Paterno

[Army of GOD]

college football is in a sad state. I love South Park's "Crack Baby Athletic Association" episode because it satirizes the NCAA (they liken the people who earn a lot of money through college sports to slave owners, considering the student-atheletes get nothing but a college degree that doesn't mean much to them).

[pancakemix]

I'd say that the institution and its football program benefited from their committing the criminal act which is even worse than cheating. By benefit, I mean that those in high positions got to keep their positions and the money associated with it and their program continued to gain prestige and the money associated with it. That's a direct benefit to all involved.

Not killing the football program would be equal to taking the position that paying players over a few years is worse than hiding child rape for 12 years.

It'd also be punishing a large group of people for crimes they weren't involved in. Penn state clearly has to address a lot of issues, but labelling everyone who's been involved in their football programme as essentially complicit in pedophilia seems like pushing a bit too far, to put it mildly.

At the very least, Spainer, Shultz, Curley, and Paterno knew enough to make them complicit in a cover-up. So the heads of the football program, the athletic department and the university itself. Holding them accountable seems like a pretty legitimate move in my estimation.

[Woodruff]

I'd say that the institution and its football program benefited from their committing the criminal act which is even worse than cheating. By benefit, I mean that those in high positions got to keep their positions and the money associated with it and their program continued to gain prestige and the money associated with it. That's a direct benefit to all involved.

Paterno and Spanier wouldn't have lost their "high positions" if they had simply done the right thing, so no...I don't think that's the case. I also don't believe the football program would have been hurt if they had done so. Penn State University would've taken an image/prestige hit, certainly.

Not killing the football program would be equal to taking the position that paying players over a few years is worse than hiding child rape for 12 years.

It does nothing of the sort because what you're not seeing is where the enforcement comes from. The "death penalty" is not a criminal action. No court hands it down. It is given by the NCAA, and what THEY care about (because they are not an organization that deals with criminal activity) is cheating within their ranks. Whereas criminal activity as has happened here is NOT handled by the NCAA and is in fact handled by the courts, who do NOT have anything to do with the "death penalty".

[Woodruff]

I'd say that the institution and its football program benefited from their committing the criminal act which is even worse than cheating. By benefit, I mean that those in high positions got to keep their positions and the money associated with it and their program continued to gain prestige and the money associated with it. That's a direct benefit to all involved.

Not killing the football program would be equal to taking the position that paying players over a few years is worse than hiding child rape for 12 years.

It'd also be punishing a large group of people for crimes they weren't involved in. Penn state clearly has to address a lot of issues, but labelling everyone who's been involved in their football programme as essentially complicit in pedophilia seems like pushing a bit too far, to put it mildly.

At the very least, Spainer, Shultz, Curley, and Paterno knew enough to make them complicit in a cover-up. So the heads of the football program, the athletic department and the university itself. Holding them accountable seems like a pretty legitimate move in my estimation.

Oh, absolutely. In no way should they be let off the hook. The point though, is that "the death penalty" for the football program is not appropriate to the circumstances.

[PLAYER57832]

The truth is that no human being is free from ill. When we begin by putting people up on a high pedestal, then we set the stage for this type of abuse.

Of course no human being is free from making mistakes and doing bad things. And I certainly agree that putting people up on a high pedestal does set the stage for this type of abuse. I don't happen to think either of those things is relevant to Paterno's (or Spanier's, for that matter) decisions and actions in this matter.

Separate Spanier from Paterno.

I have always held Spanier utterly responsible because I sat and listened to him lecture on abuse issues, so I know he knew a lot more than average people.

I don't excuse Paterno at this case, but the context IS different. I strongly suspect.. and this is born up by people who knew Paterno well, that a lot of what happened is that he just plain convinced himself the issue had been overblown. That is where putting on the pedestal very much IS relevant. See, to say that Paterno was putting a football program over kids is just wrong. I don't believe he saw it that way. Remember, not to long before this we had a few very high publicity abuse cases that, later wound up being found utterly bogus.

The fact that even an accusation, no matter how unfounded, can literally ruin a person's career does mean that you need to be cautious in the accusations. Times have changed. Being in teaching you may realize how quickly things have changed in this regard, but dealing with mostly older kids.. maybe not? Anyway, its a hard thing. You know someone well, trust them and then someone voices a terrible, terrible accusation. If you are someone like Paterno, of a "past generation" where such things were just not even talked about .. PERIOD, then it would be even harder. I do see him trying to protect Sandusky, but to protect him from what he honestly believed (convinced himself) were mostly spurious accusations. Note.. I am not saying that an objective person would have thought that way. I am saying a HUMAN, in his position, did .. and that this happens frequently.

I put part of the blame on putting people on a pedestal. BUT, there is another part that lies in the way we treat people even accused of child abuse. We absolutely need to take steps.. in fact, do more. However, we ALSO need to protect adults from "witch hunts".

I can be very angry, criticize, whatever, Paterno for his actions (yes, this IS a change.. new information changes things) and yet still acknowledge that he did a lot for Penn State.

I never said he hasn't done a lot for Penn State, for his players, and for society in general. But in my opinion, this particular situation comes down to evil, rather than simply being a mistake, because of who the victims were and what was going on. That changes everything, in my view.

Except, you/we see that NOW, with 20/20 hindsight. Have you ever dealt, personally, with abuse issues -- that is, had to make reports or such? I have. Its not always clear cut, even when you have statements.

I am not saying Paterno was innocent, not at all. I am saying that this issue is just very complex, not simple. And, I am mostly saying that we have little to be gained from scapegoating Paterno. Learning from the situation, and moving forward --absolutely, but not just laying blame.

I do hold back some anger in this case, not because I think he should be excused, but because he is already dead and there is therefore nothing to be gained by vilifying him specifically.

Yes, and no. I generally agree with you on that. But I DO think that making a big deal of it can make a difference in perhaps getting other organizations (I'm thinking specifically of universities and how they treat their athletic departments) to protect themselves better in keeping from allowing themselves to fall into a similar situation.

Exactly, but I fear that targeting Paterno too much will divert from that.

The lesson here is not that Paterno was a bad guy, it was more that even someone like Paterno could get caught up in making what we now see as a wrong choice.

Its easy to sit back and say "Paterno was just bad".. essentially, to say "I would never do that, if it were me". Except, the real truth is that we just don't know how we would act. We hope, we believe, but we don't know. Things always seem much, much clearer in hindsight.

If we deny that Paterno was, inherently a truly good guy who truly did care about his players and the program -- but the whole players and the whole university program, not "just" football (though football was the means), then we essentially make this about one bad guy. We paint a "good versus evil" and, essentially, put ourselves on the side of "good".. and thus really avoid dealing with what made this happen/allowed this to happen. The real tragedy here is that Paterno WAS a "good guy".. and YET, this still happened. The lesson is that even good people can make very bad decisions.. and that we need to ensure that its harder to make bad decisions that harm kids so severely.

[Woodruff]

The truth is that no human being is free from ill. When we begin by putting people up on a high pedestal, then we set the stage for this type of abuse.

Of course no human being is free from making mistakes and doing bad things. And I certainly agree that putting people up on a high pedestal does set the stage for this type of abuse. I don't happen to think either of those things is relevant to Paterno's (or Spanier's, for that matter) decisions and actions in this matter.

Separate Spanier from Paterno.

I have always held Spanier utterly responsible because I sat and listened to him lecture on abuse issues, so I know he knew a lot more than average people.

I don't excuse Paterno at this case, but the context IS different. I strongly suspect.. and this is born up by people who knew Paterno well, that a lot of what happened is that he just plain convinced himself the issue had been overblown.

Have you read the Freeh report? I have, and I must disagree with you.

See, to say that Paterno was putting a football program over kids is just wrong. I don't believe he saw it that way.

I see you haven't read it yet. I suggest you do so. Whether Paterno "saw it that way" is irrelevant.

[whitestazn88]

I still blame everything on Sandusky. Those crazy vampire/pedo creepers undoubtedly have the ability to control the minds of those around them...

[PLAYER57832]

The truth is that no human being is free from ill. When we begin by putting people up on a high pedestal, then we set the stage for this type of abuse.

Of course no human being is free from making mistakes and doing bad things. And I certainly agree that putting people up on a high pedestal does set the stage for this type of abuse. I don't happen to think either of those things is relevant to Paterno's (or Spanier's, for that matter) decisions and actions in this matter.

Separate Spanier from Paterno.

I have always held Spanier utterly responsible because I sat and listened to him lecture on abuse issues, so I know he knew a lot more than average people.

I don't excuse Paterno at this case, but the context IS different. I strongly suspect.. and this is born up by people who knew Paterno well, that a lot of what happened is that he just plain convinced himself the issue had been overblown.

Have you read the Freeh report? I have, and I must disagree with you.

See, to say that Paterno was putting a football program over kids is just wrong. I don't believe he saw it that way.

I see you haven't read it yet. I suggest you do so. Whether Paterno "saw it that way" is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant that he had convinced himself the reports were spurious?

note... this is where I say that his age, background and training are important.

Among specific comments, were his saying that he had turned this over to people he felt more trained to deal with it. See, HE knew, as do I that other administrative officials were specifically and better trained in this. Paterno knew football. He valued education, and a general sense of integrity (yes, he did). However, the knowledge that professionals have had, the training that professionals in the field have been getting about child abuse has changed phenomenally in the past few decades. Paterno, not dealing directly with young kids, did not specifically even take that training. In restrospect, all the officials should have. However, that is just not how it was.

Paterno's fault was that he had so much vested in the Penn State program.. the whole program, but yes, football as the driver. He saw, was a "protector" of the program. BUT.. and this is key, does that mean that he put the needs of the program above the child or that he was concerned that one incident, one he did not really know to be valid, not ruin what he knew to be a very, very good thing for many, many young adults and kids, a whole community?

AND, please note. I am NOT saying that this is how I think we all see things now. I am saying it is utterly unfair to look at some written words, relatively free of emotions, to take events 15 years after they happened, with 15 years additional knowledge and to demand that Paterno should have operated as if he knew all of that back then.

Oh, and to be clear, I do NOT believe Spanier's comment that he had not been told of any specific abuse ..or that he did not hear enough to have taken different action, at any rate. He did, at least know the right questions to ask, the issues.

[AndyDufresne]

I've never really been in favor of any of the 'program death penalty' situations, unless those involved in the program were actually involved in something, akin to say the Florida A&M Band suspension since band members may have been involved with a possible hazing death.

Most likely though, outside of Sandusky, I am not sure those who deserve punishment will ever receive much.


--Andy

[spurgistan]

I'd say that the institution and its football program benefited from their committing the criminal act which is even worse than cheating. By benefit, I mean that those in high positions got to keep their positions and the money associated with it and their program continued to gain prestige and the money associated with it. That's a direct benefit to all involved.

Not killing the football program would be equal to taking the position that paying players over a few years is worse than hiding child rape for 12 years.

It'd also be punishing a large group of people for crimes they weren't involved in. Penn state clearly has to address a lot of issues, but labelling everyone who's been involved in their football programme as essentially complicit in pedophilia seems like pushing a bit too far, to put it mildly.

But that does seem to be how institutional wrongdoing works, though. A handful of bankers make extremely bad bets, the entire system collapses. While it might suck for non-complicit people in the Penn State program who don't have the option to leave (there aren't many) our ability to punish the kind of evil shit that went down in Happy Valley, and make it so that programs are less likely to cover up for, you know, rapists and stuff.

Joe Paterno (and his coworkers) faced a dilemma. He could either protect children or the day-to-day functioning of his football team. From the eyes of a football administrator, he made the right choice. As a moral person, we can tell that he made the wrong choice. We need to fix the arithmetic by making it clear that covering up criminal wrongdoing will be punished, and the football team will suffer. And again, if it gets the death penalty the players get to go to other schools.

[Woodruff]

The truth is that no human being is free from ill. When we begin by putting people up on a high pedestal, then we set the stage for this type of abuse.

Of course no human being is free from making mistakes and doing bad things. And I certainly agree that putting people up on a high pedestal does set the stage for this type of abuse. I don't happen to think either of those things is relevant to Paterno's (or Spanier's, for that matter) decisions and actions in this matter.

Separate Spanier from Paterno.

I have always held Spanier utterly responsible because I sat and listened to him lecture on abuse issues, so I know he knew a lot more than average people.

I don't excuse Paterno at this case, but the context IS different. I strongly suspect.. and this is born up by people who knew Paterno well, that a lot of what happened is that he just plain convinced himself the issue had been overblown.

Have you read the Freeh report? I have, and I must disagree with you.

See, to say that Paterno was putting a football program over kids is just wrong. I don't believe he saw it that way.

I see you haven't read it yet. I suggest you do so. Whether Paterno "saw it that way" is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant that he had convinced himself the reports were spurious?

Read the report. Paterno and Spanier both (along with the other two) were named as explicitly doing everything they could in the situation in order to protect the football program with no consideration for the victims until after Sandusky had been charged.

[Symmetry]

I'd say that the institution and its football program benefited from their committing the criminal act which is even worse than cheating. By benefit, I mean that those in high positions got to keep their positions and the money associated with it and their program continued to gain prestige and the money associated with it. That's a direct benefit to all involved.

Not killing the football program would be equal to taking the position that paying players over a few years is worse than hiding child rape for 12 years.

It'd also be punishing a large group of people for crimes they weren't involved in. Penn state clearly has to address a lot of issues, but labelling everyone who's been involved in their football programme as essentially complicit in pedophilia seems like pushing a bit too far, to put it mildly.

But that does seem to be how institutional wrongdoing works, though. A handful of bankers make extremely bad bets, the entire system collapses. While it might suck for non-complicit people in the Penn State program who don't have the option to leave (there aren't many) our ability to punish the kind of evil shit that went down in Happy Valley, and make it so that programs are less likely to cover up for, you know, rapists and stuff.

Joe Paterno (and his coworkers) faced a dilemma. He could either protect children or the day-to-day functioning of his football team. From the eyes of a football administrator, he made the right choice. As a moral person, we can tell that he made the wrong choice. We need to fix the arithmetic by making it clear that covering up criminal wrongdoing will be punished, and the football team will suffer. And again, if it gets the death penalty the players get to go to other schools.

No- as several other posters have pointed out, people not involved in the crimes were not complicit in the abuse.

And I don't think Paterno made the right choice. Under any excuse, or context, he should have gone to the police.

[xeno]

Rape!

[PLAYER57832]

[
Read the report. Paterno and Spanier both (along with the other two) were named as explicitly doing everything they could in the situation in order to protect the football program with no consideration for the victims until after Sandusky had been charged.

I will reread the whole report, then.

[spurgistan]

I'd say that the institution and its football program benefited from their committing the criminal act which is even worse than cheating. By benefit, I mean that those in high positions got to keep their positions and the money associated with it and their program continued to gain prestige and the money associated with it. That's a direct benefit to all involved.

Not killing the football program would be equal to taking the position that paying players over a few years is worse than hiding child rape for 12 years.

It'd also be punishing a large group of people for crimes they weren't involved in. Penn state clearly has to address a lot of issues, but labelling everyone who's been involved in their football programme as essentially complicit in pedophilia seems like pushing a bit too far, to put it mildly.

But that does seem to be how institutional wrongdoing works, though. A handful of bankers make extremely bad bets, the entire system collapses. While it might suck for non-complicit people in the Penn State program who don't have the option to leave (there aren't many) our ability to punish the kind of evil shit that went down in Happy Valley, and make it so that programs are less likely to cover up for, you know, rapists and stuff.

Joe Paterno (and his coworkers) faced a dilemma. He could either protect children or the day-to-day functioning of his football team. From the eyes of a football administrator, he made the right choice. As a moral person, we can tell that he made the wrong choice. We need to fix the arithmetic by making it clear that covering up criminal wrongdoing will be punished, and the football team will suffer. And again, if it gets the death penalty the players get to go to other schools.

No- as several other posters have pointed out, people not involved in the crimes were not complicit in the abuse.

And I don't think Paterno made the right choice. Under any excuse, or context, he should have gone to the police.

I disagree. Narrowly defining his position as looking out for the interests of his football team, his job is to quash anything that might hurt the football team. The criminal prosecution against Sandusky would have destroyed the team, and Paterno et al clearly thought they could manage it. Omitting his role as a moral citizen, which I think we can differentiate from his role as the operator of a big-time football program, Paterno did the "right" thing in trying to protect the program. And again, if players want to leave the school, they will be allowed to. People who want to try to restore Penn State's tattered reputation will be given the chance to.

[Woodruff]

I'd say that the institution and its football program benefited from their committing the criminal act which is even worse than cheating. By benefit, I mean that those in high positions got to keep their positions and the money associated with it and their program continued to gain prestige and the money associated with it. That's a direct benefit to all involved.

Not killing the football program would be equal to taking the position that paying players over a few years is worse than hiding child rape for 12 years.

It'd also be punishing a large group of people for crimes they weren't involved in. Penn state clearly has to address a lot of issues, but labelling everyone who's been involved in their football programme as essentially complicit in pedophilia seems like pushing a bit too far, to put it mildly.

But that does seem to be how institutional wrongdoing works, though. A handful of bankers make extremely bad bets, the entire system collapses. While it might suck for non-complicit people in the Penn State program who don't have the option to leave (there aren't many) our ability to punish the kind of evil shit that went down in Happy Valley, and make it so that programs are less likely to cover up for, you know, rapists and stuff.

Joe Paterno (and his coworkers) faced a dilemma. He could either protect children or the day-to-day functioning of his football team. From the eyes of a football administrator, he made the right choice. As a moral person, we can tell that he made the wrong choice. We need to fix the arithmetic by making it clear that covering up criminal wrongdoing will be punished, and the football team will suffer. And again, if it gets the death penalty the players get to go to other schools.

No- as several other posters have pointed out, people not involved in the crimes were not complicit in the abuse.

And I don't think Paterno made the right choice. Under any excuse, or context, he should have gone to the police.

I disagree. Narrowly defining his position as looking out for the interests of his football team, his job is to quash anything that might hurt the football team.

I have difficulty believing that the Penn State University would have defined his position that narrowly, given that it would mean undertaking illegal activities.

The criminal prosecution against Sandusky would have destroyed the team, and Paterno et al clearly thought they could manage it.

That's the thing that really gets me about this. I definitely disagree that it WOULD have "destroyed the team" if it had been taken care of when it should have been. I think it would have been a scandal that would've been forgotten within five years, because the University did the right thing in dealing with it. Zero long-term consequences.

Omitting his role as a moral citizen, which I think we can differentiate from his role as the operator of a big-time football program, Paterno did the "right" thing in trying to protect the program.

I cannot agree with that.

[Symmetry]

I'd say that the institution and its football program benefited from their committing the criminal act which is even worse than cheating. By benefit, I mean that those in high positions got to keep their positions and the money associated with it and their program continued to gain prestige and the money associated with it. That's a direct benefit to all involved.

Not killing the football program would be equal to taking the position that paying players over a few years is worse than hiding child rape for 12 years.

It'd also be punishing a large group of people for crimes they weren't involved in. Penn state clearly has to address a lot of issues, but labelling everyone who's been involved in their football programme as essentially complicit in pedophilia seems like pushing a bit too far, to put it mildly.

But that does seem to be how institutional wrongdoing works, though. A handful of bankers make extremely bad bets, the entire system collapses. While it might suck for non-complicit people in the Penn State program who don't have the option to leave (there aren't many) our ability to punish the kind of evil shit that went down in Happy Valley, and make it so that programs are less likely to cover up for, you know, rapists and stuff.

Joe Paterno (and his coworkers) faced a dilemma. He could either protect children or the day-to-day functioning of his football team. From the eyes of a football administrator, he made the right choice. As a moral person, we can tell that he made the wrong choice. We need to fix the arithmetic by making it clear that covering up criminal wrongdoing will be punished, and the football team will suffer. And again, if it gets the death penalty the players get to go to other schools.

No- as several other posters have pointed out, people not involved in the crimes were not complicit in the abuse.

And I don't think Paterno made the right choice. Under any excuse, or context, he should have gone to the police.

I disagree. Narrowly defining his position as looking out for the interests of his football team, his job is to quash anything that might hurt the football team. The criminal prosecution against Sandusky would have destroyed the team, and Paterno et al clearly thought they could manage it. Omitting his role as a moral citizen, which I think we can differentiate from his role as the operator of a big-time football program, Paterno did the "right" thing in trying to protect the program. And again, if players want to leave the school, they will be allowed to. People who want to try to restore Penn State's tattered reputation will be given the chance to.

No, it would not have destroyed the team. They were not complicit in any way. Paterno, at best, looked out for some of his coaching team, if that's what you're going for, but he certainly wasn't looking out for the programme. The football team survives, and plays on.

Holding the entire team accountable is like demanding that people stop being Catholic because of the examples of abuse in the upper echelons of the Church.

Paterno did the wrong thing, by any reasonable standard.

[GabonX]

I have addressed the abuse allegations specifically in the other thread (Paterno passed).

But, it is clear that many people here really don't know what he truly represented, why he is so revered in this area. I myself did not know all of it.

I want to share some of that here, because Paterno is a man who's like we won't see again soon.
Many of you are likely aware that he held not just a high athletic standard, but a very high academic standard as well. It was the "bold experiment".

To begin, how many of you are aware that he was in the fore of treating all people well? He began at Penn state when race issues were boiling all over the south still. He was not a marcher, a protester. He simply did what was right. He did this in many ,many ways. He picked talent and treated them as just that.. talent. YET, he never let the athletes become stars. Penn state jerseys do not, have never (under Paterno, at least), had names of players. They are all part of the team. They all work together, are celebrated as a team or they come down as a team.


When his players got into trouble, he would be the very first to hold them to task. BUT.. it was often in private ways not seen by the public. That was his way.

He was "old school", with a very Italien bent. When he came to recruit players, he went directly to ... the players moms. Player after player talks about how they came home to find him in the kitchen, being fed and chatting with their parents, but particularly their moms. The promises he made differed from most recruiters. He did not promise fancy gimgaws or gaurantees of specific positions. He promised that the boys would get good educations, FIRST. Second, they would be held responsible. In many cases, he promised the moms that the boy would go to church. He promised the boy a chance to FIGHT for the positions.

And, though the "outside" looks at his 409 wins, the people in State College look to his commitment, a REAL commitment to education and integrity. That is why he is celebrated. That is why Robinson came from the pro bowl to speak. It is why the thousands of tickets were ALL gone in 7 minutes of their offering.

Per the last incident, I think the Chairman of Nike put it well. The Failure was not that Paterno did not report. He reported it to the head of campus police and the head of the university in full. The failure was in those people to investigate. AND.. it was very much those people's job, those people's duty to verify. Paterno's failure was in trusting that the people who were more directly trained in this to investigate it as well as THEY should have. Paterno stuck to what he knew and could do.

Lol at Player defending child molesters.

[xxtig12683xx]

Joe Pa might as well have fucked those kids himself.

+1

PLAYER, your from PA(prolly even a State alum, provided you were smart enough to go to school), but what a fucking moron you are! I'm not reading 5 pages of this dribble, but to defend Paterno at this point is ludicrous. Sure he may have reported it, but it was swept right under the rug by the "supposed" higher ups. So where was his great moral being when he saw nothing was really done about it??? "Oh I did my job and told someone else about it, and if they don't do anything then so be it...must not be true" GTFO it was a massive cover up to protect the football program that had become more important than innocent children. The fact that you defend this man with such vigor is embarrassing. It's a disgusting black mark, and should he still be alive he should be rotting in jail right next to Sandusky, maybe they could even jerk each other off.

But keep living in your happy little world where JoePa is a saint.

He deserves every bit of bad press he gets, and I hope hes rotting in hell.


-tig

[GreecePwns]

If he really cared about nothing being done after telling the school authorities, he would've gone to the police. But this entire school's culture is built on insular thinking.

[spurgistan]

I think we've all realized that Player has kind of avoided coverage of the Freeh report. And hey, if she wants to, that's pretty much her prerogative.

[PLAYER57832]

The fact that you defend this man with such vigor is embarrassing. It's a disgusting black mark, and should he still be alive he should be rotting in jail right next to Sandusky, maybe they could even jerk each other off.

But keep living in your happy little world where JoePa is a saint.
He deserves every bit of bad press he gets, and I hope hes rotting in hell.


-tig

And you base this opinion upon what.. this report? \
See, I base it upon the experiances of hundreds of people who knew the guy... and I am hardly giving him a complete pass.

MY main concern is that targeting Paterno is actually being used as an excuse to divert attention from problems that can be fixed, today. Its easy to target a dead man. Far harder to work to prevent such things from even possibly happening in the beginning.

[GreecePwns]

And you base this opinion upon what.. this report? \
See, I base it upon the experiances of hundreds of people who knew the guy... and I am hardly giving him a complete pass.

Insular (n.) - Ignorant of or uninterested in idea outside one's own experience.


The Freeh report represents the best facts we have about this case, as researched by the law firm of the director of the FBI. I would think their assessment would be more accurate than "hundreds of people who knew the guy." Clearly they didn't know him if he was doing this.

[Bones2484]

I disagree. Narrowly defining his position as looking out for the interests of his football team, his job is to quash anything that might hurt the football team. The criminal prosecution against Sandusky would have destroyed the team, and Paterno et al clearly thought they could manage it. Omitting his role as a moral citizen, which I think we can differentiate from his role as the operator of a big-time football program, Paterno did the "right" thing in trying to protect the program. And again, if players want to leave the school, they will be allowed to. People who want to try to restore Penn State's tattered reputation will be given the chance to.

Even if your narrow definition of his position was true (which it isn't), he still completely failed in "quashing anything that might hurt the football team". In fact, what Paterno didn't do was so terrible that he caused MUCH more damage to the team than if he had spoken up and not been the driving force in trying to cover it up.

Just wait for the NCAA report tomorrow and you'll see what I mean. Had Paterno done the right thing, Penn St would not be facing penalties.

[Woodruff]

I disagree. Narrowly defining his position as looking out for the interests of his football team, his job is to quash anything that might hurt the football team. The criminal prosecution against Sandusky would have destroyed the team, and Paterno et al clearly thought they could manage it. Omitting his role as a moral citizen, which I think we can differentiate from his role as the operator of a big-time football program, Paterno did the "right" thing in trying to protect the program. And again, if players want to leave the school, they will be allowed to. People who want to try to restore Penn State's tattered reputation will be given the chance to.

Even if your narrow definition of his position was true (which it isn't), he still completely failed in "quashing anything that might hurt the football team". In fact, what Paterno didn't do was so terrible that he caused MUCH more damage to the team than if he had spoken up and not been the driving force in trying to cover it up.

That's exactly right. As I said earlier, if the right thing had been done and Sandusky had been taken into custody at that time, there would have been almost no damage done to the football program.