Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Smack Tripper

Members
  • Content Count

    11,827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Smack Tripper

  1. No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.Well the facts belie your opinion. It borders on being unreasonable to see things differently. This is total BS. They knew exactly who he was and what he was doing. Did you read the Freeh report? Get your head out of the sand.Yes, and there's nothing in there that proves that Paterno wasn't in denial. Do you know what "in denial" means? It means that even in the face of overwhelming evidence a person cannot comprehend the truth of the matter because it is just too uncomfortable to accept. It happens.Your argument's weak. Attacking his doesn't make yours any stronger. If you want to believe that la-la story after the Freeh report go right ahead, and look foolish.Considering the sources, I'm comfortable with my position., so an 8 month report by the NY Times and former FBI director, respectively, which have not been disputed by the Paterno estate beyond saying in essence "we don't have all the facts" and "there's plenty of blame to go around" are not sources you're confident in. Fair enough, there were Japanese hiding in the hills after the surrender, I guess their "opinion" is that the war was still on. You know what they say about opinions though. I'm talking about you and fatness and your interpretations of those things. Now I really know I'm onto something. lose an argument, move the goalposts. Your opinion is at best ill-informed and at worst stupid. You can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese I guess. Anyone can have an opinion!!
  2. Even allowing for a mulligan of perspective that you mention with the first accusation, there is not a shred of logic to their ignoring the second reported incident. None, nothing. Dottie Sandusky, she is the guys wife and SHE is close to him. Paterno and Sandusky by most reports, had a contentious professional relationship. You are stretching looking for excuses for their inaction, when their is some pretty blatant, equally human and logical reasons for it, the propagation of money, power and status. But even if I grant you that for TWO times it was too much of a mental hurdle to process and they didn't do what they could to make sure he was taken care of legally or otherwise in 2001, this troika of bystanders stood by and watched Sandusky BRING CHILDREN TO PRACTICE AND TO HIS ####### HOTEL ON ROAD TRIPS. Being "shocked" does not allow you carte blanche for a decade of inaction. Telling Sandusky to take it elsewhere might not solve the problem, but good god it is not giving a tacit endorsement through inaction by allowing him to use YOUR house to do what he does.I'm not arguing that they weren't worried about money, power or the all time wins record. That's clearly why they covered it up. I'm arguing that they were in denial that it was continuing to happen. And your capitalized words above are the point of that. It's way too much risk to allow him to be around the program if you know for a fact that he's still doing it. That's illogical. Protecting the school and football program would mean covering it up and being convinced he wasn't doing it anymore, specifically around the school or FB program. Remember, their actual weak as hell solution back in 2001, which didn't work, was to tell him to keep his "guests" off campus. That's the protection angle. So to keep letting him be around the program with the kids, they had to be convinced that he was above the board. Now, I understand they shouldn't have been convinced of that and all that. But they were. In my opinion of course.All I can say is, I hope they were in denial. I do better understand the semantics of your statement now, which is not unreasonable on its merits but I don't know. To me this is a minor quibble. Cases like this to me boil down to two things, you're either dirty or stupid. I get that dirty is worse, but really, I think denial is giving them too much credit.
  3. No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.Well the facts belie your opinion. It borders on being unreasonable to see things differently. This is total BS. They knew exactly who he was and what he was doing. Did you read the Freeh report? Get your head out of the sand.Yes, and there's nothing in there that proves that Paterno wasn't in denial. Do you know what "in denial" means? It means that even in the face of overwhelming evidence a person cannot comprehend the truth of the matter because it is just too uncomfortable to accept. It happens.Your argument's weak. Attacking his doesn't make yours any stronger. If you want to believe that la-la story after the Freeh report go right ahead, and look foolish.Considering the sources, I'm comfortable with my position., so an 8 month report by the NY Times and former FBI director, respectively, which have not been disputed by the Paterno estate beyond saying in essence "we don't have all the facts" and "there's plenty of blame to go around" are not sources you're confident in. Fair enough, there were Japanese hiding in the hills after the surrender, I guess their "opinion" is that the war was still on. You know what they say about opinions though.
  4. Even allowing for a mulligan of perspective that you mention with the first accusation, there is not a shred of logic to their ignoring the second reported incident. None, nothing. Dottie Sandusky, she is the guys wife and SHE is close to him. Paterno and Sandusky by most reports, had a contentious professional relationship. You are stretching looking for excuses for their inaction, when their is some pretty blatant, equally human and logical reasons for it, the propagation of money, power and status. But even if I grant you that for TWO times it was too much of a mental hurdle to process and they didn't do what they could to make sure he was taken care of legally or otherwise in 2001, this troika of bystanders stood by and watched Sandusky BRING CHILDREN TO PRACTICE AND TO HIS ####### HOTEL ON ROAD TRIPS. Being "shocked" does not allow you carte blanche for a decade of inaction. Telling Sandusky to take it elsewhere might not solve the problem, but good god it is not giving a tacit endorsement through inaction by allowing him to use YOUR house to do what he does.
  5. No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.Well the facts belie your opinion. It borders on being unreasonable to see things differently.
  6. "They ask me what I'd like written about me when I'm gone. I hope they write I made Penn State a better place, not just that I was a good football coach.-- Joe Paterno That's on his dopey monument at the stadium. Just really unreal in context.
  7. how good of a person are you if you don't do the right thing just because it might cost you something you consider valuable?I agree. And maybe Paterno was rotten to the core all along. (I don't think so, but who knows?) It's easy as hell to say 'I wouldn't do that.' But in the moment lots of people do and I think it's worth thinking about.I don't think Paterno was rotten to the core all along but I do think his priorities were out of whack. The most important thing to him was Penn State's football program and his own legacy. He wasn't willing to blow the whistle on Sandusky's evil deeds because he feared it might damage Penn State and tarnish his reputation. I am sure he justified it somehow or maybe he thought that Sandusky would just stop on his own but the end result was at least 7 and probably more kids were molested. Pretty despicable and he deserves the scorn he is getting now. I think this is an excellent summary of Paterno.I think a part of it was that Paterno didn't want to believe or couldn't believe Sandusky would do it. In their world, Sandusky was a "swell guy"--not the sort who would hurt anyone. Why would all of these kids hang around with him if he was hurting them? I bet denial played a big part in Paterno's failures.This is total BS. They knew exactly who he was and what he was doing. Did you read the Freeh report? Get your head out of the sand.Yes, and there's nothing in there that proves that Paterno wasn't in denial. Do you know what "in denial" means? It means that even in the face of overwhelming evidence a person cannot comprehend the truth of the matter because it is just too uncomfortable to accept. It happens.Can we finally lay to rest with today's information that Joe is some dopey senile grandfather floating through life? In denial? Denial would imply disbelief. This guy not only believed what was going on, but he moved the chess pieces behind the board to line things up as best as possible. Today's information about him structuring himself a golden parachute before this information broke really wide in August should be all the evidence you need that this is was guy in anything BUT denial. He was very aware of the consequences and gravity of what was alleged. And as for the actions from 1998 to 2001, I dont think you'd see him necessarily criminally convicted but thats the absolute best thing you could say about him. He can and will be found to be liable in a civil matter and I hope these victims clean every last dime out of that families pocket. Let Sue Paterno sleep in the Lasch building. This guy was garbage and frankly, I'm starting to think, so are the people who still have any notion of the Grand Experiment in their head in State College. Joseph Vincent Paterno: Educator, Coach, Humanitarian 1 out of 3 ain't bad.
  8. Do you support not sanctioning teams for any NCAA infractions then? If not, what is the difference between those "innoncent players" and these?
  9. Perhaps that may describe other people but it doesn't describe me. I'm trying to look at this situation rationally. A pedophile used the greatness of the football program to molest children for years. The legendary head coach, school president, athletic director and assistant athletic director covered it up and allowed the pedophile to continue, in order to protect the good name of the football program, which made an incredible amount of money during this time. Given these facts, you punish the individuals involved, and you shut down the football program for a time. To me that makes total sense, not from anger, but from justice and what should be done. That's simply the way I see it. I can understand why you might disagree, but please don't relegate my position to one of rage.It's illogical to extend the punishment beyond the people responsible. When a player beats the crap out of his girlfriend, is that deserving of shutting down the whole program? What if he kills her?ETA: I'm not bringing up these as equal examples of events. I'm just trying to determine the line you guys are drawing.Why is this argument taking hold here? This is always how college's are punished, unfortunately. What do Matt Barkley and Lane Kiffin have to do with the conduct of Reggie Bush and blinders worn by Pete Carroll? Its the nature of the beast, and I could personally give less than a crap about people not having a team to watch. As for the student-athletes, I think the NCAA's current plan should remain in place, they should be afforded penalty free transfers.
  10. On what basis? What NCAA rule did they break?Lack of institutional control?Question still remains...what NCAA rules did they have an inability to control? Best I can tell there are no NCAA rules broken here. The NCAA isn't needed here. They'd just get in the way and screw things up. This is going to take care of itself.It might be a reach, but... I think there are several places you might interpret the compliance to conform to in the above, but the bolded is probably the broadest definition in which Penn State failed to live up to the mission set forth by the NCAA. I guess it will be a question of precedence, but I don't know who would object to this particular intercession. You'd look like a fool to take a stand against it.
  11. I can excuse and understand the Paterno's family pain and confusion releasing a statement in light of this release. But Jay Paterno's attempted defense of his father by going on talk show after talk show leads me to believe he's as much a piece of garbage his father was. I still say, the future will eventually relent for Joe, but Jay, your father lived his life and made his choices, and while you may consider this incident "a chapter" for him, its an entire book for each victims. Just shut up and go away you incompetent boob.
  12. Nothing faux about my indignation, bro. But go back to sticking you head in the sand, maybe down there joepa is still a swell guy.
  13. I don't have a "plan." This is all a response to discussion in this thread:1) Folks are saying "shut down the football program." 2) Other folks said "that doesn't make sense -- it just hurts a bunch of people that didn't do anything wrong." 3) The first people responded with "it doesn't matter that shutting down the football program would not punish the culpable parties -- it needs to be done to change the culture of the university." That's what I was responding to. If shutting down football is a punishment, then it seems like a bad one, because the impact would be felt almost exclusively by people uninvolved with the Sandusky scandal. If shutting down football is just an attempt to change university culture, it seems equally applicable to dozens of other schools. Well, not quite equally. If you can't separate a testosterone charged teenager getting into a fight or a recruit taking some money, with what happened here, I don't know what to tell you. I do agree, its not like its impossible this can't happen elsewhere. Numbers would dictate it HAS happened SOMEWHERE. But lets get real here. This was systemic abuse that was facilitated in multiple ways BY the football program, from the status of proximity functioning as a magnet to these kids, to actually using the fieldhouse for the abuse. I mean, I don't know what to say. I do understand what you're getting at, and I think the message would be served and heard by all I do hope, but some things are worse than others. And this is basically the worst thing.
  14. By "comparable schools" I'm talking about schools where football is a dominant force on campus and with alumni. I used Alabama, Ohio State and Tennessee as examples -- there are probably dozens of others.I guess my evidence is 1) those schools have a history of trying to sweep (less serious) football-related problems under the rug; and 2) one of the big reasons why this was allowed to happen at Penn State was a result of football's prominence on campus, and that same reason exists at those other schools.We certainly can't know for sure what would happen at each campus until it happens, but it doesn't strike me that there is anything particularly unique about Penn State suggesting it could only happen there.What is unique is Joe's holier than thou attitude.
  15. I don't get this line of thinking. All the people responsible should be punished and shamed, but there's no reason to screw over the football players, current students, and fans by taking away the football program. That's just punishing a lot of other people that had nothing to do with this.This exactly type of thinking is how this thing happened and went unchecked for so long. Penn State is not alone in letting a football machine grow too big to fail, thats quite common in American collegiate sports, and it certainly can extend to mens basketball too. But I've never heard, and really can't imagine a worse scenario of criminal conduct being covered up than something like this. Screwing over innocent people? Sorry, those are not the screwed innocent people that I'm thinking about with this. I would petition the NCAA to allow a penalty free transfer for all athletes.As it stands, its borderline sociopathic to me for that fan base to walk past that man's statue and put 100,000 people in Beaver Stadium and cheer on Saturday's in the fall.My thinking is, that sort of acknowledgement would demonstrate to the victims, and, frankly, America, that you understood the gravity of this situation and realize football is NOT the most important thing in this life. But I guess asking to take one season of 8-2 football off is simply too big a sacrafice.
  16. Death Penalty. Death Penalty. Death Penalty. they won't get it, but they deserve it. And if they won't they should euthanize themselves for a year or two.
  17. His grave isn't worth my piss. Plus, it might diminish the effectiveness of the fire and brimstone bath he's enduring. I think the angry tirades about Paterno have pretty much jumped the shark with this one. I mean, how do you not laugh when reading that? Paterno bashing has turned into the Aristocrats joke, where people just keep getting stupider and stupider to try to express their indignity, just in case you didn't think they were indignant enough. The next guy will be ####ting down his throat or something. It's hilarious.Oh Paterno's turned into a joke alright.
  18. Loss of football recruits and/or alumni donations?If Sandusky had been arrested in 1998, the headlines would have read "Current PSU coach arrested". That's still a pretty big scandal. There would have been an external investigation into the culture of PSU, and Schultz might have lost his job, and Paterno might have lost his control over the campus police department.If Sandusky had been arrested in 2001, it would have been an even bigger scandal, because then people would start wondering why the 1998 incident and the 2000 incident (when the janitors saw Sandusky) were never fully investigated. Paterno would be seen as a hero for calling the police.....but he would also be seen as clueless old man who allowed a child molester to roam free right under his nose for 32 years. Paterno would have been quietly forced to retire and he would have failed in his quest to be the coach with the Most Wins In Division 1 Football History.Really, anything that tarnishes PSU football is going to tarnish Joe Paterno by proxy. Joe staked his legacy on the idea that he ran the cleanest program in the country, that HIS methods and HIS culture fostered the best in people. Joe would have ended his career looking like a complete fool for creating a culture that was easily exploited by evil.I can see this being Joe's perception, but I don't think this would come close to the public perception. I would have only solidified Joe's public perception as being a straight arrow. It might have been a bad week or a bad month, but compared to the avarice he showed, leads me to believe only one thing, Joe thought he could cover it up. And the reason why he thought that is because he had other things killed in the past. Nothing to this level I would sincerely hope to God, but I'm sure more than we'll ever know was able to swept under the rug.
  19. the fact that mcqueary rose so rapidly up the coaching ladder leaves no doubt in my mind he got compensated for keeping mum.he basically sold out future victims so he could have personal gain.This is valid. As I said, I don't mean to defend McQueary. There is a difference between being the man that pushes the destruct button on a program and institution that you were raised in, and being the man who's silence was for sale with professional advancement and salary presumably. In reflecting upon him, I had forgotten his advancement. I guess what I'm saying is, I can see a progression where he didn't drop the dime to the authorities on Sandusky, but I can not see how he himself allowed himself to see Sandusky continue to bring children around that program. You don't have to kill it but you certainly don't have to stay. And just to clarify, I defend McQueary strictly in solely in contrast to Joe. There IS a difference between being a soldier and a general.
  20. I disagree. McQueary owns more responsibility because he was the only eyewitness. His story is hearsay to everyone else, although the leaders he reported it to own a great responsibility to report it, more burden falls on McQueary for seeing it firsthand. He could've gone to authorities by himself and had an investigation done just by what he saw. Again I'm not absolving Joe, Spanier, Schultz and Curley whatsoever, just that McQ ranks a bit higher on the loser/scumbag/fail scale.This is a fallacy. McQueary is not a detective or a DA, how is he supposed to bring charges and prosecute him? I said by going to authorites he couldve gotten an investigation. Considering it would be the second time Sandusky was reported, I would think they would take it pretty damn seriously, especially having an eyewitness account. ok thats fair enough, I read it as he could have had the guy prosecuted.
  21. I disagree. McQueary owns more responsibility because he was the only eyewitness. His story is hearsay to everyone else, although the leaders he reported it to own a great responsibility to report it, more burden falls on McQueary for seeing it firsthand. He could've gone to authorities by himself and had an investigation done just by what he saw. Again I'm not absolving Joe, Spanier, Schultz and Curley whatsoever, just that McQ ranks a bit higher on the loser/scumbag/fail scale.This is a fallacy. McQueary is not a detective or a DA, how is he supposed to bring charges and prosecute him? I don't mean to defend the guy, I would like to think I would have left that old queen in a pool of his own blood in the shower, but as far as getting people to act, look at the progression of this case. The is a chronology of investigations that end up abandoned, and I remain convinced that people around the program perhaps had an instinct something was off with this guy. But the public perception of Sandusky was to be a saint in the community. He started a great charity, he was the backbone of Linebacker U, he was active and involved on campus(obviously and sadly). So if you're Mike McQueary, you take your story to the State College PD, and say yes, I saw Jerry Sandusky going to town on a boy and the answer becomes, well, what's your evidence. And thats obviously presuming he didn't rescue the child. And we can have our thoughts and debates on that, I feel pretty concrete that I would have acted in the moment, perhaps you do to, but psychologist after psychologist said not so fast to that instinct, essentially saying what you would see would be both so vile and foreign as a concept that you might be frozen in panic. So I'm giving him that much of a benefit of the doubt. But unfortunately, when McQueary left, and the kid left unidentified, you get what we had in the trial. I mean, the only thing Sandusky was acquitted of was the "eye witness" account of Sandusky which is crazy when you think about it but in a framework of reasonable doubt and a burden of proof and all that, well, it how does he prove it. This guy was at the time a pillar of the community. On the word of McQueary I don't think they're going to run out and press charges, although putting him under suspicion and investigating him would have obviously been better than inaction.
  22. How can you cover something up more then witnessing a boy being raped and not going to the police? JoPa just as bad but he probably got the PG-13 version of the events and didn't have to personally witness it like McQueary did. To see it with your own eyes and do nothing is about as bad as it gets.Because Joe was supposedly a paragon of virtue and morally "right" AND he wielded great influence, ultimate influence in the town. I think you can argue that McQueary may have feared reprisals for going directly to the PD. That doesn't justify his choice to not do it, but it does make it somewhat more understandable. He's a 22 year old guy making 22,000 a year, right or wrong I can see him being worried about his future.Joe Paterno was only worried about his past, and more concerned with protecting his legacy.
  23. Those of you that spare Joe at the expense of McQueary have to contexualize what HE is going through and what the janitors who've I've seen criticized go through. I think you have to consider the machine of Penn State Football and what it means to the campus, town and entire Central PA region and even PA as a whole. Why the guy didn't go straight to the cops, I don't know, but he went to someone who should have been BETTER than the police as far as wielding stroke. He took this to Joe. And it died. Forgetting the personal implications of his family connections to the program and his own background as a player and an assistant and his choice to blow the whistle for doing the one thing that everyone at the TOP didn't want to do, disrupt the machine, you have to I think consider his position. He told Joe, it went nowhere. That was as clear a message as you could hope have sent. If the guy who defenders and detractors could agree "ran the town", put this thing on ice, in essence meaning the word from on high is that this story is not a story, what kind of change is McQueary supposed to affect by going to police who answer to JoePa. With the press and clippings on "Saint Jerry", this seems like it would have been seen as a pretty wild accusation in State College in 2001. His word against McQueary's. Joe Pa clearly not having his back. You can and should ask very valid questions as to how and why McQueary would stay involved with PSU post that situation, and how he himself could tolerate seeing Sandusky bring children around, but to anyone who says that a Jabroni's inaction is worse than what looks like it may well be a coordinated coverup by the king, is not looking at the big picture.