Big Ten votes to award Penn State full 2014-15 bowl revenue share
- Thread starter DT Hawxhurst
- Start date
No, that's a fact that what you wrote was incredibly, unbelievably incorrect.
I am in the minority but I do believe the blame should be placed on the four including Joe. I don't believe in some conspiracy. You have four highly educated men and no one thought to just take the basic cover your ass steps. I have worked with children in the past and know it simple not matter how vague or poorly communicated you must do due diligence. A simple report of who what when and where you reported it. It doesn't matter if you report it to DPW, the police or childline. You document it. I don't buy Joe did not understand. I think he simply did not want to be involved and passed the buck even though he could have done more.
With that said. Disagree on motive. I don't buy they did it to protect the brand of Penn State football. While I believe there is evidence that they failed to report it I have not seen evidence to motive. I think The assistant coach who reported it had been coached a bit and was not as clear telling them as he did in front of the grand jury. He clearly reported something inappropriate was going on but did not report he saw the kid being raped. I think many of us view this as simple black and white decision. However I do believe they thought this was simply another case of Jerry being Jerry. i am sure they simply did not want to believe that this person who they knew and respected for years was a child predator. Here is were the blame comes in for me. Sometimes you have to stop being a coworker friend Ect and act like this is someone you don't know. You have to know your job is to protect the university. You have to report it and let trained professionals investigate. Maybe they can't press charges maybe they do. In the end you protected the university. I understand it hard because you hate to accuse and potentially ruin a person reputation if not true. But it has to be done. I don't think they ever said we have to do this to protect football. I do believe because they failed to have the basic safeguards Penn State is civilly liable for the claims. As far as criminal I not sure. There are to many legal questions that need to be answered. Morally I do believe all four men deserve some blame. I do get frustrated with the lack of facts many people seem to have. The media is the biggest offended. I seen article that were so bad that one even said it was Joe who was molesting kids. Even some basic facts like he was retired or that his office was not in the football building are missed. It not as simply as many make it out to be.
I don't think it was an NCAA issue. I think the proper venue was criminal court, civil court and cleary violations. I feel like the NCAA just decided to follow mob justice instead of following their own due process. Any governing organization should follow their own rules and not as one NCAA executive say bluff and threaten our way through it.
I don't think you can place the blame on the football program. Only one of the four were even part of the program. Joe basically wanted little to do with it. He passed the buck. In fact when Sandusky retired Joe disagreed with allowing him continued access to the football facility. It was the admin who gave him. So in reality the football program had already tired to distance themselves from him. I also don't think the decision not to pursue it was done on the basis of the program.
Look lunatic, you have 24 posts on this site. Pretty sure fully HALF are about your obsession with psu threads. It's ok, we all have our hobbies. This happens to be your demented one. Keep it up, it's very entertaining.
Thanks Nut, I appreciate your take. We will have to agree to disagree on their motive. I understand no one wants to accuse someone who may be innocent of such horrendous accusations, and acknowledge this part of it, but still think a large part of the cover up was to protect Jopa and the football program, a major part of the Penn St. community.
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. When kids are being abused, nobody gets a pass.
To say McQueary did "the hardest thing he has ever done" is the stupidest thing I ever heard in my life. McQueary should have just called the police, plain and simple. There is no way around that. This guy saw a kid getting raped, and did nothing about it. He finally told Paterno, but didn't tell any administrators. No way. You are just making excuses for McQueary.
You are also wrong about Paterno having the most power. The president of the university has the most power. He's Paterno's boss. The entire reason he has a job is to make sure the university runs properly, and to deal with incidents like this. If Paterno does the wrong thing, the president is there to make sure the right thing is done.
Along those lines, you are overlooking the fact that everyone involved has the same power, because there is only one power in this case: that's calling the police. That's the only thing any of them can do. None of them, not even Paterno, have the power to arrest Sandusky. The only thing any of them can do is call the cops. The cops will take McQueary's phone call just as they would take anyone else's.
You also ignored my other point. The police already knew Sandusky was up to no good. They should have done more as well. Hell, arrest the guy for jaywalking if you have to.
Thank you, we are all stupid, and its all bullshit. If you don't understand that Jopa was Powerful at Penn State, and was more culpable than McQueary, sorry, I can't rationally discuss this with you.
Nothing but pure speculation. Is that how people live now? No care in the world for the truth. Just tear everyone down to make ourselves feel better. People really haven't learned a damn thing about rushing to judgement even though so many cases have been overturned and so many injustices have been righted.
You laud McQueen and feel empathy for him while crucifying others that still have not had their day in court. But you just know what happened because you were there. You don't have a clue. And for the moral do gooders here who state RU doesn't act like this or that. Read your comment on Will Fries. You rip a 17 year old kid for going to a university of his choice. And for the record, Joe never said he had the power and could have done anything. He said and I quote, "with the benefit of hindsight, I wished I would have done more."
You can't make this up. More culpable than McQuery, really? By whos law, yours? So McQuery is a direct witness and Joe is a third party and Joe is more culpable? How do you make this stuff up? Have you any clue of the law? Have you any clue of the NCAA guidelines which also must be followed? Obviously not, only hatred for some silly reason.
He may or may not have seen a kid getting raped. He heard and saw what he thought could have been that and most likely was. Unfortunately we will probably never know what was going on because he did not go in there and find out for sure and instead ran to daddy to ask what to do. Then on top of that the stooges in Penn State administration including Joe should of reported it to the proper authorities and had it investigated.
I don't even know where to start with you. You are a troll on his 2nd post since 2012 and this is the 2nd time you responded to something that pissed you off about Penn State? Sure. You obviously didn't read all my posts in this thread and have no credibility since you cannot get your facts straight. I never said anything about Fries going to Penn St. because I have no issue with it.
So go argue with some one who cares about your drivel. .
Yes, In my opinion. Jopa and the Spanier, Curley and Schultz are more responsible for the abuse continuing than McQueary. Sorry if you don't like it. And its not about the law, its about their obligation to stop abuse which they chose not to.
And you should feel good that you are the only Penn Stater that has complete knowledge of the law and NCAA rules. Nobody else could possibly know as much as you do. Congratulations.
As far as Hatred, if you read my first post in this thread, you would see I have none for Penn State. But you didn't read it, and along with your assertion that I made a comment about Fries, which I unequivocally did not, you have no credibility. So take your 2 posts and go back being a cultist in complete denial.
He had an office on campus. It was not in the football building which is often misreported. He was also not involved with the football program at that point. Paterno requested he not be given access to the football facility but the admin gave it to him as part of his retirement.
Why would Jopa not want his friend and long time coaching associate to have no access? I think we all know the answer.
He wasn't his friend. He was an assistant coach 20 years younger than Joe. They didn't hang out, they worked together. Do you hang out with people you work with? Are any of them 20 years younger than you?
JPhoboken said: ↑
Why would Jopa not want his friend and long time coaching associate to have no access? I think we all know the answer.
Sandusky started out his coaching career under Paterno as a GA in 1966 (Paterno's first year as HC) after playing for Penn St when Joe was an assistant under Engle.
So knowing each other from 1963 and working alongside of each other since 1969 ( in 1967&8 was coaching at Juniata & BU)
and they never developing a friendship ?? Right
Hard to believe that an age difference would stop co-workers from being friends and not occasionally socialize .
Also funny that Paterno gave Sandusky the option of coaching under him for as long as he liked, after Sandusky was
given the option of retiring, or staying on indefinitely.because of his actions with a child the year before.
Don't think KnightSlayer's reply holds water, but just more BS from the Cult of Joe spinning lies in the Cult's never ending defense of that pervert protector.
JoePa has proven to be Joe "The Enabler " Paterno , when it comes to his friend: Coach Emeritus
Why would Jopa not want his friend and long time coaching associate to have no access? I think we all know the answer.
Sandusky started out his coaching career under Paterno as a GA in 1966 (Paterno's first year as HC) after playing for Penn St when Joe was an assistant under Engle.
So knowing each other from 1963 and working alongside of each other since 1969 ( in 1967&8 was coaching at Juniata & BU)
and they never developing a friendship ?? Right
Hard to believe that an age difference would stop co-workers from being friends and not occasionally socialize .
Also funny that Paterno gave Sandusky the option of coaching under him for as long as he liked, after Sandusky was
given the option of retiring, or staying on indefinitely.because of his actions with a child the year before.
Don't think KnightSlayer's reply holds water, but just more BS from the Cult of Joe spinning lies in the Cult's never ending defense of that pervert protector.
JoePa has proven to be Joe "The Enabler " Paterno , when it comes to his friend: Coach Emeritus
It was stated that Jopa didn't want Sandusky to have access to the Football program or facilities, but he was given that access as part of his retirement package. If this is true, there is a reason Jopa didn't want him to have access. The cultists are trying to say it was because they didn't hang out and he was younger than Joe. Ok, if thats what they want to think. Fine, thats their opinion. Mine is otherwise.
It's not at all uncommon for employers to not want former employees to have access to their facilities. By your logic, all former employees are known miscreants.
Stop it, you just acting silly at this point. These were not 2 guys working at an Investment bank who hardly knew each other. They coached for decades together, traveled together, spent 16 hours a day with each other. Then all of a sudden, its just an employer-employee relationship. Right.
My comments are about those two, and my logic about those two does not translate to all former employees being miscreants. But you already knew that. You want to refute anybody's opinion who disagrees with you, obfuscate, spread blame around, attack everybody personally, you want to do everything but have an honest and reasonable discussion about what happened. Fine, go somewhere else, not interested.
Nothing I, you, or anybody else says changes what happened. Jopa, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz engaged in a coverup and let abuse continue. This was not the fault of the Football players or the Penn. State community. You can rant and rave all you want, think I am a Penn State hater (which I am not) and personally attack me and others who disagree with your defense of the Big 4, but the core issue will always be abuse continuing when any of those 4 could have made sure the abuse stopped but they chose not to.
Sorry, that's my opinion and I am done trying to explain this to you.
You are off base here. The end of the Paterno-Sandusky relationship was not good and this was very public - there are a number of articles archived online from that era that you can access. In the 90s Sandusky got po'd when Paterno told him that he would not be his successor following his "imminent" retirement. I believe that during the 80s Paterno had told him that he would succeed him, causing Sandusky to turn down at least one HC job.
Spanier was the one that kept Sandusky around PSU - due to his role with the 2nd Mile Sandusky had a lot of clout with Spanier and the Board of Trustees.
As far as the intent and other reasons that Paterno did not like Sandusky, and how much he suspected, they are all reasonable to debate - although the JoeBots will scream there is no proof - but to characterize Paterno as the reason Sandusky was hanging around PSU after his "retirement," is not true. In fact, I would bet that Paterno wanted him as far away from PSU as possible.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to tell you that it's quite uninformed. When you said Joe was engaged in a coverup, you lost me. There is zero, nada, zilch, evidence to support that. When you have some, then we can talk. Freeh has been discredited. Google Fina about coverups and learn something. I know, throw out all the usual buzzwords. I'm in a cult. I'm blind. I'm a Joebot. Yadayadayada. What you guys hate is when people come here and take your overly simplistic ideas and criticize them. This was an extremely complex situation with many variables and you guys reduce it to cult, coverup, ped state, and so forth. Oh and I'll mention for about the 5th time on these boards that this humble poster has a Rutgers degree, so I have no ax to grind with Rutgers. But this board is absurd when it comes to Penn State.
Please go away and while you are at it, leave BWI as well. You make PSU fans look terrible.
It was because he didn't like Sandusky (which has been documented by Paterno himself prior to the incident) and he saw him as a distraction if he was going to take 2nd Mile Kids to the training facility. In the notes for the retirement package, Paterno is fine with Sandusky having an office but not having access to facilities with the 2nd Mile Kids. If your implication is because Paterno felt he would use the facilities to be a pedophile, then why would he be okay with him having an office? Logically, it doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that he didn't like the guy and didn't like having the kids around the program.
You think that Sandusky is innocent of all charges. You are a disgusting person. There is a reason why you have had numerous profiles banned from PSU sites.
I am entitled to my opinion, but of course I know nothing. THank you. But you are completely informed, know everything, and I couldn't possibly be right. Again, thank you.
Now its so complicated and complex there is no way to break what happened down to some actions by individuals who have been criminally charged. Again, obfuscate more.
I have one of the most balanced opinions to the sandusky scandal and Penn St. on this board, and have been criticized by some of the posters here. Its almost comical you are attacking me when I have defended the Penn State. community and the football players even though I do believe the culture of playing football, winning games, and having a legendary coach did play a part in what happened. Of course you don't want to hear this, but its my opinion, and its not uninformed.
You don't want to have a discussion, you want to tell everybody they are wrong and their opinion has no validity because its uninformed. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
I will concede it is possible it was just because he didn't like him, if you concede its possible Paterno sensed something was amiss with him being around kids and didn't want him around. Deal?
There has never been any indication of that, including nothing in his private notes (which detailed all of Paterno's thought) about Sandusky other than that he didn't like him. Surely you can see how someone bringing a bunch of kids to a football facility on a regular basis could be a distraction. Like I said, Paterno had no problem with Jerry having an office at PSU, which could have easily used to abuse children. It makes no sense to me that he would be thoughtful enough to exclude it from one thing but not the other if the inherent reason was because he feared Sandusky was a pedophile.
But see, now we have no idea, above one of you Penn Staters said Jopa wanted Sandusky to have no access because it was well documented he didn't like him. Now you are saying he was fine with the office when the administration gave it to him. Which is it?
On a general note, Many posters from Penn State on this board do not like the fact that they are labeld with names like Cultists or we say they are in denial when they vehemently defend Jopa and the other three.
The reason why it happens is because they will not concede there has been any wrong doing by Jopa, Curley, Spanier or Schultz. There is no middle ground. That is why these labels exist.
I concede not liking Sandusky may have been an issue in not wanting him to have Penn State facility access if you concede that thinking something was amiss with Jerry having kids around all time, and you won't include that as a possibility.
In order to have a disccusion and not be labeled, it is necessary to listen to the reasonable outside opinions and maybe, just maybe, there is some middle ground, and you may not always be 100% right.
I have no doubt Paterno thought something was to not right with Jerry. To the level that he was molesting kids? I don't think he did know that. The closest example I can think of is Michael Jackson. Most people knew the guy had boundary issues but do you know for a fact he was a pedophile?
The hardest part with Jerry was he was such a nice guy. My father was a high school football coach in 70s and had players go to Notre Dame, Ohio State, Pitt and Penn State. Even had lunch at his house one time. Of all the coaches they had met in those years Jerry was the one they all agreed was the one they would trust the most with a player. Here is a guy who most people would put as a role model for college coaches. So I can imagine it was shocking for those around him to find out the dark secret. The incident in 1998 when he was investigated by police sand it was determined to be just horse play should have been a red flag. However I can see how someone who didn't want to believe this guy was a monster could use that as a false sense of security. This is where the university, paterno and the rest of administrators need to shoulder the blame. When your in a position like that you have to be able to put emotions and personal feelings aside make the decision based on the facts like a neutral observer would.
Sandusky's office was not in the football building. His office was in the East Area Locker Room building (which houses other sports). It is close to the football facility, but separate. Paterno did not want kids coming into the football facilities because it was a distraction from what they were doing. He had no problem with them going into the East Halls Locker Room because it doesn't affect football at all.
As for Joe, Curley, Spanier and Schultz, you need to be careful with how you lump all PSU fans together. Many of a wide range of views on those individuals and their culpability into this situation. Curley, Spanier and Schultz have not even had their trials yet, so we don't know much of anything about their side of the story.
I will say that my personal opinion is that most of the blame lies with Curley and Schultz. Paterno took the information to them, which is what was required by university policy and PA law at the time. If he wanted to coverup the incident (which the prosecutor has cleared him of), it would make a lot more sense for him to just tell McQueary to shut his mouth and never even report it to those above him. So Paterno told Curley what happened and McQueary told both Schultz and Curley what happened. Both Paterno and McQueary testified to the grand jury that they told those two men that something of a sexual nature was occurring. That alone makes me believe that Curley and Schultz knew exactly what was going on. Also, it should be noted that both Curley and Schultz had documented and proven knowledge of the 1998 incident. This is why I believe that the actual coverup lies at their feet. Spanier's involvement is more of a question. We have no idea what Curley and Schultz conveyed to him and we know that he did not speak to Paterno and McQueary about the incident. I can certainly see a situation where he was told a non-sexual version of the story ("horseplaying"). In fact, I would guess that is exactly what happened.
That's just my opinion. I think it is a reasonable one.
You make some reasonable points here. We'll see how it plays out. Maybe the legal system will be able to determine who was more responsible, bottom line, Abuse continued for a long time when men who were in power could have done something.
In my mind, Jopa will always bear some responsibility for what continued to happen. I know most most of the Penn State community vehemently deny this, but that's my opinion.
That's fine, you can have that opinion. I have no problem with the people who have the opinion that Paterno should have done more. I think my issue is that, in my mind, there are degrees of culpability and Paterno's was very low in this case. He didn't witness the incident, he reported it as per policy and PA law (which should have been enough to get Sandusky arrested), Sandusky didn't work for him anymore, Paterno had no control over the access that was granted to Sandusky via a legal-binding retirement contract between Jerry and the University and most-importantly, Joe was cleared of a coverup by the authorities who have access to all of the evidence. Yet, people want to point to him and blame him for this whole ordeal. I just think that is quite unfair considering all I have listed above.
In Jerry's retirement requests, so around 1998, from the appendix of the Freeh Report:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/special_packages/162218515.html
Go to Page 181. Joe is ok with him having an office and phone, ok with Jerry having access to workout facilities for personal use, but not for 2nd Mile kids because of liability issues. I'm sure those in the Joe Knew camp will interpret this as Joe knew there was something wrong with him but in reality there is a liability in having 2nd Mile kids in a college football workout facility. What if a kid gets hurt while using a piece of equipment? What if more simply Joe just doesn't want kids around distracting the football team while they are supposed to be working out? The 2nd Mile lifting program was held at the gym I went to. I know I tried avoid 2nd Mile days (Thursday ~5pm and Sunday ~12noon) because when the kids came in they took over the gym and yes it was both distracting and annoying. I only ever recall seeing Sandusky there maybe 2 or 3 times. It was run by other members of the 2nd Mile from what I could tell.
The Joe not liking Jerry story is a grey area. From what I've read, Joe thought Jerry was a teetotaler and didn't have any real social connection to him but as far as getting along with him in the workplace they were fine. I think that's why it gets presented both ways.
Of course we know now that having kids around all the time was an issue, however, back then Jerry was viewed as an upstanding member of the community doing good work for troubled/underprivileged kids. The 2nd Mile was one of H.W.'s thousand points of light after all. When you're the founder of an organization serving kids it seems reasonable that your going to be around a lot of kids. Of course, we now realize that founding an organization serving kids also provides significant cover if you happen to be a pedophile. I'm not saying anyone who founds a kids organization is a pedophile either but it's naive at this point for all people working with kids to not be thoroughly checked out and continually monitored.
I might be projecting here but I think what most PSU fans are defensive about is the statement that our football culture enabled Sandusky because that implies that somehow being a passionate fan of my alma mater I enabled child abuse. If our fan base knew Paterno covered up for a pedophile we would also be completely outraged. We don't concede there was wrong doing because the way it is always worded and interpreted is that there was nefarious intentions behind their actions because we gotta protect the team. I'll concede that they handled the report wrong and should have just called Child Services, if nothing else just as a CYA move, but I don't currently believe that they would knowing let a child abuser walk the streets of our community. In time, I may be proven wrong, and if that happens, then yes, I will see their intentions a nefarious, but like I said yesterday I can't make that leap yet. Again, we feel as more information comes out that their intentions are shown to be less nefarious and that's really what we are defending.
It is definitely unfair to hold Jopa soley responsible for the whole ordeal. Fine, lets see how it shakes out and see who the courts think is more responsible.
But it seems like you and other many other Penn Staters are completely inflexible in holding Jopa accountable on any level for the abuse continuing.
I get Jopa reported this to his superiors, but please, we all know that a legendary coach with decades at the same university and National Championships had a lot more power than a low level employee that many people want to make him out to be to decrease his culpability.
Again, if after seeing nothing was done, Jopa had the power to get this out in the open and get a resolution. He did not do this. You simply can't dismiss this without some acknowledgement of its merit.
