Woodruff wrote:Bones2484 wrote:spurgistan wrote: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.
I guess I disagree with that last part, which is pretty much a judgment call. What do you think I did wrong about defining him as a football administrator? Are we supposed to believe the fiction that operators of college-football factories should be moral leaders of men?





















































































