different stories. When everyone jumped on the fire Paterno bandwagon there was a best case /worst case scenario. Best case was no direct involvement by Paterno but "he should have done more" (Joe's words) to avoid letting Sandusky loose. That turned out to be the truth as best we can tell. Worst case scenario was the Freeh scenario but worse. Add in Paterno's crustiness to the press, no surprise the jackals picked the worst case.

To the Paterno naysayers today that say even in the best case scenario that someone needed to go the extra mile to stop this and put in on Paterno, can't say that they are wrong. What percentage do I put on Joe Pa's legacy regardless of this "mistake", 99% as a man and leader. And to hold Paterno to a 100% infallibility standard while these sleazebags jump on each others bones and invent stories to raise ratings, only insurance companies and lawyers may scrape the barrel any lower.

I happen to agree on the probability litmus test on this one.

I don't buy your premise for the best case scenario. If Paterno had no direct involvement, why should he have done more? I don't agree with that at all. As to his own statement about doing more, I think any sane person would have said the same given the information available when Paterno said it. This wasn't Paterno's ball to run with, especially if, as I suspect, he was dealing with very limited and uncorroborated information, at least in the McQueary part of the case.

 

[Zenophile]

I heard Golics freebases Pizza Hut meat lovers pie.

... Were there words in this post?

 

[Zenophile]

. To the Paterno naysayers today that say even in the best case scenario that someone needed to go the extra mile to stop this and put in on Paterno, can't say that they are wrong. \.

Yes, you can. And in fact they -- and you -- are wrong in this matter.

We have laws/polices/rules that compell witnesses to make reports like these to trained professionals in this field, and we do so because you, they and Joe aren't qualified to "do more".

 

[NewEra 2014]

I believe the NFL is waiting a couple of days after this report hits in order to gauge public opinion before deciding punishment. My sense of public opinion is that momentum is building to hand down a significant punishment to Brady--4 to 8 games, with no punishment for BB or Kraft.

 

[OKC Nittany]

. Best case was no direct involvement by Paterno but "he should have done more" (Joe's words) to avoid letting Sandusky loose. That turned out to be the truth as best we can tell.

I know it's been pointed out that this is not even close to Joe's quote, but since so many have gotten it so wrong for so long, I'm pointing it out again. Joe's exact words were, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." We shouldn't have to point out how that's different, but apparently there are still a ton of people unwilling to accept that Joe is one of the few people in this whole disgusting mess that did what they were supposed to do.

As for Brady, it sure looks like he's a cheater, but it should be no surprise this half-hearted investigation, brought on by a commissioner too corrupt for the WWE, is short on actual proof. Had Goodell dealt with the cheating properly the first time (instead of destroying the evidence), the league might have some credibility going forward. As it stands, we have no reason to trust anything we've seen throughout the reign of Goodell (and going back Lord only knows how long). If there is proof of Brady or the coach's involvement, it is reasonable to conclude Goodell would have it destroyed.

 

[Zenophile]

The "Joe should have done more!" crowd is a source of nearly limitless amusement to me, due (in no small order) to the fact that these people 1) completely ignore the "with the benefit of hindsight" qualifier, and 2) have themselves actually succumbed to the Hindsight Bias.