Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[Mile High]

The NCAA can/and probably should punish PSU with loss of scholarships and loss of revenue, but they have nothing currently in their bylaws to impose the death penalty. I do think PSU should on their own, shut down the football program for a time.

Based on what grounds? I know the LOIC premise has been brought up, but I fail to see how that applies here. Every single LOIC case that's been brought has been brought because of NCAA rules being broken over and over at schools. The NCAA has no rules around pedophilia. As much as folks don't want to hear that, it's true. They don't have rules around murder, spousal abuse or any of that stuff. They leave that to the criminal justice system.

In this case, it's almost the opposite of LOIC in that the administrators knew what was happening, and did nothing. They kept a tight lid on everything in that isolated community. Now, one could argue that Paterno being the leader of this, the coach being the most powerful person is LOIC, but this cover-up shows this institution knew exactly what was happening and choose to keep it quiet.

Good point. Hadn't thought about it from that angle. Still begs the question what grounds can the NCAA use to pile on if they choose?

This is the NCAA we are discussing here. Public pressure is on them to do something and they will find something to base some sort of action on.

If they're smart they'll work with PSU behind the scenes on this one. I get the general public wants them to do "something", but I don't think they want to get involved. For whatever reason, I do believe they understand their bounds on this. I don't think they want to mess with their reputation any more than they have to. They are more beholden to the schools and conferences than they are the village mob on the outside looking in.Of course this may be wishful thinking on my part. I'm pretty sure it is.

Imo that's what will happen.

 

[The Commish]

The NCAA can/and probably should punish PSU with loss of scholarships and loss of revenue, but they have nothing currently in their bylaws to impose the death penalty. I do think PSU should on their own, shut down the football program for a time.

Based on what grounds? I know the LOIC premise has been brought up, but I fail to see how that applies here. Every single LOIC case that's been brought has been brought because of NCAA rules being broken over and over at schools. The NCAA has no rules around pedophilia. As much as folks don't want to hear that, it's true. They don't have rules around murder, spousal abuse or any of that stuff. They leave that to the criminal justice system.

In this case, it's almost the opposite of LOIC in that the administrators knew what was happening, and did nothing. They kept a tight lid on everything in that isolated community. Now, one could argue that Paterno being the leader of this, the coach being the most powerful person is LOIC, but this cover-up shows this institution knew exactly what was happening and choose to keep it quiet.

Good point. Hadn't thought about it from that angle. Still begs the question what grounds can the NCAA use to pile on if they choose?

This is the NCAA we are discussing here. Public pressure is on them to do something and they will find something to base some sort of action on.

If they're smart they'll work with PSU behind the scenes on this one. I get the general public wants them to do "something", but I don't think they want to get involved. For whatever reason, I do believe they understand their bounds on this. I don't think they want to mess with their reputation any more than they have to. They are more beholden to the schools and conferences than they are the village mob on the outside looking in.Of course this may be wishful thinking on my part. I'm pretty sure it is.

Imo that's what will happen.

They do this all the time. I can HOPE they do that here, can't I??

 

[timschochet]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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.

I have to support Christo here, (despite the fact that he's had his share of ripping me in this thread.) But he is right, at least in theory. Human beings are often not olionly irrational, but often resist rationality even in the face of strong evidence. There are millions of Americans who believe that Obama was born in Kenya. There are other millions who believe that Bush planned 9/11. There are people who believe that the Holocaust never happened, that the moon landings never happened, or that the Earth is 6,000 years old. No matter how much factual evidence you give these people, they will find a way to reject it. Is it so hard to comprehend that someone would do the same with a close friend of several decades? We don't know if what Christo suggests is the truth, but it very well could be. This in no way removes Paterno's guilt one iota. He covered up for Sandusky and children were abused as a result. That remains true no matter what Paterno's thinking or motivation was. But for the purpose of discussion, Christo's theory should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I have the unpopular opinion that Penn State should not ban their football program. I think the senior officials who covered up the crime should be prosecuted by law, but I don't think the football team should also be punished. The players did nothing wrong, the football staff they have now did nothing wrong, the students did nothing wrong, the remaining faculty at the school did nothing wrong, and the fans and alumni did nothing wrong. Penn State will be slapped with lawsuits too, so the punishment doesn't just end with the senior officials being prosecuted. Joe Paterno football is gone. It's dead, and his legacy is now damaged beyond repair. Let a new era begin, while they deal and heal with the hurt Paterno and other senior officials left behind. Take the statue down, change the uniforms, but don't take away an innocent football team. The football team was also betrayed by Joe and the others that covered up what that monster did. Like all the innocent students, faculty, and Penn State alumni and fans, the football team trusted them to do the right thing too. Nobody is going to forget what happened with Penn State and Sandusky if the football team is playing every Saturday. There is no need to inflict more pain.

Do you support not sanctioning teams for any NCAA infractions then? If not, what is the difference between those "innoncent players" and these?

 

[ICON211]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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.

It's speculation if he was in denial or not, however, sounds more like he knew what was going on and covered it up. If he was in denial would he have followed it closely? More likely that someone in denial would just refuse to believe what they were told and move along. Claiming he was in denial sounds like a lame claim to defend him.

 

[Christo]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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.

I have to support Christo here, (despite the fact that he's had his share of ripping me in this thread.) But he is right, at least in theory. Human beings are often not olionly irrational, but often resist rationality even in the face of strong evidence. There are millions of Americans who believe that Obama was born in Kenya. There are other millions who believe that Bush planned 9/11. There are people who believe that the Holocaust never happened, that the moon landings never happened, or that the Earth is 6,000 years old. No matter how much factual evidence you give these people, they will find a way to reject it. Is it so hard to comprehend that someone would do the same with a close friend of several decades? We don't know if what Christo suggests is the truth, but it very well could be. This in no way removes Paterno's guilt one iota. He covered up for Sandusky and children were abused as a result. That remains true no matter what Paterno's thinking or motivation was. But for the purpose of discussion, Christo's theory should not be dismissed out of hand.

There goes the neighborhood.

 

[Christo]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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.

It's speculation if he was in denial or not, however, sounds more like he knew what was going on and covered it up. If he was in denial would he have followed it closely? More likely that someone in denial would just refuse to believe what they were told and move along. Claiming he was in denial sounds like a lame claim to defend him.

Maybe to someone who doesn't understand what I was talking about.

 

[timschochet]

I have a compromise proposal to make- though it's just for the purpose of this discussion, since this will never happen:

Let Penn State continue with their football program. That way, none of the students and vendors will be punished. But for the next 2-3 years, the University can turn over 100% of the net profits to charities which help the victims of child abuse.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

No, my argument is that it's out of the NCAA jurisdiction...

Nonsense

...and the NCAA couldn't possibly punish them as thoroughly as the criminal justice system.

Of course not, but you don't seem to understand that this is not an either or proposition. The NCAA has no choice but to protect the interest of the NCAA and its member institutions and that gives them a role here. Now whatever the NCAA ultimately does, and I think it will be limited to investigation and monitoring will be independent of numerous other actions happening over the next decade or so.

It appears to be hard for some to understand that the NCAA isn't in the business of law enforcement. They are in the business of NCAA rule enforcement. They police their rules. Realistically, the NCAA is going to really have to work at getting involved here and be pretty liberal with some of their interpretations to their rules.

You don't think that there are ethical clauses in the NCAA rules and policies that Penn State has agreed to follow? The NCAA will probably stay away from the punishment of PSU because Penn State will be making enough institutional changes on their own that the NCAA will find anything they can add redundant, but the NCAA will have no problem finding a legitimate role in this mess if they see that PSU is not doing enough to protect from further tarnishing college football, college athletics, and the NCAA brand. (The Big 10 will be doing exactly the same thing.)

 

[timschochet]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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.

I have to support Christo here, (despite the fact that he's had his share of ripping me in this thread.) But he is right, at least in theory. Human beings are often not olionly irrational, but often resist rationality even in the face of strong evidence. There are millions of Americans who believe that Obama was born in Kenya. There are other millions who believe that Bush planned 9/11. There are people who believe that the Holocaust never happened, that the moon landings never happened, or that the Earth is 6,000 years old. No matter how much factual evidence you give these people, they will find a way to reject it. Is it so hard to comprehend that someone would do the same with a close friend of several decades? We don't know if what Christo suggests is the truth, but it very well could be. This in no way removes Paterno's guilt one iota. He covered up for Sandusky and children were abused as a result. That remains true no matter what Paterno's thinking or motivation was. But for the purpose of discussion, Christo's theory should not be dismissed out of hand.

There goes the neighborhood.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Based on what grounds? I know the LOIC premise has been brought up, but I fail to see how that applies here. Every single LOIC case that's been brought has been brought because of NCAA rules being broken over and over at schools. ...

Who is Rudy Archer? Well I guess a coach driving a former player who flunked out to a community college each day is technically "being broken over and over at schools".I think this situation, while far from a perfect analogy or anywhere near the same magnitude is still the correct one for this situation. Allowing the football team/athletic department to create their own internal rules to run by is the very definition of lack of institutional control.

 

[Smack Tripper]

"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.

 

[Christo]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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?

No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.

 

[Smack Tripper]

[Can we finally lay to rest with today's information that Joe is some dopey senile grandfather floating through life? In denial?

No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.

Well the facts belie your opinion. It borders on being unreasonable to see things differently.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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.

I could buy this the first time around, but I'm not sure how anyone could continue thinking that as it happened time and time again.

Time and time again? There were two times that this incredibly thorough investigation found that those 4 men knew about Sandusky molesting children. 1998 and 2001. They didn't know about the other times. You can argue that they should have known that by covering it up, he would keep going. And I'd agree with that argument. But there weren't, as far as we know so far, many, many coverups. There were two. And I agree with Christo. Again, all child molestation researchers and cops will tell you that the people closest to the monster do not believe it is happening. It's human nature. Dottie Sandusky could have easily, and not willingly, convinced herself that the screams from the basement were part of a fun game. That's just what happens. And that's why this tragedy really happened, IMO. The person who most easily could be convinced that it wouldn't happen again because he was closest to Sandusky (Paterno) had the power to override the two men who should have been in power and weren't as close to Sandusky (Spanier and Schultz). This is why we have chains of command, to separate people who have to make tough decisions from the people those tough decisions affect. The military is an excellent example. The Captain who knows the soldiers well can't bring himself to send them into a no-win situation so the Corporal, who has less of a relationship with the soldiers, gives the order.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...If he was in denial would he have followed it closely? ....

I don't believe for a minute that Paterno followed the 1998 investigation closely from a perspective to see whether the charges against Sandusky were factual or not, but whether or not those allegations where going to harm the prospects for that season. I don't know that Paterno was in denial, but I'm pretty sure at this point from reading the report and seeing the reactions last fall that Paterno was able to put this "petty stuff in a box" and move it to the side as he moved on to the more important PSU football.

 

[fatness]

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.

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.

 

[fatness]

I don't believe for a minute that Paterno followed the 1998 investigation closely from a perspective to see whether the charges against Sandusky were factual or not, but whether or not those allegations where going to harm the prospects for that season.

Exactly. That's no denial, it's protecting what he cared about.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

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.

Why do you think Sandusky was removed from the staff and couldn't get a job after being one of the most successful DCs in the country?

I'm going to assume you didn't read the report because you're sounding less than intelligent again. The report specifically found that there was no connection to Sandusky leaving the staff and the 1998 situation. He left because he wanted to spend more time with the Second Mile than as DC of a major CFB team. He had turned down the Temple job in 1988 for the same reason, to stay with Second Mile. It's sickening to think of now, but that was the motivation. Unless you're implying that a number of major colleges called Penn State, were told he molested young boys, and then declined to interview him and didn't tell anyone else for the last 10-15 years. Is that the theory?

 

[fatness]

Paterno got a sweeter deal even after he testified before the Grand Jury

This article paints him and his family in a worse light. Didn't think that was possible

That was quite calculating for a "doddering old man". Look at what he negotiated for himself:

Mr. Paterno was to be paid $3 million at the end of the 2011 season if he agreed it would be his last. Interest-free loans totaling $350,000 that the university had made to Mr. Paterno over the years would be forgiven as part of the retirement package. He would also have the use of the university’s private plane and a luxury box at Beaver Stadium for him and his family to use over the next 25 years.

Agreed to by Paterno and Spanier.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Time and time again? There were two times that this incredibly thorough investigation found that those 4 men knew about Sandusky molesting children. 1998 and 2001. They didn't know about the other times. You can argue that they should have known that by covering it up, he would keep going. And I'd agree with that argument. But there weren't, as far as we know so far, many, many coverups. There were two. And I agree with Christo. Again, all child molestation researchers and cops will tell you that the people closest to the monster do not believe it is happening. It's human nature. Dottie Sandusky could have easily, and not willingly, convinced herself that the screams from the basement were part of a fun game. That's just what happens. And that's why this tragedy really happened, IMO. The person who most easily could be convinced that it wouldn't happen again because he was closest to Sandusky (Paterno) had the power to override the two men who should have been in power and weren't as close to Sandusky (Spanier and Schultz). This is why we have chains of command, to separate people who have to make tough decisions from the people those tough decisions affect. The military is an excellent example. The Captain who knows the soldiers well can't bring himself to send them into a no-win situation so the Corporal, who has less of a relationship with the soldiers, gives the order.

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.

 

[fatness]

Paterno got a sweeter deal even after he testified before the Grand Jury

This article paints him and his family in a worse light. Didn't think that was possible

More from that article:

The university’s full board of trustees was kept in the dark about the arrangement until November, when Mr. Sandusky was arrested and the contract arrangements, along with so much else at Penn State, were upended. Mr. Paterno was fired, two of the university’s top officials were indicted in connection with the scandal, and the trustees, who held Mr. Paterno’s financial fate in their hands, came under verbal assault from the coach’s angry supporters.

Board members who raised questions about whether the university ought to go forward with the payments were quickly shut down, according to two people with direct knowledge of the negotiations.

In the end, the board of trustees — bombarded with hate mail and threatened with a defamation lawsuit by Mr. Paterno’s family — gave the family virtually everything it wanted, with a package worth roughly $5.5 million.

 

[fatness]

Better summary of the deal Paterno negotiated from Pennlive.

The terms were:

* A $3 million “career bonus.”

* The use of a Beaver Stadium suite by Paterno’s family for 25 years.

* A $900,000 share of television and radio revenue from the 2011 season.

* About $500,000 in other bonuses and salary payments due from last season.

* Paterno’s wife Sue will receive a monthly payment of $1,000 for the rest of her life, on-campus parking privileges and access to the Lasch football building to use specialized hydrotherapy equipment.

* Forgiveness of two loans totaling $350,000

That was in addition to Paterno's pension, worth $13.4 million.

 

[Christo]

[Can we finally lay to rest with today's information that Joe is some dopey senile grandfather floating through life? In denial?

No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.

Well the facts belie your opinion. It borders on being unreasonable to see things differently.

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.

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.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Time and time again? There were two times that this incredibly thorough investigation found that those 4 men knew about Sandusky molesting children. 1998 and 2001. They didn't know about the other times. You can argue that they should have known that by covering it up, he would keep going. And I'd agree with that argument. But there weren't, as far as we know so far, many, many coverups. There were two. And I agree with Christo. Again, all child molestation researchers and cops will tell you that the people closest to the monster do not believe it is happening. It's human nature. Dottie Sandusky could have easily, and not willingly, convinced herself that the screams from the basement were part of a fun game. That's just what happens. And that's why this tragedy really happened, IMO. The person who most easily could be convinced that it wouldn't happen again because he was closest to Sandusky (Paterno) had the power to override the two men who should have been in power and weren't as close to Sandusky (Spanier and Schultz). This is why we have chains of command, to separate people who have to make tough decisions from the people those tough decisions affect. The military is an excellent example. The Captain who knows the soldiers well can't bring himself to send them into a no-win situation so the Corporal, who has less of a relationship with the soldiers, gives the order.

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.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Fair enough. I think nuanced is good because I think that's the way the world works. In prior threads several years back I made the point that it seemed to be political, where Black/White folks were Conservative and Gray folks were Liberal. Anyway, sorry to get off topic.

Nuanced, by my definition, is not how the world works, rather the world works on pass/fail. What I hate about "nuanced solutions" is it intentionally leaves people guessing at what the real intention of the action is. If Tim's intention is to punish PSU then punish it, don't create some scenario were the are in fact punished, hopefully even crippled, while you pretend your intentions are not to do that; this is where my use of the word "Machiavellian" came in. BTW, I think that many on the left would disagree that there are any "Black Conservatives".

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Fair enough. I think nuanced is good because I think that's the way the world works. In prior threads several years back I made the point that it seemed to be political, where Black/White folks were Conservative and Gray folks were Liberal. Anyway, sorry to get off topic.

Nuanced, by my definition, is not how the world works, rather the world works on pass/fail. What I hate about "nuanced solutions" is it intentionally leaves people guessing at what the real intention of the action is. If Tim's intention is to punish PSU then punish it, don't create some scenario were the are in fact punished, hopefully even crippled, while you pretend your intentions are not to do that; this is where my use of the word "Machiavellian" came in. BTW, I think that many on the left would disagree that there are any "Black Conservatives".

Colin Powell and Condi Rice down?Anyway, I see your point. I just don't agree. I think nuanced issues call for nuanced solutions. But we just differ on that opinion. No big deal. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Smack Tripper]

[Can we finally lay to rest with today's information that Joe is some dopey senile grandfather floating through life? In denial?

No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.

Well the facts belie your opinion. It borders on being unreasonable to see things differently.

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.

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.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Better summary of the deal Paterno negotiated from Pennlive.

The terms were:

* A $3 million “career bonus.”

* The use of a Beaver Stadium suite by Paterno’s family for 25 years.

* A $900,000 share of television and radio revenue from the 2011 season.

* About $500,000 in other bonuses and salary payments due from last season.

* Paterno’s wife Sue will receive a monthly payment of $1,000 for the rest of her life, on-campus parking privileges and access to the Lasch football building to use specialized hydrotherapy equipment.

* Forgiveness of two loans totaling $350,000

That was in addition to Paterno's pension, worth $13.4 million.

Did he get to collect on that; he was alive for about 2 months when he actually was relieved of his duties.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Time and time again? There were two times that this incredibly thorough investigation found that those 4 men knew about Sandusky molesting children. 1998 and 2001. They didn't know about the other times. You can argue that they should have known that by covering it up, he would keep going. And I'd agree with that argument. But there weren't, as far as we know so far, many, many coverups. There were two. And I agree with Christo. Again, all child molestation researchers and cops will tell you that the people closest to the monster do not believe it is happening. It's human nature. Dottie Sandusky could have easily, and not willingly, convinced herself that the screams from the basement were part of a fun game. That's just what happens. And that's why this tragedy really happened, IMO. The person who most easily could be convinced that it wouldn't happen again because he was closest to Sandusky (Paterno) had the power to override the two men who should have been in power and weren't as close to Sandusky (Spanier and Schultz). This is why we have chains of command, to separate people who have to make tough decisions from the people those tough decisions affect. The military is an excellent example. The Captain who knows the soldiers well can't bring himself to send them into a no-win situation so the Corporal, who has less of a relationship with the soldiers, gives the order.

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.

 

[timschochet]

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.

.It is precisely because of these incidents that I suspect denial was a very real possibility. It is much easier, IMO, to accept that explanation than to accept the fact that these three guys knowingly, in their own minds, allowed child molestation to continue in order to protect the gpod name of the football program. While I acknowledge that as a possibility, it certainly doesn't seem very probable to me. If is far more likely that they decided, against all evidence, that Sandusky wasn't guilty of anything, and then shut all accusations from their minds. THey didn't want to believe it: in other words, denial.

 

[timschochet]

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.

Neiher choice removes their guilt. We once tried a Japanese general for war crimes that were committed by his troops in Manila. We could not prove that the general had knowledge of these crimes, but the argument was made that the general SHOULD have had knowledge of these crimes, and should have acted to prevent them, and that his lack of knowledge was immaterial. That general was executed.

 

[Christo]

[Can we finally lay to rest with today's information that Joe is some dopey senile grandfather floating through life? In denial?

No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.

Well the facts belie your opinion. It borders on being unreasonable to see things differently.

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.

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.

 

[fatness]

Better summary of the deal Paterno negotiated from Pennlive.

The terms were:

* A $3 million “career bonus.”

* The use of a Beaver Stadium suite by Paterno’s family for 25 years.

* A $900,000 share of television and radio revenue from the 2011 season.

* About $500,000 in other bonuses and salary payments due from last season.

* Paterno’s wife Sue will receive a monthly payment of $1,000 for the rest of her life, on-campus parking privileges and access to the Lasch football building to use specialized hydrotherapy equipment.

* Forgiveness of two loans totaling $350,000

That was in addition to Paterno's pension, worth $13.4 million.

Did he get to collect on that; he was alive for about 2 months when he actually was relieved of his duties.

His wife is collecting the full pension.

Sue Paterno will receive an initial payment of $10.1 million by the end of this month. The rest of the money will be paid during the next two years.

link

I don't know about collecting on the other items. Anyone seen her jetting around in the school plane lately?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Time and time again? There were two times that this incredibly thorough investigation found that those 4 men knew about Sandusky molesting children. 1998 and 2001. They didn't know about the other times. You can argue that they should have known that by covering it up, he would keep going. And I'd agree with that argument. But there weren't, as far as we know so far, many, many coverups. There were two. And I agree with Christo. Again, all child molestation researchers and cops will tell you that the people closest to the monster do not believe it is happening. It's human nature. Dottie Sandusky could have easily, and not willingly, convinced herself that the screams from the basement were part of a fun game. That's just what happens. And that's why this tragedy really happened, IMO. The person who most easily could be convinced that it wouldn't happen again because he was closest to Sandusky (Paterno) had the power to override the two men who should have been in power and weren't as close to Sandusky (Spanier and Schultz). This is why we have chains of command, to separate people who have to make tough decisions from the people those tough decisions affect. The military is an excellent example. The Captain who knows the soldiers well can't bring himself to send them into a no-win situation so the Corporal, who has less of a relationship with the soldiers, gives the order.

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.

Thanks. And I agree that you might be right.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

Neiher choice removes their guilt. We once tried a Japanese general for war crimes that were committed by his troops in Manila. We could not prove that the general had knowledge of these crimes, but the argument was made that the general SHOULD have had knowledge of these crimes, and should have acted to prevent them, and that his lack of knowledge was immaterial. That general was executed.

Agree 100% although I don't think we should execute any of the 3 remaining men. Now Sandusky......

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Better summary of the deal Paterno negotiated from Pennlive.

The terms were:

* A $3 million “career bonus.”

* The use of a Beaver Stadium suite by Paterno’s family for 25 years.

* A $900,000 share of television and radio revenue from the 2011 season.

* About $500,000 in other bonuses and salary payments due from last season.

* Paterno’s wife Sue will receive a monthly payment of $1,000 for the rest of her life, on-campus parking privileges and access to the Lasch football building to use specialized hydrotherapy equipment.

* Forgiveness of two loans totaling $350,000

That was in addition to Paterno's pension, worth $13.4 million.

Did he get to collect on that; he was alive for about 2 months when he actually was relieved of his duties.

His wife is collecting the full pension.

Sue Paterno will receive an initial payment of $10.1 million by the end of this month. The rest of the money will be paid during the next two years.

link

I don't know about collecting on the other items. Anyone seen her jetting around in the school plane lately?

I'm pretty sure I saw a tweet today from someone in which the airplane use was denied for the family.

 

[Smack Tripper]

[Can we finally lay to rest with today's information that Joe is some dopey senile grandfather floating through life? In denial?

No. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written it.

Well the facts belie your opinion. It borders on being unreasonable to see things differently.

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.

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!!

 

[Tin Cup]

I have a compromise proposal to make- though it's just for the purpose of this discussion, since this will never happen:Let Penn State continue with their football program. That way, none of the students and vendors will be punished. But for the next 2-3 years, the University can turn over 100% of the net profits to charities which help the victims of child abuse.

I am a Penn State alum and football season ticket holder and have been very conflicted this week (about the statue, about the football program, and about pretty much everything else).While I am not in favor of the "death penalty" outcry, I do feel (and hope) the university does some sort of meaningful self-sanction to show all parties (university community, public at large, victims, etc) that we recognize the gravity and magnitude of this issue and are willing to make difficult choices and take difficult steps to begin to chart a new course.I like Tim's idea more than a self-imposed (or mandated) suspension of the football program. Take the money (and it is a lot of money) that the football program produces and put it toward a greater good. Having said that, I think I'm at the point that I'd rather see the school self-mandate a football moratorium than do nothing. I think doing nothing will just continue to invite scorn and contempt, and I'd like to think that someday (whenever that is), the public perception of Penn State will be more balanced than it is today and would be if "business as usual" went on.

 

[fatness]

I don't think Paterno was in denial. I think he wanted to protect his football program, didn't want anything interfering with that, and didn't want to think about anything but football and the football program. I don't think he ever gave it any much thought than that, and no evidence has come out that he did. Allegations of kids being molested either interfered with his job or had nothing to do with his job.

 

[Christo]

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!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

 

[fatness]

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!!

WTF are you talking about? You said I was being unreasonable and fatness said I look foolish. I said considering the sources I felt comfortable with my position.You really aren't very smart, are you?

You haven't supported your opinion well.

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.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have the unpopular opinion that Penn State should not ban their football program. I think the senior officials who covered up the crime should be prosecuted by law, but I don't think the football team should also be punished. The players did nothing wrong, the football staff they have now did nothing wrong, the students did nothing wrong, the remaining faculty at the school did nothing wrong, and the fans and alumni did nothing wrong. Penn State will be slapped with lawsuits too, so the punishment doesn't just end with the senior officials being prosecuted. Joe Paterno football is gone. It's dead, and his legacy is now damaged beyond repair. Let a new era begin, while they deal and heal with the hurt Paterno and other senior officials left behind. Take the statue down, change the uniforms, but don't take away an innocent football team. The football team was also betrayed by Joe and the others that covered up what that monster did. Like all the innocent students, faculty, and Penn State alumni and fans, the football team trusted them to do the right thing too. Nobody is going to forget what happened with Penn State and Sandusky if the football team is playing every Saturday. There is no need to inflict more pain.

Do you support not sanctioning teams for any NCAA infractions then? If not, what is the difference between those "innoncent players" and these?

NCAA infractions inherently involve football and fall under the purview of, well, the NCAA. Child sexual abuse and cover-ups related to it don't have anything in particular to do with football, are prosecuted as crimes by law enforcement authorities, and don't involve the NCAA.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't think Paterno was in denial. I think he wanted to protect his football program, didn't want anything interfering with that, and didn't want to think about anything but football and the football program. I don't think he ever gave it any much thought than that, and no evidence has come out that he did. Allegations of kids being molested either interfered with his job or had nothing to do with his job.

By the late '90s he bought into his legend of molding boys into great men. This was his job and it was vital to continue.

 

[simey]

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.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Better summary of the deal Paterno negotiated from Pennlive.

The terms were:

* A $3 million “career bonus.”

* The use of a Beaver Stadium suite by Paterno’s family for 25 years.

* A $900,000 share of television and radio revenue from the 2011 season.

* About $500,000 in other bonuses and salary payments due from last season.

* Paterno’s wife Sue will receive a monthly payment of $1,000 for the rest of her life, on-campus parking privileges and access to the Lasch football building to use specialized hydrotherapy equipment.

* Forgiveness of two loans totaling $350,000

That was in addition to Paterno's pension, worth $13.4 million.

Did he get to collect on that; he was alive for about 2 months when he actually was relieved of his duties.

His wife is collecting the full pension.

Sue Paterno will receive an initial payment of $10.1 million by the end of this month. The rest of the money will be paid during the next two years.

link

I don't know about collecting on the other items. Anyone seen her jetting around in the school plane lately?

I'm pretty sure I saw a tweet today from someone in which the airplane use was denied for the family.

Forget about Sandusky, I want to know who Paterno was manipulating to get this kind of deal. It wasn't like he was the greatest coach that ever lived. and it seemed that a good amount of the alumni wanted him out.

 

[simey]

I have the unpopular opinion that Penn State should not ban their football program. I think the senior officials who covered up the crime should be prosecuted by law, but I don't think the football team should also be punished. The players did nothing wrong, the football staff they have now did nothing wrong, the students did nothing wrong, the remaining faculty at the school did nothing wrong, and the fans and alumni did nothing wrong. Penn State will be slapped with lawsuits too, so the punishment doesn't just end with the senior officials being prosecuted. Joe Paterno football is gone. It's dead, and his legacy is now damaged beyond repair. Let a new era begin, while they deal and heal with the hurt Paterno and other senior officials left behind. Take the statue down, change the uniforms, but don't take away an innocent football team. The football team was also betrayed by Joe and the others that covered up what that monster did. Like all the innocent students, faculty, and Penn State alumni and fans, the football team trusted them to do the right thing too. Nobody is going to forget what happened with Penn State and Sandusky if the football team is playing every Saturday. There is no need to inflict more pain.

Do you support not sanctioning teams for any NCAA infractions then? If not, what is the difference between those "innoncent players" and these?

NCAA infractions inherently involve football and fall under the purview of, well, the NCAA. Child sexual abuse and cover-ups related to it don't have anything in particular to do with football, are prosecuted as crimes by law enforcement authorities, and don't involve the NCAA.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I don't think Paterno was in denial. I think he wanted to protect his football program, didn't want anything interfering with that, and didn't want to think about anything but football and the football program. I don't think he ever gave it any much thought than that, and no evidence has come out that he did. Allegations of kids being molested either interfered with his job or had nothing to do with his job.

JoePa was Uncle Leo at the bookstore. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Christo]

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.

I could see Joe being in denial the first time it happened, but it happened more than once. Sandusky was accused by a boys mother back in 1998 for doing inappropriate things with her boy. The DA didn't press charges, and I can see where Joe may have given his friend the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think he could do such a thing. However, Joe's own staff member (McQueary) witnessed Sandusky doing sexual inappropriate things with a boy once again. Any denial should have ended right there.

If logic were the basis for the phenomenon, yes. But it isn't. By definition, denial isn't logical. Or, a person in denial isn't being logical.