Joe Paterno Has Passed Away

[Cajuncowboy]

The man has just passed away . Wheather he did enough or not , this is not the time to debate it . Why can't everyone put aside the arguing and show respect for the man and his family ? Is that too much to ask?

Apparently blind hate knows no decorum.

 

[Idgit]

The man has just passed away . Wheather he did enough or not , this is not the time to debate it . Why can't everyone put aside the arguing and show respect for the man and his family ? Is that too much to ask?

I've been nothing but respectful in the thread. And I resent any implication otherwise.

But I won't turn a blind eye to his awful decisions if someone's going to bring up and gloss them over in the same post. That's not part of the deal. We can agree that a great football coach has passed away. Just leave the great man takes to the threads where they belong.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I've been nothing but respectful in the thread. And I resent any implication otherwise.

But I won't turn a blind eye to his awful decisions if someone's going to bring up and gloss them over in the same post. That's not part of the deal. We can agree that a great football coach has passed away. Just leave the great man takes to the threads where they belong.

Didn't see your vociferous stance when others were tearing him down in this same thread.

You simply had an issue with the truth being said in his defense in a thread that should have been for honoring his memory. You can resent all you want. So what?

 

[Hostile]

Sean Lee and Tom Rafferty both played for Joe Pa at Penn State. My condolences extend to them. Losing your Head Coach has to hurt. We have drafted 9 players from Penn State, but they are the only 2 to have real careers here (so far for Lee).

 

[Idgit]

Didn't see your vociferous stance when others were tearing him down in this same thread.

You simply had an issue with the truth being said in his defense in a thread that should have been for honoring his memory. You can resent all you want. So what?

I probably have those others on ignore and didn't see their replies.

Regardless, if you're incapable of acknowledging the obvious in regards to Paterno's mistakes, it comes as no surprise that you also misunderstand the nature of the criticism in this thread. Or its relevance.

Re my resentment, that wasn't directed at you and doesn't concern you, so your holier-than-though hypocrisy in the matter isn't important.

 

[zrinkill]

I guess the people who were saying his Cancer reports were made up a few months ago look really stupid now.

 

[LehighCowboy]

A poster on another, non-football related website that I frequent has this to say about the whole situation --- I find this to be a very fair and rational way to look at it.

--------------------------------
It's hard for me to place too much blame on Paterno.

Of all the cast of characters in this scenario, based on what I've read, he gets only a smidgeon of blame. Maybe I'm incorrect on these facts, and someone can correct me if so:

1: He raised the issue to the university heads which was his only obligation.

2: If he had raised it to police, his testimony would be inadmissible anyway, since it was hearsay. [it could have caused them to interview McQueary, but I use this as an example to say what Paterno knew couldn't even be used in a court of law].

3: McQueary didn't spell out what happened and didn't go into details when talking to Paterno.

The one thing that would change my mind considerably on Paterno is if it was shown that he orchestrated the cover up because of his position of power at Penn State. I don't know that's true, but it's a possibility. However, I can't really condemn the guy on a possibility.

Should he have gone to police and tried to do more? Sure. Anyone who knew anything should have. However, he went to campus police and the heads at the university, so unless he participated in a cover up while doing so, I don't see this as a tremendously huge criticism. McQuery should have gone to police as he was the only witness who could actually testify to something. The university heads should have gone to police after Paterno pushed the issue upwards.

Paterno should have gone to police as well after finding out the university wasn't doing anything, but I only see him as being a fringe player in the fault of this thing. I think the perception though has been to put more blame on him than anyone else. he's been vilified to the point where I've heard more negatives about Paterno than Sandusky [though that's likely because Sandusky's actions are evil enough to not be up for debate while people could go back and forth on Paterno].

I just see the fall out of this situation being something like:
1: McQueary
2: University heads
3: Paterno

However, the blame seems to get spread around like:
1: Paterno
----- huge gap
2: University heads
3: McQueary

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I probably have those others on ignore and didn't see their replies.

Regardless, if you're incapable of acknowledging the obvious in regards to Paterno's mistakes, it comes as no surprise that you also misunderstand the nature of the criticism in this thread. Or its relevance.

Re my resentment, that wasn't directed at you and doesn't concern you, so your holier-than-though hypocrisy in the matter isn't important.

It concerns me since it concerns this topic. You can call it whatever you want, fact is that what I said is dead on accurate and you can't find a single thing that isn't true.

And you obviously don't know how to use the English language since using the word hypocrisy makes no sense.

As I said, Paterno's mistake was no going to the State or local police himself. That's it. He did everything required of him and he didn't even have the full story. Yet people like you crucify him without due process.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

A poster on another, non-football related website that I frequent has this to say about the whole situation --- I find this to be a very fair and rational way to look at it.

--------------------------------
It's hard for me to place too much blame on Paterno.

Of all the cast of characters in this scenario, based on what I've read, he gets only a smidgeon of blame. Maybe I'm incorrect on these facts, and someone can correct me if so:

1: He raised the issue to the university heads which was his only obligation.

2: If he had raised it to police, his testimony would be inadmissible anyway, since it was hearsay. [it could have caused them to interview McQueary, but I use this as an example to say what Paterno knew couldn't even be used in a court of law].

3: McQueary didn't spell out what happened and didn't go into details when talking to Paterno.

The one thing that would change my mind considerably on Paterno is if it was shown that he orchestrated the cover up because of his position of power at Penn State. I don't know that's true, but it's a possibility. However, I can't really condemn the guy on a possibility.

Should he have gone to police and tried to do more? Sure. Anyone who knew anything should have. However, he went to campus police and the heads at the university, so unless he participated in a cover up while doing so, I don't see this as a tremendously huge criticism. McQuery should have gone to police as he was the only witness who could actually testify to something. The university heads should have gone to police after Paterno pushed the issue upwards.

Paterno should have gone to police as well after finding out the university wasn't doing anything, but I only see him as being a fringe player in the fault of this thing. I think the perception though has been to put more blame on him than anyone else. he's been vilified to the point where I've heard more negatives about Paterno than Sandusky [though that's likely because Sandusky's actions are evil enough to not be up for debate while people could go back and forth on Paterno].

I just see the fall out of this situation being something like:
1: McQueary
2: University heads
3: Paterno

However, the blame seems to get spread around like:
1: Paterno
----- huge gap
2: University heads
3: McQueary

That is pretty dang accurate.

 

[Tricericon]

A poster on another, non-football related website that I frequent has this to say about the whole situation --- I find this to be a very fair and rational way to look at it.

--------------------------------
It's hard for me to place too much blame on Paterno.

Of all the cast of characters in this scenario, based on what I've read, he gets only a smidgeon of blame. Maybe I'm incorrect on these facts, and someone can correct me if so:

1: He raised the issue to the university heads which was his only obligation.

2: If he had raised it to police, his testimony would be inadmissible anyway, since it was hearsay. [it could have caused them to interview McQueary, but I use this as an example to say what Paterno knew couldn't even be used in a court of law].

3: McQueary didn't spell out what happened and didn't go into details when talking to Paterno.

The one thing that would change my mind considerably on Paterno is if it was shown that he orchestrated the cover up because of his position of power at Penn State. I don't know that's true, but it's a possibility. However, I can't really condemn the guy on a possibility.

Should he have gone to police and tried to do more? Sure. Anyone who knew anything should have. However, he went to campus police and the heads at the university, so unless he participated in a cover up while doing so, I don't see this as a tremendously huge criticism. McQuery should have gone to police as he was the only witness who could actually testify to something. The university heads should have gone to police after Paterno pushed the issue upwards.

Paterno should have gone to police as well after finding out the university wasn't doing anything, but I only see him as being a fringe player in the fault of this thing. I think the perception though has been to put more blame on him than anyone else. he's been vilified to the point where I've heard more negatives about Paterno than Sandusky [though that's likely because Sandusky's actions are evil enough to not be up for debate while people could go back and forth on Paterno].

I just see the fall out of this situation being something like:
1: McQueary
2: University heads
3: Paterno

However, the blame seems to get spread around like:
1: Paterno
----- huge gap
2: University heads
3: McQueary

All I know about this case is that the court of public opinion has proven once again that it doesn't care about trivialities such as "innocent until proven guilty". it's shameful.

 

[Idgit]

It concerns me since it concerns this topic. You can call it whatever you want, fact is that what I said is dead on accurate and you can't find a single thing that isn't true.

And you obviously don't know how to use the English language since using the word hypocrisy makes no sense.

As I said, Paterno's mistake was no going to the State or local police himself. That's it. He did everything required of him and he didn't even have the full story. Yet people like you crucify him without due process.

Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean you can belligerently make it true. If he'd done what was required of him, there'd be zero questions about his involvement. Whatever he did or didn't do, it wasn't enough in this situation. And there's no way around it.

And I know what a hypocrite is, and there's a good reason I used the word.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean you can belligerently make it true. If he'd done what was required of him, there'd be zero questions about his involvement. Whatever he did or didn't do, it wasn't enough in this situation. And there's no way around it.

And I know what a hypocrite is, and there's a good reason I used the word.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In your cravenness head, you may think you do but you don't. The fact that he wasn't charged with any crime PROVED he did what was required of him. The fact that you ignore that proves you are simply hating on the figure head.

He had thrid hand information that, come to find out, wouldn't have been enough for the police to launch an investigation anyway. McQueary would have had to go to the police. So even in that instance you don't know what you are talking about.

And still, you use the word hypocrisy wrong. Unless you can explain why you used it, you look like an Idgit. Oh wait.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

All I know about this case is that the court of public opinion has proven once again that it doesn't care about trivialities such as "innocent until proven guilty". it's shameful.

All of these people wanted the guy that was most visible to fall. They are like the main stream media. They love a good "chopping down to size" story because they themselves are small and small minded.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I've been nothing but respectful in the thread. And I resent any implication otherwise.

But I won't turn a blind eye to his awful decisions if someone's going to bring up and gloss them over in the same post. That's not part of the deal. We can agree that a great football coach has passed away. Just leave the great man takes to the threads where they belong.

He did more good for many more people than you will ever do in your entire life. Let's just leave it at that.

 

[TheCoolFan]

Gimme Paterno. I'd rather play for him than many of the scumbag coaches in sports.

 

[Tricericon]

It's late, and this wanders a bit more than I'd like, but I spent an hour on it and am certainly going to post it.

I'm a military historian - by hobby, not profession, but good enough at it - and every time Paterno's relationship to the Sandusky scandal is brought up, the man who comes to my mind is Admiral Husband Kimmel. For those who don't know, he's the man who was in command of the Pacific Fleet on 7 December '41.

Kimmel has been crucified by everyone who has even a little piece of the picture ever since. Why? No one knows what they think they do. Everybody knows about the two or three messages he got (or allegedly got) warning that the Japanese might attack Pearl, but no one save a very few, very well read people know about the dozens of other war warnings about impending attacks on Manila, Singapore, Wake, Midway, Panama, Australia, the Soviet Union, the need to be ready to sortie to save the Philippines (the exact opposite of being ready to defend his supposedly safe base from air attack), and to give a high priority to avoiding sabotage, etc, etc.

Ever since, every man in the street who reads about Pearl thinks, in the 20/10 vision of hindsight - I'd have read those messages, and I'd have been ready. I'd have had my planes up, my guns manned, my ships at sea, and sent Nagumo for a swim. And every single one of them is wrong.

How does this apply to Paterno? Somewhere, in the middle of a very busy schedule in a very busy life - a busy life mostly spent doing well by many young men, someone makes vague (but serious) allegations against a friend of his. We don't know exactly how vague, but we do know that the man in the street who has condemned Paterno and now spits on his grave (and I am NOT talking about anyone specific, at least not on this site) thinks "the man heard, plain as day, that children are being raped, and if I'd heard that I'd have put a stop to it". Well yeah, so would anyone - including, I trust, Mr Paterno. The only problem is that scenario has little to do with reality.

We have no reason to suppose Paterno knew there was anything real to the allegations any more than Kimmel knew the Japanese were rounding Diamond Head. What would you do if some kid walked up to you and made vague allegations that one of your buddies behaved inappropiately with children? Would you even have passed it on to whoever had the authority to investigate? Would you really have thrown your weight around to see a detailed investigation, if the "proper" one dragged its feet? If so, how much time would you be willing to give up from the rest of your life, a life which I hope is productive and helpful to others, to do someone else's job in investigating it? If you had one message out of one hundred saying your fleet *might* be bombed to oblivion, would you have disrupted offensive readiness (which is your job, by the way) and training schedule to be ready 'round the clock, or would you just have passed it along to the Army general who is supposed to defend your fleet, and assumed he had it under control (no disrespect intended to General Short, who got caught with his pants down and still did a better job than the Penn State brass)?

I'm sure a lot of people really think they would have followed it up and saved the day. I'm equally certain the vast majority of them are wrong.

Don't get me wrong, Paterno was deep enough in it that he needed to go, just like Kimmel. When something like that happens, the entire organizational leadership must change so the organization can get past it. (God willing, I hope Penn State will get a man with the ability and moral integrity of a Chester Nimitz as their next coach. It would go a long way towards making things right again at that school.) But, remember, y'all know *nothing* to suggest that Paterno did anything worse than
1. Underestimate the importance of one piece of information, out of everything a major football coach has to deal with and
2. Underestimate the ability/integrity of the Penn State leadership to investigate properly and thoroughly.
and that does not justify the ridiculous hatred directed at Paterno. Not even close.

Kimmel was a good officer who served his country well and who made one bad judgment call, which happened to have consequences all out of proportion to the error.

Paterno was a good coach who served his school and community well and who made one bad judgment call, which happened to have consequences all out of proportion to the error.

Neither deserved what he got. Have the class not to be part of the crowd piling it on.

 

[Zaxor]

It's late, and this wanders a bit more than I'd like, but I spent an hour on it and am certainly going to post it.

I'm a military historian - by hobby, not profession, but good enough at it - and every time Paterno's relationship to the Sandusky scandal is brought up, the man who comes to my mind is Admiral Husband Kimmel. For those who don't know, he's the man who was in command of the Pacific Fleet on 7 December '41.

Kimmel has been crucified by everyone who has even a little piece of the picture ever since. Why? No one knows what they think they do. Everybody knows about the two or three messages he got (or allegedly got) warning that the Japanese might attack Pearl, but no one save a very few, very well read people know about the dozens of other war warnings about impending attacks on Manila, Singapore, Wake, Midway, Panama, Australia, the Soviet Union, the need to be ready to sortie to save the Philippines (the exact opposite of being ready to defend his supposedly safe base from air attack), and to give a high priority to avoiding sabotage, etc, etc.

Ever since, every man in the street who reads about Pearl thinks, in the 20/10 vision of hindsight - I'd have read those messages, and I'd have been ready. I'd have had my planes up, my guns manned, my ships at sea, and sent Nagumo for a swim. And every single one of them is wrong.

How does this apply to Paterno? Somewhere, in the middle of a very busy schedule in a very busy life - a busy life mostly spent doing well by many young men, someone makes vague (but serious) allegations against a friend of his. We don't know exactly how vague, but we do know that the man in the street who has condemned Paterno and now spits on his grave (and I am NOT talking about anyone specific, at least not on this site) thinks "the man heard, plain as day, that children are being raped, and if I'd heard that I'd have put a stop to it". Well yeah, so would anyone - including, I trust, Mr Paterno. The only problem is that scenario has little to do with reality.

We have no reason to suppose Paterno knew there was anything real to the allegations any more than Kimmel knew the Japanese were rounding Diamond Head. What would you do if some kid walked up to you and made vague allegations that one of your buddies behaved inappropiately with children? Would you even have passed it on to whoever had the authority to investigate? Would you really have thrown your weight around to see a detailed investigation, if the "proper" one dragged its feet? If so, how much time would you be willing to give up from the rest of your life, a life which I hope is productive and helpful to others, to do someone else's job in investigating it? If you had one message out of one hundred saying your fleet *might* be bombed to oblivion, would you have disrupted offensive readiness (which is your job, by the way) and training schedule to be ready 'round the clock, or would you just have passed it along to the Army general who is supposed to defend your fleet, and assumed he had it under control (no disrespect intended to General Short, who got caught with his pants down and still did a better job than the Penn State brass)?

I'm sure a lot of people really think they would have followed it up and saved the day. I'm equally certain the vast majority of them are wrong.

Don't get me wrong, Paterno was deep enough in it that he needed to go, just like Kimmel. When something like that happens, the entire organizational leadership must change so the organization can get past it. (God willing, I hope Penn State will get a man with the ability and moral integrity of a Chester Nimitz as their next coach. It would go a long way towards making things right again at that school.) But, remember, y'all know *nothing* to suggest that Paterno did anything worse than
1. Underestimate the importance of one piece of information, out of everything a major football coach has to deal with and
2. Underestimate the ability/integrity of the Penn State leadership to investigate properly and thoroughly.
and that does not justify the ridiculous hatred directed at Paterno. Not even close.

Kimmel was a good officer who served his country well and who made one bad judgment call, which happened to have consequences all out of proportion to the error.

Paterno was a good coach who served his school and community well and who made one bad judgment call, which happened to have consequences all out of proportion to the error.

Neither deserved what he got. Have the class not to be part of the crowd piling it on.

That was an excellent post Fat Toad...

 

[silverbear]

How sad, that a thread supposedly dedicating to paying tribute to a dead legend has degenerated into this...

Some of y'all simply disgust me (and some of y'all have really surprised me in this thread)... this is one of the times when you who seem so desperate to tear down an icon need to remember what your mommas advised you when they said "if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all"... this is one of those occasions...

Yeah, Joe Paterno made a terrible mistake, only he knows why... it does not negate all the good he's done in this life, and frankly, this thread is not the place for a rehashing of the whole sordid episode...

Think of it this way-- how would you feel if you lost a loved one, and a "close friend" eulogizing that loved one at the funeral dragged up every discretion great and small every mistake that loved one ever made??

To me, the criticisms of Joe Paterno in this thread say more about the critics than they do about Joe Pa... and before anybody goes there, I am not a Paterno apologist, I don't really have a dog in this hunt... I expressed my disgust at what happened in the countless other threads that were dedicated to it...

Yup, some of you "good people" need to check your own humanity...

 

[Idgit]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In your cravenness head, you may think you do but you don't. The fact that he wasn't charged with any crime PROVED he did what was required of him. The fact that you ignore that proves you are simply hating on the figure head.

He had thrid hand information that, come to find out, wouldn't have been enough for the police to launch an investigation anyway. McQueary would have had to go to the police. So even in that instance you don't know what you are talking about.

And still, you use the word hypocrisy wrong. Unless you can explain why you used it, you look like an Idgit. Oh wait.

Stop with the insults, Cajun. And stop trying to bully me. That's not going to work for you. If you want to win points, you have to make them.

As has been said in other threads on this topic, the fact that he didn't do anything illegal does not mean that he did not do anything wrong. The fact that he had any information and was in a position to stop the abuse, and didn't is all that needs to be said. I was a personal failure. *Anything* else on the topic is just noise.

Whether or not the police would have deemed it sufficient to launch an investigation is not the point. Whether or not others were in position to act and also did not is irrelevant. Joe Paterno did not act aggressively enough to stop the abuse when it occurred on his watch, and he should have. Children were hurt because he, and others, did not.

And I didn't use the word hypocrisy wrong. I used it in a vague context you (understandably) didn't understand. But that's a side note to this thread, and it's a conversation I don't know if I can have without running afoul of forum guidelines, so I'm not going to have it. Suffice it to say that I believe, base solely on your posting history, that what you say you believe in is not consistent with the morality you display when you post, and that this thread is a good example of that.

 

[Idgit]

How sad, that a thread supposedly dedicating to paying tribute to a dead legend has degenerated into this...

Some of y'all simply disgust me (and some of y'all have really surprised me in this thread)... this is one of the times when you who seem so desperate to tear down an icon need to remember what your mommas advised you when they said "if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all"... this is one of those occasions...

Yeah, Joe Paterno made a terrible mistake, only he knows why... it does not negate all the good he's done in this life, and frankly, this thread is not the place for a rehashing of the whole sordid episode...

Think of it this way-- how would you feel if you lost a loved one, and a "close friend" eulogizing that loved one at the funeral dragged up every discretion great and small every mistake that loved one ever made??

To me, the criticisms of Joe Paterno in this thread say more about the critics than they do about Joe Pa... and before anybody goes there, I am not a Paterno apologist, I don't really have a dog in this hunt... I expressed my disgust at what happened in the countless other threads that were dedicated to it...

Yup, some of you "good people" need to check your own humanity...

bear, I'd agree with you if this were a eulogy. It's not. It's a thread on a sports message board.

I said my peace about his death, and then, as conversations very often do in threads, this thread turned in another direction. I stand by every word I've written. What's more, I don't think Paterno himself would disagree with it. He made a huge mistake in not handling the Sandusky reports thoroughly.

We all make mistakes, some of us make bigger ones than others. This was probably the biggest mistake of his life, and I don't think we're compelled to ignore it in a thread about his passing, especially when his fans were the ones who specifically attempted to gloss over the issue to begin with.