Say it ain't so, Joe

[BBTV]

Names on championship trophies should reflect those of people who's attributes and characteristics the competitors for said trophies should try to embody or emulate. It's basically like saying that those men are the epitome of the values for which your league stands. 99.9999999999% of Joe Paterno's values and accomplishments would seem to be worthy of such an honor - however, it's simply not possible to ignore that he also stood for covering the program's (and his friend's (though accounts of their actual friendship are quite varied)) image at the consequence of children who could be (and in fact were) raped by Sundusky.

Does it negate the 99.999% of the great things? No. Does it overshadow them? Yes - and, unfortunately, it should.

[ESTONES6]

Big Ten renames the Stagg-Paterno trophy to the Stagg trophy.

Fact or prediction?

Edit: NVM, looked it up.

I am surprised by the swift action of an otherwise silent B10

This action seems ridiculous. The trophy has everything to do with on the field accomplishments and nothing to do with off the field scandals. It's true what they say: A lifetime of good can't save you from a moment of bad.

There is a great line from Pirates of the Caribbean that fits this scenario perfectly. This is after Jack Sparrow jumps into the ocean to save a drowning Elizabeth Swan. Soon thereafter, he is doing one of his patent escapes but end up getting caught. At gun point, he grabs Elizabeth Swan as a buffer between guns drawn and himself:

Elizabeth Swann: Commodore, I really must protest! Pirate or not, this man saved my life.

James Norrington: One good deed is not enough to save a man from a lifetime of wickedness.

Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.

You decide.

[Sodboy13]

TMZ has a photo claiming to be of Jerry Sandusky at LaGuardia Airport this morning.

I'm sure he's just jetting off for a quick trip to meet his old friend Roman Polanski, and he'll be right back before we know it.

[CS85]

TMZ has a photo claiming to be of Jerry Sandusky at LaGuardia Airport this morning.

I'm sure he's just jetting off for a quick trip to meet his old friend Roman Polanski, and he'll be right back before we know it.

Read around that that guy is not Sandusky. Twitter's down but I'll post a hard link when I can.

[infrared41]

There is a great line from Pirates of the Caribbean that fits this scenario perfectly. This is after Jack Sparrow jumps into the ocean to save a drowning Elizabeth Swan. Soon thereafter, he is doing one of his patent escapes but end up getting caught. At gun point, he grabs Elizabeth Swan as a buffer between guns drawn and himself:

Elizabeth Swann: Commodore, I really must protest! Pirate or not, this man saved my life.

James Norrington: One good deed is not enough to save a man from a lifetime of wickedness.

Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.

You decide.

That makes no sense. So Sparrow is saying his one good deed condemned him? Not sure what you're going for there.

At any rate, here's my "decision." The "deed" in question here is a little bit bigger than just being "the one bad thing out 1000 good things" that Paterno did. It's not like Paterno preached the virtue of a clean program only to get caught having knowledge of a booster giving players money. If that were the case, then all the "don't let one slip ruin his legacy" arguments might hold some water. The problem is Paterno's "one bad deed" was turning a blind eye to a football coach who was -ing children. Doing so allowed that football coach to continue to children unabated for another 9 years. That's a pretty significant "one bad deed." There's just no way to look past it.

[Gothamite]

It's not a terribly applicable quote, since Jack Sparrow did a good deed which led to his capture. The closest thing to a good deed we're seeing out of Happy Valley is that some of them didn't lie to the grand jury.

To follow up on your point, Paterno's "one bad deed" was repeated every single day that he protected the rapist. Every day that he let the rapist use team facilities, every day that he held his tongue while the rapist continued to enjoy access to a new crop of victims. Every day he let the rapist use Penn State's good name to encourage families to turn the victims over to him, that one bad deed was repeated and compounded.

So it's not a single bad deed that did him in, but three thousand.

[rams80]

Big Ten renames the Stagg-Paterno trophy to the Stagg trophy.

Should have gone with Stagg-Osborne. That way you can name it after a guy whose team hasn't played in the league since before World War Two and a guy who never coached in the league at all. It's poetic. And stupid.

[infrared41]

It's not a terribly applicable quote, since Jack Sparrow did a good deed which led to his capture. The closest thing to a good deed we're seeing out of Happy Valley is that some of them didn't lie to the grand jury. .

To follow up on your point, Paterno's "one bad deed" was repeated every single day that he protected the rapist. Every day that he let the rapist use team facilities, every day that he held his tongue while the rapist continued to enjoy access to a new crop of victims. Every day he let the rapist use Penn State's good name to encourage families to turn the victims over to him, that one bad deed was repeated and compounded.

So it's not a single bad deed that did him in, but three thousand.

Exactly. The problem is all the paterno apologists want to treat it like an isolated incident. I'm fine with that as long as the apologists also acknowledge that by "isolated incident/one bad deed" they mean letting a football coach children for nine years.

[infrared41]

Big Ten renames the Stagg-Paterno trophy to the Stagg trophy.

Should have gone with Stagg-Osborne. That way you can name it after a guy whose team hasn't played in the league since before World War Two and a guy who never coached in the league at all. It's poetic. And stupid.

In other words, a perfect fit for a conference with the "Leaders" and "Legends" divisions.

[Viper]

Names on championship trophies should reflect those of people who's attributes and characteristics the competitors for said trophies should try to embody or emulate. It's basically like saying that those men are the epitome of the values for which your league stands. 99.9999999999% of Joe Paterno's values and accomplishments would seem to be worthy of such an honor - however, it's simply not possible to ignore that he also stood for covering the program's (and his friend's (though accounts of their actual friendship are quite varied)) image at the consequence of children who could be (and in fact were) raped by Sundusky.

More generally, trophies and other honors of any kind (not just in sports) should only be named for dead people, for the very reason that as long as they are alive, there's always the chance of them tarnishing their reputation.

Does it negate the 99.999% of the great things? No. Does it overshadow them? Yes - and, unfortunately, it should.

If, on the other hand, my previously stated theory pans out (i.e. that Paterno kept quiet to cover up not only the sexual abuse itself, but any manner of other, as-yet-undiscovered malfeasance more typical of big-time college sports programs), then that would indeed negate the great things.

[Sodboy13]

Bob Costas interviews Jerry Sandusky tonight at 10e/9c. Brown spatter disperses from fan.

I'm in the midst of reading "What Cops Know," which is a fascinating book from 1990, in which 125 Chicago Police officers relay some of their stories. When they talk about pedophiles, it's mentioned that the pedophile always thinks they've done nothing wrong, possibly because they can't accept or reconcile with the fact that they have raped children. Sandusky is fitting the pedo profile perfectly at every turn thus far. Go rot.

[BBTV]

Names on championship trophies should reflect those of people who's attributes and characteristics the competitors for said trophies should try to embody or emulate. It's basically like saying that those men are the epitome of the values for which your league stands. 99.9999999999% of Joe Paterno's values and accomplishments would seem to be worthy of such an honor - however, it's simply not possible to ignore that he also stood for covering the program's (and his friend's (though accounts of their actual friendship are quite varied)) image at the consequence of children who could be (and in fact were) raped by Sundusky.

More generally, trophies and other honors of any kind (not just in sports) should only be named for dead people, for the very reason that as long as they are alive, there's always the chance of them tarnishing their reputation.

Does it negate the 99.999% of the great things? No. Does it overshadow them? Yes - and, unfortunately, it should.

If, on the other hand, my previously stated theory pans out (i.e. that Paterno kept quiet to cover up not only the sexual abuse itself, but any manner of other, as-yet-undiscovered malfeasance more typical of big-time college sports programs), then that would indeed negate the great things.

I think I worded my post poorly. I'm not saying that this was just one bad thing out of a million. I totally agree that this was at least 9 years of bad things that resulted in the rape and abuse of many kids, who may never be able to lead normal lives because of it. It supersedes all of the good stuff he did.

[CS85]

If you have a chance, tune into Rock Center at 9pm central on NBC. Costas interviews Sandusky, and he's going to talk himself into a massive hole, of that I have no doubt.

[Sodboy13]

Talking himself into holes is what *overripe produce flies toward stage*

[dfwabel]

From Sunday's NY Times over damage control on a university campus:

Certainly, it will take years, perhaps a decade, to resolve the fallout from the sexual abuse scandal that has engulfed the football program ? including the university?s own investigation, the likely lawsuits and possible action by the Department of Education and the N.C.A.A. And there may be months of new revelations, resulting in hitches in fund-raising, athletic recruiting and even admissions.

But citing other universities? experiences with crises, many higher education officials and crisis-management specialists predict that the effects will not last a year.

?From other situations where universities have had what I?d call Category 5 crises, like the Texas A&M bonfire collapse or the Virginia Tech shootings, history suggests that even if there are short-term effects on donations, applications or recruiting, they fade fairly quickly,? said Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president at the American Council on Education.

?It might sound trite, but prospective students and their families saw on TV a united student body and incredibly supportive alumni population working together with strong university leadership,? said Larry Hincker, associate vice president for university relations at Virginia Tech. ?It was painful and stressful, but the institution kept moving in the right directions, dealt openly with problems and shared our experiences with others.?

Duke University was shaken in 2006 by rape accusations against three players on the men?s lacrosse team; the charges were dropped the next April, but not before the campus and its athletes endured a firestorm of negative publicity. Early decision applications in the fall of 2006 dipped somewhat, but there was no dip in regular-decision applications, and in the spring of 2007, when high school seniors were making their choices, the university?s yield was actually higher than in the previous year.

?In all the information sessions I did that season, there was only one time when anyone raised a question about it,? said Christoph Guttentag, Duke?s admissions director. ?Most people saw it for what it was, which was an issue that wasn?t going to have any significant effect on their child?s career at Duke.?

?This scandal will not affect the quality of the education the students will receive, but it certainly could affect individual employers? views of the education P.S.U. provides,? Karen A. Mason, director of college counseling at Pennsylvania?s Germantown Academy, said in an e-mail. ?Incidents like this trigger concern that other problematic issues at the university may have been overlooked.?

?With some deft outreach and some hard work, even the angry students on the streets this week are likely to become, like their predecessors, happy and loyal supporters,? he said. ?Colleges and universities are much bigger than any one individual or scandal. Their crises become part of their history.

?When you say Kent State, people still think of the May 4, 1970, shootings. But I can assure you that Kent today is a stronger institution than it was then.?

[CS85]

Sandusky lawyer impregnated teenage girl

[ESTONES6]

There is a great line from Pirates of the Caribbean that fits this scenario perfectly. This is after Jack Sparrow jumps into the ocean to save a drowning Elizabeth Swan. Soon thereafter, he is doing one of his patent escapes but end up getting caught. At gun point, he grabs Elizabeth Swan as a buffer between guns drawn and himself:

Elizabeth Swann: Commodore, I really must protest! Pirate or not, this man saved my life.

James Norrington: One good deed is not enough to save a man from a lifetime of wickedness.

Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.

You decide.

That makes no sense. So Sparrow is saying his one good deed condemned him? Not sure what you're going for there.

At any rate, here's my "decision." The "deed" in question here is a little bit bigger than just being "the one bad thing out 1000 good things" that Paterno did. It's not like Paterno preached the virtue of a clean program only to get caught having knowledge of a booster giving players money. If that were the case, then all the "don't let one slip ruin his legacy" arguments might hold some water. The problem is Paterno's "one bad deed" was turning a blind eye to a football coach who was -ing children. Doing so allowed that football coach to continue to children unabated for another 9 years. That's a pretty significant "one bad deed." There's just no way to look past it.

It was a commentary about our current society. One bad deed is enough to condemn a man who otherwise lived a good life. But the opposite is not true. One good deed is not enough to salvage a man who otherwise lived a bad life.

[CS85]

Sandusky's claiming 100% innocence. "Horsing around" is as much as he'll say, verifies he touched legs, hugged, etc. Denies all sexual charges.

This won't end well for this sick stupid bastard.

[infrared41]

There is a great line from Pirates of the Caribbean that fits this scenario perfectly. This is after Jack Sparrow jumps into the ocean to save a drowning Elizabeth Swan. Soon thereafter, he is doing one of his patent escapes but end up getting caught. At gun point, he grabs Elizabeth Swan as a buffer between guns drawn and himself:

Elizabeth Swann: Commodore, I really must protest! Pirate or not, this man saved my life.

James Norrington: One good deed is not enough to save a man from a lifetime of wickedness.

Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.

You decide.

That makes no sense. So Sparrow is saying his one good deed condemned him? Not sure what you're going for there.

At any rate, here's my "decision." The "deed" in question here is a little bit bigger than just being "the one bad thing out 1000 good things" that Paterno did. It's not like Paterno preached the virtue of a clean program only to get caught having knowledge of a booster giving players money. If that were the case, then all the "don't let one slip ruin his legacy" arguments might hold some water. The problem is Paterno's "one bad deed" was turning a blind eye to a football coach who was -ing children. Doing so allowed that football coach to continue to children unabated for another 9 years. That's a pretty significant "one bad deed." There's just no way to look past it.

It was a commentary about our current society. One bad deed is enough to condemn a man who otherwise lived a good life. But the opposite is not true. One good deed is not enough to salvage a man who otherwise lived a bad life.

OK, so what was the decision we were supposed to make from that?

[CS85]

Sandusky and his attorney claim they've found the child that McQueary witnessed him raping and insist he'll deny that he was ever touched by Sandusky.

Sandusky's going down in flames. He's a liar, a pedophile, a sick twisted who deserves whatever brutal end meets him.