Discussion in 'Sports Haps' started by BURGH, Jan 21, 2012.
Now that more time has passed, I've become very upset that Paterno died.
I tried to DVR the replay of the Iowa / Penn St. wrestling match, but the fucktards preempted it was 24/7 Paterno talk. The exact same show has been replaying on the Big 10 Network over and over.
Despite being the most powerful guy at the university, he did nothing meaningful whatsoever. And as late as 2002 he saw fit to invest, along with Sandusky, in a retirement community on the Penn State campus. Sandusky gets to keep doing his thing...cui bono?
It appears that he was a great guy insofar as it was necessary to preserve the image of Penn State. Beyond that he couldn't give a fuck, which makes him a piece of no-longer-breathing garbage.
He got off light
My biggest problem with the standard pro-Paterno argument is that it refuses to recognize this fact. Witness the oft repeated line that he "reported it to his superiors in the athletic department." Um, he didn't have any superiors in the athletic department. This is code for "washed his hands of the whole yucky thing," which is totally fine depending on your stance on Pilates. I happen to think that it's for women.
It's not like "those above him" tried to fire him, then Paterno just said "No" and they said "Okay". I mean if that precedent was set then maybe it's a different story but it wasn't.
I get that he was a huge figurehead with a lot of power. But keep in mind by around 2002 a lot of people considered him as having been removed from real responsibility.
This was perception, of course, and i don't know reality, but it's funny that if one had a bone to pick with Paterno in 2002 one would have said "He's just a puppet, he's not responsible for how the team does, he just cheerleads and tries not to break a hip". Of course if one had a bone to pick with Paterno in 2012, one apparently says, "He was so powerful and in control of that program that his superiors should have been reporting to HIM"
The truth, it would seem to me is somewhere in between
Just because he wasn't calling plays for the football team doesn't mean that he wasn't immensely powerful within the university. I think the reaction to this whole mess amply demonstrates his power over the masses and other examples show his power over the administration.
I don't see why those two have to be mutually exclusive. Could he not be involved in the day-to-day football operations of the program but STILL wield immense power through the athletic department and University proper just by virtue of being Joe Paterno? And that's not a foregone conclusion on my part, I just don't see them as unable to coexist.
No, I think both extremes are absurd. Of course he had a reduced role with the team and of course he had power at the university, but to act like he was some university mastermind when in fact what he really cared about (coaching football) had forced him into a reduced role makes it hard for me to believe he was actively and highly consciously and competently involved in the univeristy (at least to the extent that some of you want to make it seem)
You're missing the point. Nobody claims that he was the man behind the curtain at the university. Burgh's argument about doddering old men still stands. The claim is that his power was so great that it's ridiculous to call the athletic director his "superior."
To cite a less extreme example, the Bears are having a heckuva time hiring a GM because the situation is set up so that the GM will not really be Lovie Smith's superior in any meaningful sense. Paterno had much more influence at PSU than Smith has with the Bears.
I don't think too many people think of him as paterno's superior in the traditional sense. I believe the term is usually used by most penn state cultists to refer to the fact that they were higher ups in the delegation of such farreaching decisions as a faculty member being accused of a heinous offense.
I mean, let's say that what went on was something that wasn't a horrific crime. Let's say that a person in Sandusky's position was involved in a non-criminal scandal that would surely lead to his dismissal. It would not at all be unreasonable for a coach of Paterno's prominence to turn this over to the AD rather than deal with it himself and explain his decision as it being him referring it to his superiors. Further, it would be the appropriate course of action, rather than a coach firing a non-coach university employee himself. Those arguing that Paterno didn't fathom what was really going on are making this argument, however tenuous it may be.
That doesn't excuse him, but i think you are latching on to an aspect of "superiors" that doesn't really apply in this discourse
So did Sandusky pay the troll toll?
But what do we make of the grand jury testimony in which Paterno allegedly said "I'm sorry you had to see that" (or something to that effect) after McQueary told him of the shower incident? If it is true that Paterno was just some bumbling fool that was so out of touch with modern reality that he couldn't possibly fathom child rape, him apologizing for McQueary being subjected to such a scene seems rather out of place, doesn't it?
The more and more that things start spilling (it's becoming clearer that Paterno knew of these same allegations against Sandusky as far back as '98, which would explain nicely why JoePa lobbied for Sandusky to get/take the Altoona job), this whole aura Paterno and others tried to create of him just being some old man stuck in the 1950's looks like the coordinated attempt of a man and family desperately trying to maintain the image of his legacy after death.
Of course, one could argue that the "I'm sorry you had to see that" statement, if true, was just that old man stuck in the 1950's knowing that this thing he didn't understand (McQueary's allegations) was wrong simply by the context in which it was brought up, and he was biding time until he could hand it over to people he thought would do the right thing. But really, all the other evidence, which is admittedly circumstantial, indicates otherwise.
So how do you view it? He was vividly aware of child rape? Which...okay
Given what is out there, I think he was self-aware when it came to his legacy and what life had in store for him probably shortly after leaving the coaching ranks (death), and he wanted to forestall one while keeping the other intact. At any costs? No, probably not, nor do I think he was forward-thinking or even coherent enough (even in '98) to plot out covering up the potential scandal or leave himself a few parachutes should the plane go down.
HOWEVER, I think he was of sufficient awareness to realize that at the very least, the Sandusky issue was, if true, bad, bad news for him at the time, the University at the time (and for a good while thereafter) and his legacy forever. Was he devious enough to think "gee, this can't get out, because that means my legacy is tarnished, the University is in some big trouble, the program I built will take a monumental hit and I'll be fired, so I will do whatever necessary to make sure this doesn't get out"? No, like I said, he probably wasn't lucid/dastardly enough for those kinds of thoughts. But I DO think he was aware of the allegations and investigations, and was able to form a thought along the lines of "the Sandusky thing is bad for everyone, I just want it to go away."
And that's what he did, he let it go away. He knew enough to know that 1.) it was probably pretty bad and 2.) he didn't want to deal with it, so he handed it off when his hand was forced (it was easy to shrug off knowing about the investigations and such in '98 when he wasn't directly involved, but less so when McQueary came directly to him)--which was conveniently in line with his legal obligations--and then made off like he had never heard of anything having to do with anything. Again, he probably didn't think to cover anything up or find someone to stock up on shovels and lime should Sandusky kill one of those kids, nor was he a devious bastard that would say "fuck those kids, this program is more important," but he certainly didn't want to deal with it, even though he knew it was bad and knew he had the power to put some sort of end to it. The classic villain? No, but certainly a bad dude.
I think Lefty is one of the victims
So more of a catholic church kind of thing? Not criticizing, just trying to see where you're coming from
In the same vein, yeah. Though the Catholic Church thing, in my mind, had some real money/power-grubbing people with some sickening thoughts going on.
Is this the part where you tell me I can't speak Joe's name because I didn't bump into him on the fucking street in some podunk town in Pennsylvania? No? Good.
The Catholic church is a great analogy here. Same closed hierarchical male system. Similar results.
But anyway, my test on how I perceive Joe's honesty is to ask myself: what if that red-headed coach had come to Paterno and said, "Joe, I saw coach Sandusky ass raping one of your grandsons in the gym shower last night." Now, what might Paterno's response have been, I wonder? Does anyone think for a second that the outcome would have been the same?
Yes, because he didn't know nuthin' 'bout no butt secks!
I about died (laughing) when one of the posters on this thread said something to the effect that "old men don't know about child abuse." Uh-huh.
He was unaware men could even be raped.
I doubt he's unaware about it, but I do think people here overlook how only recent generations have it beat into their head that this is something that can realistically happen to just about anyone
Men have been getting raped in prison showers since time immemorial. People been making jokes and comments about it almost the entire time, so I think it's fair to assume that Paterno was aware of man on man shower rape at the time he was told about a man on boy shower rape. The fact that some scumladden adults sexually assault children also was well-known at the time this happened, so we can exclude ignorance of that fact as well.
That leaves, what, the ignorant assumption that all male sexual predators only assault women and girls? Even that's quite a reach.
That's not really what i meant. I just mean the idea that there are a lot of men out there molesting children rather than just looking at molestation as a wildly aberrant isolated incident is something gen x and y kind of take for granted
Well, sure... I think the whole Catholic Church thing blew the lid off the idea that there was any sort of haven where these things couldn't occur... How does that not make Paterno a piece of garbage?
I guess that's my question wrt your whole generational feelings about the prevalence of child rape point
Well, i don't know that it makes him not a piece of shit, it just is a shade of gray to the whole "he should have done more" that might explain his comment that he found it hard to comprehend.
Sandusky's attorney says the AG threw Paterno under the bus, and he owes us an apology:
Yeah, yeah, and he also gave him cancer, obviously. That attorney should be charged with something for using the expression, "to throw someone under the bus." No excuse for that. Nice note in the motion the article referred to in bringing up the names, Frick and Carnegie.
Geez, I forgot what a RF my guy Quaye was in this thread.
Come home, RF!
Weird hill to die on, protecting a child rape enabler and he has no ties to Penn State. He was being a RF just to be a RF.
Also pisses me off that Pedo State is a legit national title contender now. They've eclipsed Notre Dame and Ohio St as my most hated CFB team.
Burgh won the ToS for a reason!
Burghs just awful in this thread.
On further reflection, Quaye's "JPs inaction is excusable cuz old men just can't FATHOM child rape" parsing was worthy of a nom in its own right.
Fucking Golden helmets.
Yeah we somehow dropped the ball on Quaye being shitty
Don't forget Baylor... my new #2.
Why do people hate ND and OSU so much?
Cheeses went to ND
ND is like the Brad Gushue of NCAAF. Just so punchable
The two most annoying fanbases by far. Toss in Bama and that's as unholy a trinity as you can possible have.
What's your #1 now?