The NCAA has decided to redeem Penn State's legendary coach Joe Paterno's win record by reinstating his 112 wins. This catapults him back to beings the winningest coach in major college football. This preludes a trial in state court that seeks to resolve the Jerry Sandusky scandal. The restored wins would make Paterno's all-time record to be 409-136-3. What are your thoughts?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
So, Joe Paterno is the Tupac of college football?
Not a huge deal.. It would be great to have Beamer up there but I'm sure he is more worried about the upcoming year.
I'm sure the Cult of Paterno is thrilled.
Wow - I cannot stress how accurate this is. I live in PA (abbreviation for PAterno) and goodness, these people would bottle one of Joe Paterno's farts and put it on their mantle in a glass case if they could...
You mean cult of Joe. They are all on a first name basis with him. GAG!
I sent an email around to a few coworkers who I thought might belong to that group to see what they thought.
My email:
"Happy?"
The first response I got:
So, for what it's worth, maybe the Cult of Paterno thing was a little overblown.
So, what you're saying is that they're still unhappy in happy valley...
...well, it is almost the end of the day, so maybe they can hit up happy hour at Cafe 210 or Pickles or The Corner Room.
Exactly. They are still unhappy because their sacred coach was even questioned by outsiders. They want him back on the top of the alltime wins list because that is what they really really care about - worshipping their coach.
False
Then why fight for the wins to be restored? Because Paterno's spot at the top of the wins list is the focus - just as re-installing the statue is a focus. Both are part of the idolatry.
I think vacating wins is a stupid concept in the first place.
They are. It hurts the players the most.
Vacating wins doesn't hurt players in the least. Vacating wins is only a symbolic gesture that bruises the egos of the rabid among the fan base. The same people who only care about worshipping their coach & preserving his legacy, despite the hypocrisy of it all.
Just because someone cares about their accomplishments, doesn't make them egotistical. Most of these players aren't going to go pro and will probably look back on their cfb days as some of the best of their lives. Having all of their wins vacated taints that. Yes, it still happened, but having it official is still important to some people and that is ok too.
Reread my post. I spoke to the egotism of the rabid among the fan base. Not the players. As for the players needing official validation in reference media? That certainly makes the players seem extremely insecure. Which also seems like something of a tangent away from the feelings of all those raped kids.
But hey - Joe got his wins back, so all the State College folks can stop averting their eyes and walk proudly once again. That's what really matters, the (extremely stained) sainthood of their coach.
Not sure how the wins that the football players and the feelings of the raped kids have really anything to do with one another. And you did say that they didn't affect the players in the slightest, which is why I wrote my original post.
I'm sure Frank is more than happy to give the title back to JoePa. If he's ok with it, I'm ok with it.
I don't think Frank is giving anything to Paterno.
Frank Beamer is the winningest active head coach. He got that title when Paterno was fired. The vacated wins did not affect that title at all.
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Aren't all types of correct technically correct?
Must be unfamiliar with FOX news.
My thoughts?
The NCAA tried to get away with punishing Penn State for the criminal behavior of one of its coaches in a non-football related infraction.
They had no standing, but got away with it initially because it was easy - they knew if Penn State resisted, they'd get completely hammered by the press & the public. Because nowadays in our culture that is obsessed with outrage, when something bad happens, the most visible entity even tangentially associated with the crime needs to be punished.
The NCAA also needed to pretend they were tough on someone, and had no balls to go after actual programs that were breaking NCAA rules left & right. So going after Penn State for this gave them the semblance of "tough" enforcement.
Now that everything died down, Penn State has been quietly pushing back, threatening well grounded legal action against the NCAA. They got their sanctions lifted 2 years early, with little fanfare.
I'm no fan of Penn State, but this whole thing pissed me off. The NCAA wasted time here they should have been spending on places like Miami, UNC, the SEC, etc...
But they are gutless.
I liken it to the whole UVA rape fantasy published by Rolling Stone, and the earlier fiasco aimed at Duke lacrosse. Punish the alleged perp as hard as possible while the public heat is on, courtesy of a press that pursues a narrative rather than the truth. Then, when the truth finally airs, pretend you did nothing wrong, and that the greater good was somehow served even though the alleged perp turns out to have actually been the victim.
So yeah, give Paterno back the wins officially. He may have been too willing to believe the best of his friend, but his (in)actions weren't related to what happened on the field of play. I'd rather someone break the record on the field, instead of in some sort of quasi-judicial fit of social retribution.
Well said...
Typical NCAA...
General Public: THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY STATES THAT PATERNO TURNED A BLIND EYE!
NCAA: Oh shit guys, we should probably drop the hammer on Penn State and Paterno here. People are really upset
Years later
Penn State Faithful: THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY STATES THAT PATERNO WASNT AT FAULT!
NCAA: Oh shit guys, maybe we acted too quickly. Penn State fans are really upsetIts been long enough right? The dust has settled, dont ya think? No one will notice
Hah. Yeah, That nicely sums up my long-winded post in a much more concise form. TL for you.
How much longer until the Paterno statue goes back up on campus? But restoring the wins was the right thing to do. There was evidence that Paterno followed the University regulations on the issue, but no evidence that he knew that those regulations no longer reflected the law.
As a former law enforcement officer and current firefighter/EMT who has dealt with the victims of abuse this sickens me. Palermo allowed, yes ALLOWED Sandusky to use his position to exploit kids. The cult worship of Paterno has caused another injustice for those kids. Paterno should not only have had his wins taken away but his name should have been taken off every building, trophy and plague in college football.
Freudian typo
EDIT: Also, No
Inappropriate? Yes. Funny? Also yes.
The NCAA made a big deal out of it in the aftermath of a terrible scenario involving one of the assistant coaches. Paterno died, his body cooled, people got past the initial indignation, wins returned. It was the natural order of things all along.
I still don't understand how they can stand by his legacy. If you switch Beamer with JoPa in that same situation, I think most VT fans would have a huge problem with not doing more with the information you had; especially since it would have been to protect children from a predator.
But I guess that is his final legacy: mention Paterno and the first thing people think is "child sex coverup". I think it literally killed the man.
Now, if they put the statue back up, I'd be more shocked.
Funny you mention the statue.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/campus_inq/Time-to-restore-Paterno-st...
Now that a deal with the NCAA to restore 111 wins under late football coach Joe Paterno has been struck, is it time to honor him on campus?
Anthony Lubrano, an alumni-elected member of Penn States board of trustees, says yes.
Hed like to see Paternos bronze statue with his finger in the air in victory restored to its rightful location outside Beaver Stadium. Homecoming might be a nice time to do it, said Lubrano, a Glenmoore businessman.
As far as Im concerned, that needs to happen. It needs to happen very quickly, he said.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/campus_inq/Time-to-restore-Paterno-st...
Anthony Lubrano, an alumni-elected member of Penn States board of trustees, says yes.
Hed like to see Paternos bronze statue with his finger in the air in victory restored to its rightful location outside Beaver Stadium. Homecoming might be a nice time to do it, said Lubrano, a Glenmoore businessman.
As far as Im concerned, that needs to happen. It needs to happen very quickly, he said.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/campus_inq/Time-to-restore-Paterno-st....
What exactly was Paterno convicted of doing?
A former coach was convicted of feloneous stuff yes but, what was it the court said Paterno did wrong, was it misdemeanor, felony? I honestly do not know.
Nothing because he died, and prior to that the cult of Paterno had delayed and stalled any criminal investigation of PSU.
Ok well, that's why I was confused on the issue. Thanks.
No
Care to elaborate to the question then?
I was going to but then I decided not to. I've been up here for almost a decade now and although the obviousness of the truth is that something went horribly wrong here, I still find it totally distasteful to hear the way a lot of people project whatever negative feelings they want toward the community here. So instead of going on a tirade or going downvote crazy on this thread, I ended up just feeling like saying things like "No" and "False" was a mild middle ground. I suppose in I'd go as far as to say that a lot of the impression people have gotten of PSU and SC,PA in regards to this issue have been pretty...wrong? false?
I'm asking around to see if any of my dyed-in-the-wool PSU alumni friends would be willing to write up a few paragraphs to explain it from their perspective, because as a transplant and a faithful VT alum, I don't think I can do their (reasonable, conscientious) feelings justice. Because as much as I've seen up here, I get really tired of the lazy criticisms I hear people make about this. Don't get me wrong. Much criticism is deserved by a whole lot of people, but the default conversation about this topic never seems complete, and usually doesn't include the opinions of good, intelligent people on the pro-PSU or pro-Paterno side. And yes, I do think that side exists.
Which is why I did not press.
It seems too hot button and I'd get more emotion than dispassionate dissection of what happened.
He didn't just die. The situation literally killed him. Talking about wins seems almost petty. I have no problem with the wins being restored. I have no problem with the university wanting to re-erect the statue. At the end of the day the statue is 100% their decision; it's their campus and their reputation. Without knowing the absolute truth of the situation, I will not judge whether or not Paterno's decision was so horrible to erase a lifetime of otherwise good deeds.
I'm not sure he was ever criminally charged, but I remember there being a lot of talk about him giving Sandusky a free pass because it would screw up the image of Penn State.
Nothing criminal. From what I remember and a bit of quick searching someone told Paterno what Sandusky was doing to kids in the facilities. He reported it to his higher ups and they along with some outsiders swept it and the lack of investigation under the rug. Nothing came of it and Paterno didn't do anything else.
The wrongdoing as most people see is that they believe he did nothing and helped cover it up, which he didn't. He just never pushed for it to be brought to light anymore than just reporting it.
Technically, what Paterno did was not illegal, it was just totally immoral. He knew of Sandusky's sodomy of young boys but was far more concerned with the preservation of his & Penn State's football legacy than the children. We could drag through all the known facts once again, but those who prefer to worship him will always ignore the truth. Joe knew, for over a decade, and turned a deaf ear to the cries of the children.
But, hey, he's back on top of the all time wins list, and that was what the State College folks care about. Not the kids. Just the wins.
Depending on when he was told he is considered a required reporter of child abuse thus making it criminal to not report to police.
Leg to you.
Oh, I wouldn't doubt it, I was just addressing the larger issue because so many fanatics like to play semantics and pretend Paterno didn't do anything wrong. As I mentioned above, we all know what occurred and the extended time frame. We know, but some like to ignore it.
I'll have to remember that if I witness a crime I'm only obligated to report it once (and then not even I the police). If I continue to see it happen for years I am in no way responsible for the damage done because, hey, I already did my bit. /sarcastica
There are a couple of comments to which I could reply but instead of dividing things up, I will make this one post. I'll preface by saying I think (1) something horrific happened at Penn State and PSU needed to be held accountable by appropriate legal entities and (2) I think Paterno got crucified beyond what probably should have happened. I'm not a PSU fan (though my father-in-law got a degree there) but what happened at PSU was a criminal matter, not an NCAA matter. The abject failure in this entire process is on the heads of the PSU president, the Athletic Director, and the PSU police. Here's a timeline from the grand jury report on the case:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-st...
So for everyone complaining about how Paterno repeatedly failed, that's false. He was told once about the matter, he reported it to his superior, who pushed it up the chain, after which the University police never followed up with the grad assistant who saw the shower incident in 2002. Why the hell not? Police failure. Even before that, in 1998, four years before anyone told anything to Paterno, the police and district attorney again had evidence of sexual abuse, but they let Sandusky go because "he was sorry." The most reprehensible behavior lies on the shoulders of the PSU police, the District Attorney, and PSU administration. The media frenzy around the situation engulfed more than it should, and the NCAA took a symbolic action motivated by (rightful) public outrage. Removing the wins from Paterno's record didn't provide the victims with any justice. It didn't right any wrong. Restoring them doesn't really do much, either, aside from pointing out that the NCAA probably overstepped here in reaction to public furor. It's all secondary to the real issue - a failure by those who should have investigated and taken action YEARS before they did.
I was just about to do this post. Thanks for saving the time.
But I do think you left out the two viable questions about the incident in regards to Paterno:
a) When faced with the knowledge of the incident and seeing a failure to act should Paterno have done so himself?
b) When given the information in 2002 why then allow Sandusky to have any involvement in the program following that or be involved in Sandusky's charity The Second Mile?
Both are moral hazard questions and not criminal ones, but valid nonetheless. And no matter you are pro or against Paterno I think everyone can agree that when it comes to sexual abuse with minors simply "passing information up the chain" is a tenuous stance on morality at best.
I agree that more could have been done. I fault Paterno to an extent for that. Some make it sound like he acted out of malice. I would say that ignorance or faith in others blinded him. No one can know for sure. I just think it's important to remind everyone of the facts, as established via the court system. Paterno is not blameless, but he was taken to task much worse than other people who I believe share a larger portion of the blame. There's certainly plenty to go around.
you and I are marching to the same beat my friend. totally agree
Another point to make here (re: should Paterno have done more), he had said he should have. At the same time, if I pushed a concern of mine up the chain of command at work (my manager, hr, what have you), and nothing ever happened, I don't think it's unreasonable to have assumed that it was investigated and no wrongdoing was found. Might not be true, but if I saw something and said something to the people who should have been responsible for it, what else to think? Either way, I think you two have hit the nail on the head that there may have been a gray area there
This is exactly what I have tried to point out various times around the water cooler since it happened. Also, there is no way to know exactly what was in Paterno's mind. If he truly thought the proper authorities had handled it, then he was ignorant. If he chose to forget about it, he is negligent. It's not my place, or anybody else's for that matter, to assume either is the truth.
This is the problem with the outrage culture that has become popular the past few years. Everything has to be black and white so there are clear and immediate heroes and villains. If you don't irrefutably side with the good guys, you are condoning the villains. Even if you point out things don't quite add up and judgement should wait another day to be assessed.
Should Paterno have done more? In hindsight yes, but that is always 20/20. You just can't hold a press conference saying someone is a child molester because a GA told you so one day. Especially after the police have told you there was nothing to it. Throw that in with Sandusky's M.O. and you have a shit storm.
This is where the 2 questions I wrote come into play. If you follow the timeline there are clear moral judgments made by Paterno with full knowledge of what is going on that led to many more years of association and collaboration. It was not just a case of hindsight.
March 1, 2002: GA sees Sandusky and boy, estimated at 10 years old, in shower having sex.
March 2, 2002: The GA tells Paterno.
March 3, 2002: Paterno reports "a version" of what GA said to Tim Curely. (unclear what that "version" was but moral judgement #1)
By end of March, 2002: Nothing has happened. Police take no action. PSU takes Sandusky's keys. (Moral Judgement #2: Paterno has choice to either do nothing more or choose to stand up and illicit an appropriate response to what has been reported. He choose the former.)
March 2002 - March 2011 (or whenever they started questioning Paterno during the 8 month investigation): Paterno continues association and collaboration with Sandusky, with full knowledge of what has been reported, for 9 years both in football and with the charity The Second Mile. (Moral Judgement #3: Discontinue all association with Sandusky or continue the relationship, again with full knowledge of what was reported.)
So this boils down to the Graduate Assistant that reported the incident. Was he deemed reliable? Did he have an ax to grind against Sandusky? Can you take this Grad student's word over a friend you've known for years? Had there not been even a small percentage of belief in the GA's report then they would have dismissed it entirely. Surely not our Sandusky. Yet, Sandusky was banned from the locker room. Just to be safe? because there were already rumors? But any further investigation was swept under the rug.
this is where speculation begins. Nobody knows. But clear as day Paterno made at the very least those 3 Moral Judgments.
It could be Paterno confronted Sandusky personally who denied everything and he believed him, yet still felt he must report it. Speculation again.
So while there is much that is not known, we do know that Joe knew because the GA told him. And to be fair this is not a subject matter that can be taken lightly and simply forgotten. Yet Paterno either dismissed it, denied it or condoned it through a failure to act.
A lot of speculation in there about why further response did or didn't happen, but to be clear this is not a case of hindsight.
Paterno had a second hand report of wrongdoing and reported it so a 3rd independent party and police could investigate.
The authority and police did nothing, Paterno was not in the position to perform an independent investigation. It was Paterno's job to report to those that could investigate and he did so.
It is quite unfortunate that this all happened to someone who had previously been associated with Paterno and Penn State but it did, and it probably killed Joe.
No, this is incorrect. Paterno was presented with first hand information. The GA was actually present and witnessed what happened in the showers of the locker room. Joe then reported a "version" of what that first hand information was.
I don't think I said he should have performed an investigation anywhere in my comments. But if you think that the only thing Joe could have done is either nothing or a formal investigation of his own then you are only looking at two extremes. Paterno had PSU by the balls and a vice grip on PSU football. He could have disassociated himself completely from Sandusky. Banned him from anything to do with football and not have had anything to do with Sandusky's charity. Hell, he could have forced Curely to ban Sandusky from all athletic events and venues if he wanted to. He was that powerful. If faced with the fact that nothing more than taking locker room keys from Sandusky had been done Joe could have gone to the University President, Board of Regents and the police himself and pressed for further investigation. Do you think he couldn't have done so? It was his job to report to those above him and he did, however it was his moral judgment to only do that much, and with something as despicable as what Sandusky was doing was that morally enough? As I said he either dismissed, denied or condoned by a failure to act.
In the end, you need to ask yourself what you would have done in that position. Would you let the matter go and continue association and cooperation with the man for the next 9 years with the knowledge of what happened?
I am in no way trying to exasperate the conversation. I think it's an interesting subject but one that very few people view objectively. I have zero feeling for or against Paterno actually. I think his wins shouldn't have been taken away. I think PSU has so much to be proud of in Paterno and if they want to return the statue then by all means do so. I think he may have confronted Sandusky and wrongly believed that he would change (speculation by me) and chose to let it be. But I think if I was in that position and an eye witness reported something like that Sandusky would have been lucky to escape an absurd level pursuance of fact by my part whether by myself, university administration or police. By no means would I ever leave something like that up to chance.
Again, IMO there was nothing criminal there but even with what limited information we do have as fact it is clear Paterno made several moral judgments. It was absolutely more complicated than what we know. There was absolutely more gray than black and white. Emotions and pain were undoubtedly running high. Nonetheless morality was tested and judgments made, unfortunately for the worse.
I don't agree with giving Coach Paterno his wins back because of the message it sends. To the kids who were the victims, it could be construed that football trumps everything else, no matter what. I understand there is another side to this and I get it. But I think some of the kids who were victimized by Sandusky will only hear that the NCAA just rewarded Joe Paterno and all is forgiven. And to do that after everything else, I just don't get it.
Yeah, but this never should have been an NCAA matter...and the real criminal here is Sandusky, who's in prison for a long time.
And the unvacating of wins might not be so much for Paterno as it is for Penn State. I thought it was reaching to vacate all of those wins that far back, when it wasn't a case that affected the competitive advantage on the field.
I did not read the comments.
I chose not to follow the whole theater that the trial and such became, to "redeem" someone that turned a blind eye.
For shame.