brickbacon, I can’t even tell what the end-point of all your raging here is supposed to be. Do you think you could sum up, in two or three sentences, the conclusions that you’re trying to convince the world, or somebody, of?
It’s impossible to sum up blind contradiction.
I think he just disagree with the fact that his wins were erased, which is an extremely valid/debatable point.
Everything else, though, I think was justified in terms of the punishments against Penn State/Paterno/so on.
That’s the thing, those vacated wins don’t matter at all. Nobody in the world of college football even cares. The PSU fans are talking about the fines and the lost schollys.
Engaging in a fight-to-the-death about Joe Paterno’s lack of involvement is stupid, but it’s even worse if it’s only being done to try and show that vacated wins aren’t deserved. Who gives a damn about the vacated wins?
He was talking to McQueary, basically tell him that he didn’t have to do any more about it. The “we” was him and McQueary. Not anyone else who would eventually be involved. Context matters.
Again with the culture excuse. They likely covered it up because it looks really really bad and they didn’t want to face the liability and scrutiny. The culture didn’t compel them to do that any more than the Citadel’s culture, of U of M’s culture compelled them to cover things up.
Why is the same not true of people in this thread who act as if he is some all powerful vortex who corrupted the entire town with folksy charm and winning football teams.
It’s not semantics. It was a direct claim made in this and other threads that has very different real world implications.
This wasn’t done to protect the football team.
Then why was a camp counselor allowed to molest kids at the Citadel? Who was warping the culture there? Things like this happen absent figures like Paterno, absent football teams, and absent powerful forces corrupting the populace. Any study of some of these incidents will make most appreciate that while football is an understandable lightening rod in this case, it isn’t responsible for this situation.
That’s total and complete bullshit. The “we” referenced the administration. He was telling McQueary that he didn’t need to do anything else. That has been clarified numerous times. It makes no sense otherwise. Why would he say “what we want to do about it” referring to McQueary if he didn’t want McQueary to do anything more about it?
You’ve said bunch of nonsensical things in this thread, but that might be the absolute worst.
…because he was? Paterno was a cult of personality on campus.
Why does it matter that he “orchestrated” it or “took part” in it? Either way, it’s the same general problem in the end. He participated in a coverup when we expect more from someone of that position/power/supposed moral value.
It absolutely was. He prioritized his program over the students.
Again, please be clear: What exactly are you arguing? Are you just saying you don’t think his wins should have been vacated?
No, he wasn’t according to people who were there. And that’s a distinction without a meaning.
One day.
Why? If Paterno is the top of the food chain, then why is he making a point to tell me who you imply were his functional subordinates? If he intends to cover it up, why does he involve more people? What sense does that make?
Raging? I am the one who is raging, even though multiple people have incorrectly parsed the facts of the case and implied I am an idiot for not agreeing with the mob.
I have no desire to convince anyone of anything anymore than others on the opposite side do. If you are asking what my basic argument it can be summed up by the following things:
-
People are focused on the wrong things here.
-
The NCAA’s penalties were far too punitive, and that punishing a school for this type of conduct is not in their purview. It’s not an appropriate punishment or deterrent.
-
Failure to report abuse is not only (far too) common, but readily explainable by things other than malice.
-
Attempting to erase Paterno from the history books is an troubling abuse of power, antithetical to what an open society should value.
-
Football, and the football program, was at best incidental to what happened here.
-
The past deification of Paterno is just as foolish as the current vilification of him now.
You can keep arguing this point if you want, but you’re making yourself look silly. Well, more so. This is a well publicized event that everyone in the sports world is well aware of. Paterno has never corrected any interviewer who has asked him about the time he was asked to resign. If you want to continue to claim otherwise based on Spanier’s wording in that article, that’s fine. It doesn’t change the fact that Paterno was more powerful than the AD or the President.
So he wouldn’t be the only one holding the damn bag, of course. Why would you even ask such a question? Did you see the way this unfolded? He threw everyone else under the bus, claimed he didn’t know things that he absolutely knew, and essentially said that it was all in someone else’s hands. I can’t believe you even asked that.
ETA: That question is all the reason anyone needs to dismiss any opinion you have on the matter.
What kind of dumbass logic is that? So he intends to coverup an action by telling multiple people, then convincing them to cover it up as well just so he can say he told someone? Really? He is that devious in your mind? Did he tell them to contact the outside counsel as well? Did he tell them to investigate the 1998 incident?
Besides, you don’t get credit if you then go back and tell everyone you just told to cover it up. If the idea is plausible deniability, or the ability to say you followed the chain of command, that doesn’t work if you then go back and convince everyone to cover things up by asserting your power and influence.
He doesn’t really tell anyone else other than the bigwigs in charge. They all conspired together and agreed to keep things quiet.
If they had fired Paterno/jailed Sandusky/let the team keep on playing, would that have been acceptable to you?
It does if there is no proof that you convinced anyone to cover it up. That is why Joe Paterno lied to the Grand Jury, and to reporters. Since he didn’t use email, he didn’t realize there was any record of his conversations. Once the investigators found evidence of those conversations in emails from other administrators, the case was blown totally open.
Have you honestly not followed any of this? This is the entire reason Paterno’s legacy is toast.
Right. The Freeh report made it abundantly clear that Paterno played a key role in this entire coverup. That isn’t really up for debate at this point.
If his intent was to lie, if necessary, the entire time, he didn’t need tell them in the first place. That just risked the whole plan blowing up in his face. At any point, those guys, or the outside counsel who was also told, or god knows who else they might have told, could have just called the cops. If Paterno’s game is I did the right thing and you can’t prove I didn’t, then he could just lie and say he told them. Absence of email works just as much in his favor as it does against him. Why you would think that he could lie in one instance, and not the other is odd to me.
So let me get this straight. Because he tells other people, that clears him of malice just because he could have shut up and kept it to himself? The fact that the conspiracy participants, including Paterno, after the fact, covered it up doesn’t matter?
I would think an obvious reason here would be that if he didn’t take it to the administration to deal with, McQueary could have done something and blown the whole thing apart. This way, Paterno takes the sensitive information into his own hands to deal with and whatever he says, goes.
Yeah, good thing that didn’t happen. :rolleyes:
Yep. Shows you the kind of power he had, doesn’t it?
Actually, Paterno was counting on absence of email in this case. He thought he was leaving no paper trail. It backfired.
Not sure what you are talking about. He passed it up the chain of command to cover his ass, then made sure the higher-ups did what he wanted them to do. When he was busted, he thew them under the bus. His lies are documented. You are arguing against known facts here.
Paterno relied on plausible deniability (which was the plan all along just in case) when this thing came to light. There were no emails, so he could just stay in the clear as long as he played dumb.
Unfortunately, his actions/words were channeled through the emails of others, showing that he was outright lying here. Plausible deniability goes out the window. He played an active role in this thing.
How are you getting that from what I wrote?
Why do you think McQueary, the guy who ran away when he saw a man raping a child, would suddenly grow the stones to make the whole thing a public matter?
That makes no sense. Emails are not necessary when you have the testimony of several people against you.
But just passing it up the chain of command doesn’t cover his ass. Do you think Paterno, who according to seemingly everyone else but me, knows he is the most powerful man on campus, thinks he would have been spared judgment if he only passed it up the chain of command? That would not fulfill his legal or moral responsibility here, and that would have been abundantly clear to everyone involved. He knew damn well regardless of his actual power and influence that more would be expected of him. Just doing that doesn’t cover his ass at all, it just makes it harder to cover the matter up.
As far as your point about him making sure the higher-ups did what he wanted them to do, it’s a completely unnecessary and precarious step to take. It makes no sense for a guy who sees himself as informal head of the university to report something to his functional subordinates in an effort to later convince them to essentially ignore the information he just told them. By your logic, he should have called the cops himself, then told them to cover it up. At least that way, he could say he called the cops. If he is this all-powerful Svengali who can reliably count on being able to manipulate anyone pulled into his vortex of corruption, why not involve people who make his latter claims more plausible or defensible?
Which brings me back to my point. If he to willing to lie to make it seem as though he was less culpable, why would you take actions that make your lies less believable and more elaborate? He could have just told McQueary they investigated, and the don’t have enough evidence to press charges. Why involve other people you then have to coerce into going along with your plan?
Your posts are getting so nonsensical that I don’t even know what in the hell you’re trying to say anymore.
I suspect I’m not alone.
Regardless of any decline in his coaching ability, Joe Paterno’s cult of personality was still very strong with the students, some of whom chose Penn State over other colleges specifically because of him and the football program, and fans who pour millions of dollars in merchandise and tickets and money into the State College and other economies (because they also go to away games) because of Paterno.
It is also my considered opinion that the Paterno family needs to shut the fuck up and lie low for a while. All they’re doing is sounding butthurt.