<p>
</p>
<p>Nonsense. Move on.</p>
<p>Oh please, after the failed strawmen argument, now this? How many more straws are there to grasp on? </p>
<p>I used (sic) or [sic] as it is accepted to quote a word or phrase that contains a spelling error. If you think there was an attempt to ridicule or deride, so be it. I have been here a long time, and I usually deliver my messages as clearly and directly as feasible, without circular devices. Give it some time, and it will become so apparent that your need to dissect my posts will diminish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I sense a relaxation in the obnoxiousness. From “go way” to “move on.” </p>
<p>/sarcasm</p>
<p><< Great, you say you get it, but do you also “get” the why some of us still believe that all those great things you enumerated pale in comparison to what was really needed, namely a lengthy death penalty for the football team.</p>
<p>For the record, all those good things you mentioned are not be ignored nor derided. They ARE good steps in the right direction, but football is still played by PSU, and THAT is and will be a problem. A problem that will not be erased by any amount of goodwill … or denial.>></p>
<p>Do I get that? Yes I get your point, I just don’t agree with it. But that’s ok. We all don’t have to agree. My feeling is I truly believe this could have happened at any of the big football schools. There are many of them. The only difference is Penn St had a coach that was there for many many years. Did that play into what happend - sure. But - I think that’s not the main factor. It’s about money - and whether a coach is at the same school 1 year or many, they have a great deal of power. </p>
<p>I “get” the concerns - I just don’t think taking football away from one school will fix the problem. The money that’s in college and pro sports is tremendous - and what happened at Penn St shows that sometimes money trumps common sense and humane decisions. That’s a scary thought that needs to be addressed.</p>
<p>I continue to think that football can be played at Penn State (again, my opinion) and that changes can still be made. I think that education, protection, and all the other important things happening can be more valuable than not playing a few seasons of football. You say that all those great things I mention pale in comparison to what was really needed - the death penalty. To me, it’s more important to teach, support and change the problem of child abuse - including teaching signs and symptoms, protection, support to victims, etc. This is happening - whether or not there’s football. To me it’s about more than just punishment - it’s about protecting children and making a difference down the road. I see that happening now. The death penalty is about punishment - my opinion is that I want the focus to be on protection and change. You say the problem won’t be erased because football is still being played at Penn State. First of all, I don’t think the problem should be erased…everyone across the country needs to remember what happened so it never happens again, anywhere. But, I also think you’re mistaken that changes can’t and haven’t happened. Those that are guilty and caused harm are gone - so why would you assume that the problem is still there?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true.</p>
<p>LasMa, I have read several versions of the earlier “firing” of Paterno. Some of them are as you state, he basically refused to be fired. Others indicate it was more a discussion of would he like to retire. </p>
<p>In any case…a phone call is different than firing a long time, entrenched coach. If they were willing to fire him, why not make the call to turn in Sandusky? If they wanted to fire Paterno, they could not have been too concerned about him being happy—although I understand the football team turned around significantly (win/loss) in between.</p>
<p>A university president, with a background in child abuse, who now states he was abused, it was clearly his responsibility to call the police/CPS/Attorney General. Why he has no charges pending is a mystery to me.</p>
<p>Interesting to note that the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board has designate Sandusky as a sexually violent predator. This designation would require Sandusky to update his residence information on a quarterly basis and show he is in court approved counseling. Police would circulate flyers in his area with name, address. photo and offense. Of course, life in prison is ikely, but apparently Sandusky can appeal the designation.</p>
<p>Just to clarify, Spanier has claimed he was physically abused in his youth.</p>
<p>
Why, because Spanier wouldn’t fire him? That’s not how power works.</p>
<p>Spanier 100% had the authority to fire him, AND the power. What he lacked was the will. Spanier wanted to fire Paterno without firing him. He wanted Paterno to gracefully retire in a manner that would encourage donors to continue to shower money on the university. Paterno did not want to go, and made it clear that he would not go gracefully, that he would make his displeasure very public, and on the list of options (Paterno stays, Paterno goes gracefully, Paterno goes angry) this was the worst option for Spanier. Remember that Spanier, like most university Presidents these days, are hired and retained primarily on the strength of their fundraising ability, and a prolonged fight with a highly respected and abruptly ousted coach would have hurt PSU fundraising. Spanier chose to walk away with Paterno still in his job rather than take that hit.</p>
<p>So Spanier had the power and the authority, Paterno stayed because he showed (however impolitely) that it was not in Spanier’s best interest to do so.</p>
<p>And as for the whole “tossing out of his house” thing, I don’t think I would have reacted any differently! Your boss wants to fire you, and shows up at your house to do it? Screw that!</p>
<p>
You have sufficient evidence to convict Paterno of this charge? Sandusky was convicted, and was innocent until proven guilty (which he most definitely was). Paterno was not convicted, but more than that I highly doubt that there is enough evidence against him to even reach trial, much less obtain a conviction in a court of law - he is mentioned in a couple of secondhand emails, hardly a smoking gun, even if the court of public opinion (and you, eager executioner) has convicted him.</p>
<p>
I do not doubt for a second that they would be willing to do so, and that they would have standing. The Paternos have not shied away from this fight, and I think would be more than happy to hear the evidence heard before a court, even as a civil case. Indeed, they seem to be spoiling for it.</p>
<p>Cosmic, I think the inference re the “firing” is that Paterno made it clear he would take it to the Board or the public and Spanier would be out.</p>
<p>As to the name on the library, if the naming contract did not have a morals clause in it, it should have.</p>
<p>I can’t see how Paterno would really have power over Spanier in light of the charges unless he thought the police and child protective services were under Paterno’s power. I guess anything is possible.</p>
<p>
I don’t know that there is any evidence of such a threat, and even if there was it does not show that Paterno had any power over Spanier other than the power to not get fired by him. And I already said that Paterno was not going to go quietly - that is essentially what “going to the public” means.</p>
<p>Remember that the Board most definitely wanted Paterno out and had been angling for his resignation for years, so going to the Board would not be a threat. The issue was always money - as long as donors supported Paterno (a football coach who donated generously to the school and placed a stronger focus on education than any public university in NCAA football) a hard termination would result in a loss of donation revenue. The Board and Spanier could have gotten rid of Paterno at any time, they just did not want the economic fallout - they wanted a happy end to his time, Paterno was not willing to give that to them, and they were not willing to take the hit of actually firing him.</p>
<p>
Even if it did, do you think that Paterno’s actions can be proven to have violated any morals clause? When the only in-depth analysis of his actions (based entirely on hearsay and a couple of secondhand emails) comes from a report commissioned and edited by an organization (the BoT) that not only wanted Joe out for a decade at least but was also frantically trying to save their own asses?</p>
<p>Oh, so it’s all about money. What a surprise.</p>
<p>“You have sufficient evidence to convict Paterno of this charge?”</p>
<p>The University felt it had enough to take down the statue. The Paternos did not pay for the entire cost of the library (by a long shot). </p>
<p>I’d LOVE to see the Paterno family sue PSU. We might learn something about (just to begin with) the Alamo Bowl. Who authorized the former Professor Emeritus? who authorized payment? Who signed the checks?</p>
<p>“When the only in-depth analysis of his actions (based entirely on hearsay and a couple of secondhand emails”</p>
<p>How is it second hand? McCleary says he reported to Paterno. Paterno allowed it to go on, and facilitated Sandusky staying there.</p>
<p>
You think the degree of evidence required for a university to remove a statue on their own property is the same degree required to convict a man of being a “criminal facilitator of child sex trafficking”?</p>
<p>
Of course, not, but the amount donated runs to the tens of millions, and if they remove that name I think that the family would have ample grounds to sue them for the return of that money.</p>
<p>
I think many of us would - it would be fantastic to move this whole issue out of the court of public opinion and into a court of law.</p>
<p>
Mostly Spanier and Erickson. While Paterno may have lobbied for these (I am not sure) it was definitely Spanier who approved them and mostly Erickson (as Provost) who made them happen.</p>
<p>
That McQueary reported it to Paterno, and that Paterno reported it to Curley and Schultz, are both a matter of record and are represented by firsthand testimony from Paterno.</p>
<p>That Paterno “allowed it to go on, and facilitated Sandusky staying there” is alleged by the Freeh report based solely on emails between the other parties of interest - Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. The emails state that conversations were had with Paterno, without explicitly stating the information or opinions exchanged between the parties in question - we do not know what Curley told Paterno, for example, or what Paterno actually knew, we only know that the conversations resulted in changes to the plans. This is all secondhand information and is extremely vague. We have no actual direct evidence that Paterno did anything wrong, just lots of supposition.</p>
<p>So stating that Paterno “allowed it to go on, and facilitated Sandusky staying there” implies that he definitely knew what was going on and that it was being covered up - something that Freeh inferred but cannot prove. And if he did not know, then there was nothing illegal in his actions - disappointing, yes, but not illegal.</p>
<p>Cosmic, </p>
<p>Paterno knew what McCleary told him. Paterno knew, or should have known, that Sandusky still had access. You can argue (althought not convincingly to me) that Spanier was a superior of Paterno. No such arguement with Curley and Shultz – that would be ludicrous. Does anyone think that Curley and Shultz controlled Paterno’s employment. So Parterno did not report. Not in my book.</p>
<p>
Absolutely, but what he should have done about that access depends entirely on what he knew of the official investigation. If he knew or thought that the police had investigated and decided that nothing untoward had happened, then what grounds does he have to go after Sandusky? Especially when it might like a personal grudge given their history?</p>
<p>
Schultz may not have reported to Paterno but he also was not anywhere in Paterno’s chain of command - they had no influence over each besides their relationships with Spanier. And (as the investigators and grand jury noted) Schultz was a valid person to report it to - so even if it was not proper in your book, it WAS proper in the books of the attorneys and the state of Pennsylvania.</p>