OT: JoePa article from today.

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/football/ncaa/03/12/penn-state-paterno.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a2&eref=sihp

Joe Paterno got screwed over. We now know this. Mqueary never told Paterno that he saw sexual assault, and Paterno then reported that which any person would have done.

JoePa wasn't given a fair shake, I agree.

But, although it wasn't the 'appropriate' parting of ways, that program needed him to get the hell out of there.

As a UM fan, I loved him there...we dominated him. As an objective cfb fan, Penn State was sinking with him.

I liked him there as well. Good ammo against my Penn State friends, they really have no rebuttal, well Rich Clod but that's about it...

psuatgvsu wrote:

Joe Paterno got screwed over. We now know this. Mqueary never told Paterno that he saw sexual assault, and Paterno then reported that which any person would have done.

First off, let me say it's good to see a "non-U-M-er" here...so long as (and the 'sentry' would enforce this)
he/she isn't a troll, and I recall some good posts from you.

But to the point---I thought McQueary DID report seeing "very inappropriate activity" (quote not direct)
by Sandusky to JoePa? Of course I could have misread the article, or misheard the report; I was so repulsed by the whole incident I generally tended to tune out or refuse to read any info much of the time.

But as Admin noted, would JoePa EVER have left on his own? Before either a cataclysm such as the Sandusky
affair, or (more tragically), the Grim Reaper, supervened?

You're probably too young to remember this (cripes, seems I nowadays have to describe most ALL fellow posters with that "preamble"), but I almost compare it to the unceremonious departure from his 30-year
post at OSU of one WOODY HAYES. He was 66 at the time (Dec.,1978). Several of his then-current players, including one whom a former roommate of mine knew personally---noseguard Kelton Danzler---came right out and said in the days which followed his firing: "The school did what it had to do. He would NEVER have retired."

And both cases point up one of the saddest aspects of human life, that is, dedicating oneself WITHOUT LIMITATION to one's career. While, unlike Joe, he didn't immediately die after his firing, Woody may as well
have---according to a man who should know---his former protogee, top rival, and friend, Bo Schembechler---
Woody's 8 years out of football were what psychologists call a "living death"...not knowing what to do with himself deprived him of his will to live. I once had a boss who LIVED for his job (not sports, mind)...nothing
else. He had to be forced into retirement, at 71 (heaven knows how much longer he would have stayed on)...
and he thereafter lasted all of A YEAR.

I would hardly say Michigan "owned" Penn State. I believe Paterno was 6-10 vs. Michigan with some very close losses.

Some of you may have like Joe there but yet he won 3 straight to end his career against UofM.

MichMike, it was widely reported that Joe was retiring after this past season. He was going to hang it up. Some tend to forget that PSU has won 2 out of 5 BIG titles. They were well on their way to being in the championship game before the Sandusky scandal.

Lastly, Mcqueary told Joe what he "thought" he saw. In his testimony, he stated he didnt give him the full details out of respect. So Joe didn't get the full story. Obviously, Joe wished he would have done more after getting all the info.

Wasn't there a period, and not a very brief one, that Michigan beat JoePa 8 straight times (or was it 9). Your 3 straight was against Rich Clod, while that counts I wouldn't be hanging your hat on that.

A loss is a loss. The App. State fiasco was close but we don't say, "Hey, it was close".

Do I think that JoePa should have been fired? No. Did the University have a choice? No.

Yeah I know. Michigan won 7 in a row I believe.

Well I said the overall record was 6-10, didnt think that was "ownage."

I could say the early years of the 2000's dont count because PSU was down then.

It is what it is. PSU is 6-10 overall vs. UofM. They have won the last 3.

It was 9 straight wins over Penn State starting with 1997 (Judgment Day) and ending with 2007 (the Mike Hart show). It would have been 11 straight wins had we played in 2003 and 2004. Those Penn State teams were GOD awful but not as bad as RichRod's teams from 2008-2010 whose defenses couldn't tackle a junior high team.

Look, the whole Sandusky thing was truly disturbing and I hope he gets sent to jail for the rest of his life. But JoePa should have done more. And during the last weeks of his life, he admitted that himself. Despite the details of McQueary's story, whatever they were, he should have done something more. Sandusky was already reported to the police in 1998 and when the McQueary sighting happened in 2002, without even knowing the gory details, that should have been somewhat of a flag. But JoePa went on about his daily life for another 10 years, probably crossing paths with Sandusky a thousand times on campus or in the athletic offices anyway. I'm sorry but I can't wrap my head around that at all. I don't think JoePa was ever being malicious or tried to cover things up. But he did look the other way. And that ended up being a costly mistake. Even something as little as taking Sandusky aside and saying, "I believe you but it's probably not wise for you to be on campus anymore," might have made a big difference.

There should have been a followup meeting. And JoePa admitted that too. But it was too little too late. The school had to let him go. They didn't have a choice.

psuatgvsu wrote:

I could say the early years of the 2000's dont count because PSU was down then.

You could, but you had a real coach. Michigan from 2008-2010 wasn't just down, we had a clown of a hill-billy for a coach.

WolverineHistorian wrote:

Even something as little as taking Sandusky aside and saying, "I believe you but it's probably not wise for you to be on campus anymore," might have made a big difference.

Your point may be well-taken, WH, but that's the crux of my problem with this sort of thing: How would that
be any different from a certain "superior" of a certain "organization" saying something to the effect of,
"Fr.John, I believe(!) you, but it's probably not wise for you to be in St.X parish anymore. How about a
transfer to St.Y in Someotherville?"

(Tragically, that is NOT a fictional scenario...as we all know.)

Wouldn't the action on JoePa's part which you hypothesize above only have exacerbated the underlying evil
of cover-up? As in, just a convenient, temporal attempt at camoflauging the ultimate issue?

But enough on this (from me) for now. Not only is it as repulsive to me as to any, but were you, psuatgvsu, or a fan of ANY school to tell me straight-up I and my arugments are brim-full of crap, they'd likely have a valid point.