NCAA Sanctions: "DP" for Penn Football, or...?

[rlc]

When a peson is depicted as in the mural, with a halo, people tend to believe those whom created and supported it agreed at some level with the sentiment. Penn State football and Joe Paterno are not holy or righteous, as depicted. To many peoples detriment, they seemed to assign their values and beliefs assuming Penn State shared these. It appears a deeper scrutiny has revealed Penn State, as represented by Paterno, Spanier and others did not share these values. They used others values as a cloak to hide their real intentions.
While the football program gets the most attention, there are other programs of Penn State which have revealed these same intentions. Penn State certainly used the same M.O. to deal with Michael Mann, Antonio Lasada, Kenneth Kyle and John Neisworth for instance, with more to lose than the current situation.
While there have been worse sex abuse cases than this, it would appear Penn State needs to get its own house in order before it goes pointing fingers at others. Otherwise it seems diversionary and an ostrich like head in the sand behavior to those "on the outside".
Maybe one day, "We are Penn State" will stand for more than self importance and self righteousness.

I'm not pointing fingers. I'm asking why is Penn State being treated differently? Why are all the 680,000+ alumni and 40,000+ students being lumped in with those who actually committed crimes or had knowledge of crimes? Saying that Penn State is culpable is like saying Catholics are culpable for the abuses committed by their priests. It is absolutely an appropriate analogy. They looked up to their leaders, they considered them above such behavior, should they be blamed for their trust and loyalty? Should it be demanded that they lose the loyalty they have to the entire organization and their fellow Catholics?

Or can we accept that they had good intentions, but they were fooled, not because of some character flaw of their own, but because of some particularly devious individuals who hid within the walls of their organization? Can we allow them to keep their faith, their relationships, and their bonds with the good guys within the organization, to sift through and pick out that is worth saving without having to lump it all into one giant trash heap?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not pointing fingers. I'm asking why is Penn State being treated differently? Why are all the 680,000+ alumni and 40,000+ students being lumped in with those who actually committed crimes or had knowledge of crimes? Saying that Penn State is culpable is like saying Catholics are culpable for the abuses committed by their priests. It is absolutely an appropriate analogy. They looked up to their leaders, they considered them above such behavior, should they be blamed for their trust and loyalty? Should it be demanded that they lose the loyalty they have to the entire organization and their fellow Catholics?

Or can we accept that they had good intentions, but they were fooled, not because of some character flaw of their own, but because of some particularly devious individuals who hid within the walls of their organization? Can we allow them to keep their faith, their relationships, and their bonds with the good guys within the organization, to sift through and pick out that is worth saving without having to lump it all into one giant trash heap?

Some of it is because you have people standing up saying "Joe did nothing wrong," when there is evidence that he did. You initially had the same thing with Sandusky. You have it with a few people with Gricar. People don't like legacy protection.

 

[rlc]

Some of it is because you have people standing up saying "Joe did nothing wrong," when there is evidence that he did. You initially had the same thing with Sandusky. You have it with a few people with Gricar. People don't like legacy protection.

I have not seen or heard anyone defend Sandusky.

I have defended, and have seen others defend, Paterno and Gricar. I do not think that is any different from other scandals. It's just part of the way we process information that does not fit in with our prior knowledge. We require a higher standard of proof than someone who has not prior knowledge and is hearing about an individual or organization for the first time.

 

[Rlaub44]

Some of it is because you have people standing up saying "Joe did nothing wrong," when there is evidence that he did. You initially had the same thing with Sandusky. You have it with a few people with Gricar. People don't like legacy protection.

I have not seen or heard anyone defend Sandusky.

I have defended, and have seen others defend, Paterno and Gricar. I do not think that is any different from other scandals. It's just part of the way we process information that does not fit in with our prior knowledge. We require a higher standard of proof than someone who has not prior knowledge and is hearing about an individual or organization for the first time.

Also, there is a middle ground, where some of us can admit that Paterno and Gricar made mistakes and had horrible lapses in judgment, but it doesn't necessarily mean they were terrible individuals.

Most of the media have determined through inference what Paterno thought and what he must have told Curley, and then generalized that to how he must always have been a hypocrite, and that even his lifestyle, generous donations and manner of inspiring young men were all a facade, covering up for the evil man they seem to believe he always was.

I understand and agree that his legacy is forever tarnished, but as rlc commented, those of us who followed PSU (and yes, Paterno) for many years tend to see this action as the anomaly, not the entirety of who he was.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I have not seen or heard anyone defend Sandusky.

I have defended, and have seen others defend, Paterno and Gricar. I do not think that is any different from other scandals. It's just part of the way we process information that does not fit in with our prior knowledge. We require a higher standard of proof than someone who has not prior knowledge and is hearing about an individual or organization for the first time.

I did, when Ganim first wrote the story on 3/31/11. It was:

"This is not the time for all you Penn State haters to spread your crap. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty except with PSU haters and this paper. Coach Sandusky like many teachers and parents are accused wrongly by children. I do not believe Coach could do harm to a child and maybe this reporter should now pound the pavement and check with the other coaches, teachers of this accuser. Coach Sandusky spent too many years and his own money helping children and these allegations are just that, allegations. A he said,he said. I stand on Coach Sandusky's side. "

"All you Penn State Haters listen to this. You are just envious of people who exemplify integrity and follow the "Golden Rule." I had an experience witnessing Mr Sandusky at the outside Natatorium with a crowd of his Second Mile kids. I heard all of this noise and cheering and I looked up and Jerry was on the tallest platform diving board. The Second Mile Kids were chanting "JERRY, JERRY!" It was very heart warming. I also had contact with him in a professional business venue. He is a kind and humble man. Remember what goes around comes around and this smacks of extortion to me."

"I really think it is irresponsible journalism to publish this before the facts are in....Innocent until proven guilty..If he is proven to be not guilty he should sue for liable. Here is a man that has dedicated his life to helping others and this story has just ruined his reputation even if he is innocent. Why publish this until all the facts are out..you are just looking for sensationalism to sell you papers...disgusting disgusting...I sure hope he is cleared and then you will have some crow to eat!"

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Also, there is a middle ground, where some of us can admit that Paterno and Gricar made mistakes and had horrible lapses in judgment, but it doesn't necessarily mean they were terrible individuals.

Most of the media have determined through inference what Paterno thought and what he must have told Curley, and then generalized that to how he must always have been a hypocrite, and that even his lifestyle, generous donations and manner of inspiring young men were all a facade, covering up for the evil man they seem to believe he always was.

I understand and agree that his legacy is forever tarnished, but as rlc commented, those of us who followed PSU (and yes, Paterno) for many years tend to see this action as the anomaly, not the entirety of who he was.

BBM.

I think that the "defenders" reaction produced the vitriol that we have seen against Paterno. Now, when the story broke, I was one of the people who said that Paterno should retire at the end of the season, when a number of others here were saying he should be fired. There were a number of people who disagreed here, and now I think I was wrong and they were right. I did not question the board's decision.

What happened? A riot in State College. Numerous people (not here) but Penn State fanatics wanted the BoT out. Numerous illustrious alumni signed a petition on how terrible the BoT was for firing him: http://content.usatoday.com/communi...tate-donor-support-joe-paterno/1#.UBiAiaOCnCY One gets elected to the BoT because of the outrage and wants "justice" for Paterno.

Paterno dies. He's eulogized by Knight who says: "Whatever the details of the investigation are, this much is clear to me: There was a villain in this tragedy. It lies in the investigation, not in Joe Paterno’s response to it.” He gets a standing ovation. A halo is painted over his head in the mural.

How do think people would react to this? Here is someone that has a great deal of moral authority on campus, and doesn't ask the people in charge, *Well, was my GA lying to me when he said something improper was going on? Was he delusional?* Those are things that an semi-competent administrator would ask; that was just the follow through. How do fans react? Put a halo over him! That is just before the Freeh report.

People might have reacted better if some of these lunkheads had not been standing up and saying that Paterno couldn't possibly be wrong. Not, *Well, let's wait until we get proof,* (which was me) but, *The proof is a lie, they are all lying, they all hate Penn State because we are so good.* They are the ones that are now destroying Paterno's legacy.

[/rant] :banghead:

Legacy protection never works. It also makes things worse!

That is not directed at you Rlaub44. You are not one of the lunkheads. And I will be the first to say that I admired Paterno for putting athletics before sports.

 

[Rlaub44]

BBM.

I think that the "defenders" reaction produced the vitriol that we have seen against Paterno. Now, when the story broke, I was one of the people who said that Paterno should retire at the end of the season, when a number of others here were saying he should be fired. There were a number of people who disagreed here, and now I think I was wrong and they were right. I did not question the board's decision.

What happened? A riot in State College. Numerous people (not here) but Penn State fanatics wanted the BoT out. Numerous illustrious alumni signed a petition on how terrible the BoT was for firing him: http://content.usatoday.com/communi...tate-donor-support-joe-paterno/1#.UBiAiaOCnCY One gets elected to the BoT because of the outrage and wants "justice" for Paterno.

Paterno dies. He's eulogized by Knight who says: "Whatever the details of the investigation are, this much is clear to me: There was a villain in this tragedy. It lies in the investigation, not in Joe Paterno’s response to it.” He gets a standing ovation. A halo is painted over his head in the mural.

How do think people would react to this? Here is someone that has a great deal of moral authority on campus, and doesn't ask the people in charge, *Well, was my GA lying to me when he said something improper was going on? Was he delusional?* Those are things that an semi-competent administrator would ask; that was just the follow through. How do fans react? Put a halo over him! That is just before the Freeh report.

People might have reacted better if some of these lunkheads had not been standing up and saying that Paterno couldn't possibly be wrong. Not, *Well, let's wait until we get proof,* (which was me) but, *The proof is a lie, they are all lying, they all hate Penn State because we are so good.* They are the ones that are now destroying Paterno's legacy.

[/rant] :banghead:

Legacy protection never works. It also makes things worse!

That is not directed at you Rlaub44. You are not one of the lunkheads. And I will be the first to say that I admired Paterno for putting athletics before sports.

I don't think I could possibly agree more with what you wrote here. Very well said.

 

[BigCat]

BBM.

I think that the "defenders" reaction produced the vitriol that we have seen against Paterno. Now, when the story broke, I was one of the people who said that Paterno should retire at the end of the season, when a number of others here were saying he should be fired. There were a number of people who disagreed here, and now I think I was wrong and they were right. I did not question the board's decision.

What happened? A riot in State College. Numerous people (not here) but Penn State fanatics wanted the BoT out. Numerous illustrious alumni signed a petition on how terrible the BoT was for firing him: http://content.usatoday.com/communi...tate-donor-support-joe-paterno/1#.UBiAiaOCnCY One gets elected to the BoT because of the outrage and wants "justice" for Paterno.

Paterno dies. He's eulogized by Knight who says: "Whatever the details of the investigation are, this much is clear to me: There was a villain in this tragedy. It lies in the investigation, not in Joe Paterno’s response to it.” He gets a standing ovation. A halo is painted over his head in the mural.

How do think people would react to this? Here is someone that has a great deal of moral authority on campus, and doesn't ask the people in charge, *Well, was my GA lying to me when he said something improper was going on? Was he delusional?* Those are things that an semi-competent administrator would ask; that was just the follow through. How do fans react? Put a halo over him! That is just before the Freeh report.

People might have reacted better if some of these lunkheads had not been standing up and saying that Paterno couldn't possibly be wrong. Not, *Well, let's wait until we get proof,* (which was me) but, *The proof is a lie, they are all lying, they all hate Penn State because we are so good.* They are the ones that are now destroying Paterno's legacy.

[/rant] :banghead:

Legacy protection never works. It also makes things worse!

That is not directed at you Rlaub44. You are not one of the lunkheads. And I will be the first to say that I admired Paterno for putting athletics before sports.

Very well written. And I agree, Rlaub44 is definitely not one of the "lunkheads" (I refer to them as the "bitter clingers"). Some of the posts I have read on Penn State football message boards have tested my faith in humanity. I hope for the university's sake they are just a vocal minority.

I should add that I've also read posts by a courageous few who attempted to offer a dissenting perspective. They are to be commended. It go so bad at one point that a poster who dared questioned Paterno's actions was called out by name, on an anonymous message board, by Anthony Lubrano, a member of the Penn State BOT. Well, he wasn't a member at the time. He is now, and he has since toned down his act.

 

[rlc]

The actions of the lunkheads certainly justify the reactions to the lunkheads.

But if people cannot comprehend that even a thousand lunkheads do not represent all of Penn State, and cannot comprehend that there is another view, in which we admit that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier are not innocent, but also do not represent all of Penn State...if they cannot take the time find out what Penn State is about instead of accepting the lunkheads as representative, then they are the lunkheads of the other side.

I honestly question if any of the people who judge students who poured into streets to be together at that time had the maturity they expected from those students. I'm not talking about the handful who engaged in vandalism. The ones whose identities I have heard are freshmen, and locals who were not even students there, including at least one middle-aged man who was not an alumni. I am talking about the hundreds who were reeling from all that had been thrown at them in a matter of days. How can people judge them for not having compassion for victims when they themselves have no compassion for 19-year-olds who are trying to process information that adults struggle to process? Within days, when emotion settled and enough information had been presented, more than a quarter of the campus, more than five times the number of people who had been in the street that night, and more than 500 times the number who had actually engaged in vandalism, attended a candelight vigil for the victims.

As for people protesting the firing of Paterno, I am fairly certain I did not sign the petition because, like you, I wanted more information. But I can say that my disbelief, combined with the quick decision and the lack of information, made me believe the firing was wrong at the time. I did believe his decades of good earned him the right to be innocent until proven guilty. While I can acknowledge now, with the information that has come out, that he should have been fired, I do not consider it a lunkhead response to have given him that benefit of the doubt.

Call me a lunkhead if you would like, but people are judging simple human reactions as evil, malicious, self-absorbed. They are fooling themselves, like Penn State fans fooled ourselves, if they believe that they are above that kind of thing, that in a similar situation, they would see the truth immediately, be able to discard all of their previous knowledge and understanding of a person, and accept them for who they are instantaneously.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The actions of the lunkheads certainly justify the reactions to the lunkheads.

But if people cannot comprehend that even a thousand lunkheads do not represent all of Penn State, and cannot comprehend that there is another view, in which we admit that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier are not innocent, but also do not represent all of Penn State...if they cannot take the time find out what Penn State is about instead of accepting the lunkheads as representative, then they are the lunkheads of the other side.

I'm snipping for length, respectfully.

I'm looking at the reactions prior to the Freeh Report.

Paterno fired: A few thousand students protest and, yes, some riot. Lubrano gets elected to the board; he wants "justice" (and he might get without the quotes) for Paterno.

Paterno dies: He is publicly canonized with a halo and Knight says how great he was and how terrible the board is. (Both are effectively reversed.) The board talks about possible honors for Paterno, and the borough considers naming a street after him (reversed).

If you are watching this from the outside, what would you think? Heck, if are watching the Devil on Saturday Night Live, what would you think!

The actions, or inactions, of Schultz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno gave Penn State's reputation a black eye. The response of these people knocked out all of its teeth and broke its arm.

Call me a lunkhead if you would like, but people are judging simple human reactions as evil, malicious, self-absorbed. They are fooling themselves, like Penn State fans fooled ourselves, if they believe that they are above that kind of thing, that in a similar situation, they would see the truth immediately, be able to discard all of their previous knowledge and understanding of a person, and accept them for who they are instantaneously.

I had to, in about a week, with RFG, even while citing those cases to show that it wasn't typical. Now, you are free to call me logical and cold, but I was stunned, not that Gricar was involved in 1998, but it was such a strong case, and that charges were brought on it, with less evidence, in 2011.

In the case of some of these people, the halo, the election of Lubrano, the continued defense of Paterno, this happened months afterward. It wasn't an emotional response, but a calculated one.

 

[rlc]

I think a week is perfectly reasonable, depending on the relationship you have with a person. If your initial impression was based on logic and information, and not personal interaction, then logic and information should do the trick within a few days.

Others who have a more personal relationship with an individual, in combination with all of the public knowledge, will probably take much longer. That does not say anything negative about their character. I would hope that my friends and family would need more than one news report to convict me in their minds. It took me longer. JVP was not just someone I never met who seemed like a really cool guy. My personal interaction with him had a significant impact on my life's path. Same with RFG. The interactions were limited, neither man would remember me, but both had a significant impact. In addition to just stripping the knowledge, I had to question the advice that formed the basis for a career path because of the source's bad choices.

Most of what is being judged and used as evidence of Penn State's malice are initial reactions. Within days. We keep hearing about the riot. Some idiotic comments on message boards. Two college students who camped out to protect the statue.

We do not hear about the vigil. The 500k raised for RAINN, the unknown totals for PCAR and other organizations. We do not hear about the letters to victims, or the student group who has created and promoted legislation making it a legal requirement for any adult to report child abuse. We do not hear about the number of alumni who have reached out to their local organizations to support the prevention of child sex abuse, either to learn more about recognizing and reporting abuse, or to offer money and time. We have been, and will continue to be, judged on initial reactions.

Our reaction to unfavorable information about someone whom we held a deeply favorable opinion was to try to fit that information into our existing knowledge (confusion), then deny (anger and indignation), then break down our previous knowledge and rebuild a new image for those people that acknowledged what they had done. The thing is, I cannot understand why people who knew nothing about Penn State at all can judge an entire university, its students, fans, and alumni, on the basis of the initial, very understandable from a psychological standpoint, reactions of a small percentage, and the not-so-understandable reactions of a miniscule minority, some of whom never even attended the school. They are using those judgments to form the basis of their impression of our community, and judging us on that impression on everything we do subsequently. Same basic process of information assimilation that we went through with Paterno, but with a hugely different scale. Instead of decades of knowledge about Penn State, their previous impression is based on a few highly emotional days.

My heart breaks for the victims, and I have sought out ways to support them, and have not ignored one single effort, except the candlelight vigil that I could not physically attend. I feel helpless in many ways, because nothing can take away their experiences. On the other hand, I am far more knowledge about child sex abuse, what to look for, when and how to report it, who to call if I have suspicions but am not sure and am afraid of ruining someone's life with unfounded accusations.

I will not stop supporting my fellow alumni, or the students of my alma mater, including student athletes, because they were betrayed by a handful of leaders. There are too many good things about the Penn State culture to discard it all. The academics, the philanthropy, the sense of being able to enter such a huge population, but still make a difference, the sense of activism, the team player attitude, some of which originated with the football program, but has since grown to initiate things like THON (but not limited to THON. THON is the university-wide philanthropy and gets used the most, but when I was a student there, almost every student group also had their own, smaller scale philanthropy). I want my fellow alumni to be able to hold onto those good things, and keep them going for the students.

Football games are not just about football. It is a time to pack students and alumni together into one venue, to celebrate, solidify, and perpetuate certain ideals. Just because the man to whom we credit those ideals did not fulfill them in the end does not mean the ideals do not exist among the students and alumni, or are not worth perpetuating. If we stopped attending football games, we would probably never end up with a cohesive effort involving the entire Penn State community. Anyone who does not understand what I mean by that probably never really appreciated the football experience for what it is. The opportunity to share ideas, knowledge, life experiences across several generations of people who love Penn State.

 

[rlc]

Sorry I went off on a tangent and did not finish one of my thoughts in response to you.

Regarding the more recent stuff: The halo was one artist, and it was my understanding that it was because he was dead, not an effort to make him out to be a saint.

The unwillingness to accept, on the basis of available evidence, that Paterno engaged in an intentional cover-up to protect his football program is not on the same page as saying that Paterno did nothing wrong and did everything he is supposed to do. The evidence shows that he knew about it, and based on that, we can acknowledge that he failed. The rest of what people want us to accept: that he intentionally tried to obstruct justice, and that his motivation was the protection of the football program, is not consistent with what we know. We know he did not put football first. It is far more likely that his motivation was in protecting Sandusky's family, or the university, or his reputation of running a clean program. But attributing the motivation to any of those things makes him an individual who acted horribly, and does not allow people to blame a football culture gone awry. I argue the point about Paterno not as defense of HIM but as defense of US. If the NCAA and the media, and the public ignorant of Penn State had not tried to pin it on the entire community, there would be much less defensiveness. We could all agree that one man was a monster who fooled us all, several others had significant moral and legal failings, and we need to move forward in the best way we can to support the victims and prevent this from happening again.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sorry I went off on a tangent and did not finish one of my thoughts in response to you.

Regarding the more recent stuff: The halo was one artist, and it was my understanding that it was because he was dead, not an effort to make him out to be a saint.

Widely applauded, and do they normally put halos on dead people?

The unwillingness to accept, on the basis of available evidence, that Paterno engaged in an intentional cover-up to protect his football program is not on the same page as saying that Paterno did nothing wrong and did everything he is supposed to do. The evidence shows that he knew about it, and based on that, we can acknowledge that he failed. The rest of what people want us to accept: that he intentionally tried to obstruct justice, and that his motivation was the protection of the football program, is not consistent with what we know. We know he did not put football first.

And there are still people who won't even go that far; there is a thread on an alumni group about how wrong the Freeh report it. Someone said that the e-mail was "speculation." The e-mail is fact; what happened at the 2/26/01 meeting is speculation.

It is far more likely that his motivation was in protecting Sandusky's family, or the university, or his reputation of running a clean program. But attributing the motivation to any of those things makes him an individual who acted horribly, and does not allow people to blame a football culture gone awry. I argue the point about Paterno not as defense of HIM but as defense of US. If the NCAA and the media, and the public ignorant of Penn State had not tried to pin it on the entire community, there would be much less defensiveness. We could all agree that one man was a monster who fooled us all, several others had significant moral and legal failings, and we need to move forward in the best way we can to support the victims and prevent this from happening again.

I won't speculate on the motive, since it lacks evidence. I think it should be about "HIM" but these people have made it about "US." Paterno is criticized, so WE are criticized. To many of his defenders, Paterno is synonymous with Penn State. He should never have been. Some of that is his fault, some of that is the administrator's fault, but most of it is OUR fault.

 

[costalpilot]

Sorry I went off on a tangent and did not finish one of my thoughts in response to you.

Regarding the more recent stuff: The halo was one artist, and it was my understanding that it was because he was dead, not an effort to make him out to be a saint.

The unwillingness to accept, on the basis of available evidence, that Paterno engaged in an intentional cover-up to protect his football program is not on the same page as saying that Paterno did nothing wrong and did everything he is supposed to do. The evidence shows that he knew about it, and based on that, we can acknowledge that he failed. The rest of what people want us to accept: that he intentionally tried to obstruct justice, and that his motivation was the protection of the football program, is not consistent with what we know. We know he did not put football first. It is far more likely that his motivation was in protecting Sandusky's family, or the university, or his reputation of running a clean program. But attributing the motivation to any of those things makes him an individual who acted horribly, and does not allow people to blame a football culture gone awry. I argue the point about Paterno not as defense of HIM but as defense of US. If the NCAA and the media, and the public ignorant of Penn State had not tried to pin it on the entire community, there would be much less defensiveness. We could all agree that one man was a monster who fooled us all, several others had significant moral and legal failings, and we need to move forward in the best way we can to support the victims and prevent this from happening again.

about your two points I bolded:

1. you bend over a long way backwards to ascribe honorable motives to dishonorable actions. in effect you are saying, Joe allowed boy after boy to be raped and molested because he is a great guy who looks after his friends, not because he cared about himself. apparently that makes sense to you and somehow makes you feel better about being a stater.

2. so, you really believe that the ncaa, the media and the dumbies who just dont get psu football "tried to pin it on the entire community"?

thats what you believe?


I agree a monster fooled you. I dont blame you or your community for it. the monster wasnt sandusky. it was his multi headed enablers, the men who allowed him to use your facilities for his own evil purposes. and looked the other way: paterno. schultz. curley. sandusky was the evil. they were his enablers. i dont care to squabble over their motives.

 

[costalpilot]

I have been to the penn state football board. After the dust has settled, they have settled on two principle enemies of the program:

1.Mark Emmert , president of the ncaa

2. Graham Spanier, president of penn state.

they are mad at emmert for sanctioning them and they are mad at spanier for accepting the sanctions.

almost nothing to say about sandusky or paterno. apparently they are trying to move on.

 

[rlc]

about your two points I bolded:

1. you bend over a long way backwards to ascribe honorable motives to dishonorable actions. in effect you are saying, Joe allowed boy after boy to be raped and molested because he is a great guy who looks after his friends, not because he cared about himself. apparently that makes sense to you and somehow makes you feel better about being a stater.

2. so, you really believe that the ncaa, the media and the dumbies who just dont get psu football "tried to pin it on the entire community"?

thats what you believe?


I agree a monster fooled you. I dont blame you or your community for it. the monster wasnt sandusky. it was his multi headed enablers, the men who allowed him to use your facilities for his own evil purposes. and looked the other way: paterno. schultz. curley. sandusky was the evil. they were his enablers. i dont care to squabble over their motives.

Where did I say that if he covered up child sexual abuse to protect a friend that would make him a great guy? Covering it up speaks for itself, it's wrong for any motivation. When people become defensive at the statement "Paterno covered up child abuse for the sake of Penn State football" it carries with it the mistruths that have been spouted lately that the fans created an environment that put football first.

What I am saying is that the Penn State community, the student, the alumni, the fans, gave him absolutely no reason to think that he would have to cover up child sex abuse in order to protect the football program. It's not a defense of Paterno. It's a defense of the Penn State community, who is being bashed at the moment for having any love left for their school, including the football team. As evidence of the fact that the fans never pressured Paterno to put football first, I point to his years of not putting football first, of putting academics and the wellbeing of his players first, and the loyalty that remained and even grew during his "experiment".

Yes, I think the NCAA tried to pin it on an imaginary "culture" that they attribute to the fans. They said so, in their statement. That this is to change the culture of Penn State football because it enabled child rape. The culture of Penn State football was not one that would have condoned child rape, or encouraged the cover-up of child rape. It never was, it never will be. The Penn State culture was one that placed integrity, and academics, and the wellbeing of youth ahead of football. The people who acted did so in contradiction to the Penn State culture, not because of it. But the culture was used as justification for the NCAA sanctions. And you do not have to look far to see people who are tearing at Penn State fans who dare to support their school.

 

[rlc]

costalpilot,
I would also like to point out that you bolded two points, leaving in between them the statement that any of those other motivations are still horrible.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I have been to the penn state football board. After the dust has settled, they have settled on two principle enemies of the program:

1.Mark Emmert , president of the ncaa

2. Graham Spanier, president of penn state.

they are mad at emmert for sanctioning them and they are mad at spanier for accepting the sanctions.

almost nothing to say about sandusky or paterno. apparently they are trying to move on.

Spanier "resigned" in November; Erickson is the President. They actually should be angry at Spanier.

The first part of solving the problem is admitting you have a problem. Some of the people don't, and that is where the hostility starts. It revolts people. That is why I keep saying: Legacy protection never works. Arguably, the defensive actions of those people supporting Paterno have hurt Paterno's legacy, and have probably done more to hurt Penn State's reputation than the act.

This is literally Nixonian. I've never seen actual evidence that Nixon planned, authorized, or knew about the actual break in, in advance. He clearly attempted to cover it up after the fact. That is what led to his downfall.

If everyone stood up and said, "Paterno was wrong. He made some mistakes. We need to fix this, and yes, there should be some punishment," we wouldn't have this PR problem. :banghead:

 

[rlc]

"If everyone stood up and said, "Paterno was wrong. He made some mistakes. We need to fix this, and yes, there should be some punishment," we wouldn't have this PR problem."

That's not true. I have seen it repeatedly. People admit that Paterno screwed up, and get blasted for not using harsher language. People can claim that they are not blaming anyone but the individuals involved out of one side of their mouth, but out of the other side are making statements about "King Football" that make it clear they see this as a football issue, not an issue of individuals who engaged in a range of bad behavior. People skip over articles about good things that some Penn State fans are doing to focus on the few who will not admit any mistake. People go to a Penn State football board, and think that people talking about the aspects of the scandal that impact Penn State football on a Penn State football forum only care about how it affects Penn State football.

People enjoy believing the worst of each other, and enjoying focusing on the worst in others. This scandal has taught me many things, but that is one of the most overwhelming ones.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"If everyone stood up and said, "Paterno was wrong. He made some mistakes. We need to fix this, and yes, there should be some punishment," we wouldn't have this PR problem."

That's not true. I have seen it repeatedly. People admit that Paterno screwed up, and get blasted for not using harsher language. People can claim that they are not blaming anyone but the individuals involved out of one side of their mouth, but out of the other side are making statements about "King Football" that make it clear they see this as a football issue, not an issue of individuals who engaged in a range of bad behavior. People skip over articles about good things that some Penn State fans are doing to focus on the few who will not admit any mistake. People go to a Penn State football board, and think that people talking about the aspects of the scandal that impact Penn State football on a Penn State football forum only care about how it affects Penn State football.

I think that there is ample evidence on in the last 10-15 posts to show that it is very true with a large number of fans and alumni. The alumni voted to elect someone just like that to the board of directors.

People enjoy believing the worst of each other, and enjoying focusing on the worst in others. This scandal has taught me many things, but that is one of the most overwhelming ones.

Actually, this has made me a little bit more involved in Penn State, and a bit less willing to engage in mindless hero worship.