Debate at PSU to name the field after Joe Paterno | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

Debate at PSU to name the field after Joe Paterno

Ahh yes, the old “everyone does it so it’s no big deal” defense. Lots of people have been victims as a result of this beautiful defense.
Yes and they’re victims of the players he is protecting. Franklin pulled the same stunt at Vandy, he fits right in at PSU.
 
Ok then why was the fact that Paterno was witness tampering in the Hodne case always forgotten about? Multiple females were “talked to” by Paterno … the fact is it’s still a cesspool and Paterno shouldn’t be glorified but when it comes to PA nothing surprises me.

What’s the evidence of that? The only thing I’ve ever seen is a report by ESPN - I don’t think the network that stood by Mark Schwarz has any journalistic integrity and don’t deserve the assumption on anyone’s part they get any story right.

If there’s other journalistic organizations which found the same (independent of ESPN’s research), please post them because I’d be interested in that. If you’re basing your beliefs solely on a report from an organization we already know has reported incorrect information in the past (and continues to stand by their process in that case) - why?
 
They should name it “don’t drop the soap stadium”
 
There’s lots of teams that I dislike, but only one that I hate. They should have received the NCAA death penalty.

The process the NCAA used not only guaranteed that Penn State wouldn’t get the death penalty - it guaranteed they would end up rolling back the penalties they did initially implement.

The problem was that the NCAA (probably) caved to their PR people over the objections of their lawyers and went with an expedited process.
When Emmert was asked after the NCAA reduced the penalties on Penn State if it was hard to imagine circumventing its normal investigative process and the Committee on Infractions again, he said "Yes. And that was recognized at the time by the Executive Committee and the board that because of the extraordinary circumstances, the process was conducted outside of the normal Committee on Infractions process and again it was seen as something that was distinctive and unique."

In that press conference, he said the penalty reductions were because of how cooperative Penn State had been. In reality, several lawsuits had been filed which were dropped after the reductions in penalties - it looks an awful lot like the NCAA reduced penalties to get lawsuits to go away. That’s likely because the “unique process” they’d used put them in an extremely bad position in those lawsuits, and they finally listened to their lawyers who said “I told you” and “”we need to settle”.

If the NCAA had imposed a death penalty, it might have killed Penn State football for a couple years - but it likely would have killed the NCAA forever. Every organization which had business contracts with Penn State for football would have sued the NCAA for tortious interference - considering how quickly the NCAA rolled over, its a good assumption they would have had a poor chance of winning. Additionally, reducing penalties after a lost season would have done nothing in these hypothetical cases since the damage was already done — these likely would have proceeded, the NCAA would have lost and become unviable.

The only way a death penalty might have stuck is if the NCAA stuck to their normal process (which can take years, as we know). But the public outcry caused them to feel they needed to do something immediately. In the end, all the people who were screaming for the NCAA to give Penn State the death penalty and that they needed to do it IMMEDIATELY - and there were many of those people nationally and on this board - put so much pressure on the NCAA that they made a terrible decision to cave to the mob and implement penalties that had no chance of surviving long term due to their rushed process.

It’s part of what I find hilarious, tragic, and frustrating about this - many of the folks on this board who are still upset at how this whole situation played out are the same ones that were part of the national mob creating pressure on the NCAA. That pressure led to the NCAA’s bad decision to use a flawed process, and guaranteed the unsatisfactory result we got.
 
Last edited:
Those people out there want to honor this guy no matter what it seems like. They can't let it go and let that story die and turn the page. I don't know how you can name the field after him.

I am ok with it as long as they rename the showers for Sandusky.
 
The process the NCAA used not only guaranteed that Penn State wouldn’t get the death penalty - it guaranteed they would end up rolling back the penalties they did initially implement.

The problem was that the NCAA (probably) caved to their PR people over the objections of their lawyers and went with an expedited process.
When Emmert was asked after the NCAA reduced the penalties on Penn State if it was hard to imagine circumventing its normal investigative process and the Committee on Infractions again, he said "Yes. And that was recognized at the time by the Executive Committee and the board that because of the extraordinary circumstances, the process was conducted outside of the normal Committee on Infractions process and again it was seen as something that was distinctive and unique."

In that press conference, he said the penalty reductions were because of how cooperative Penn State had been. In reality, several lawsuits had been filed which were dropped after the reductions in penalties - it looks an awful lot like the NCAA reduced penalties to get lawsuits to go away. That’s likely because the “unique process” they’d used put them in an extremely bad position in those lawsuits, and they finally listened to their lawyers who said “I told you” and “”we need to settle”.

If the NCAA had imposed a death penalty, it might have killed Penn State football for a couple years - but it likely would have killed the NCAA forever. Every organization which had business contracts with Penn State for football would have sued the NCAA for tortious interference - considering how quickly the NCAA rolled over, its a good assumption they would have had a poor chance of winning. Additionally, reducing penalties after a lost season would have done nothing in these hypothetical cases since the damage was already done — these likely would have proceeded, the NCAA would have lost and become unviable.

The only way a death penalty might have stuck is if the NCAA stuck to their normal process (which can take years, as we know). But the public outcry caused them to feel they needed to do something immediately. In the end, all the people who were screaming for the NCAA to give Penn State the death penalty and that they needed to do it IMMEDIATELY - and there were many of those people nationally and on this board - put so much pressure on the NCAA that they made a terrible decision to cave to the mob and implement penalties that had no chance of surviving long term due to their rushed process.

It’s part of what I find hilarious, tragic, and frustrating about this - many of the folks on this board who are still upset at how this whole situation played out are the same ones that were part of the national mob creating pressure on the NCAA. That pressure led to the NCAA’s bad decision to use a flawed process, and guaranteed the unsatisfactory result we got.
I actually agree with you. This wasn’t a NCAA issue. It was a criminal justice issue. And there wasn’t a DA in PA that would touch it.
 
I actually agree with you. This wasn’t a NCAA issue. It was a criminal justice issue. And there wasn’t a DA in PA that would touch it.

It’s generally a good thing when DA’s choose to not prosecute when no criminal activity occurred. So, it’s a positive that “there wasn’t a DA in PA that would touch it”, because no criminal activity (by Paterno) occurred.

The criminal activities that did occur (by Sandusky, Curley, and Spanier) were successfully prosecuted.
 
Are we really surprised?

Sadly he is an idol in happy valley and walks on water.

Here's an idea name it whatever you want after their boosters make a 250 million dollar donation to a fund to help child victims of abuse.

Care to defend that claim? Do you have anything more substantive than a couple trustees secretly lobbying for the field to be named for Paterno (and publicly proposing it, then immediately pulling it so no debate can occur)?

There's a reason why virtually no Penn State fans give a crap about your opinion (or people like you) - its because your opinion is devoid of any factual basis, it is entirely driven by your emotions. Since its entirely emotional and not rational or factual, there is no way for it to be factually disproven - the best course of action for Penn State fans is to recognize that and ignore the nonsense.

While what Paterno did was legally adequate - it was not morally adequate. I don't think even Joe Paterno would dispute that. The field isn't ever going to be named for him because the debate - if it were to ever occur - would be about the wisdom of naming a field for someone with such a public and significant moral failing on his record. That's not a debate that supporters of Joe Paterno can win in a public debate in Pennsylvania (in spite of what you appear to be indicating you believe)- and that is why they were discussing this in secret and pulled the proposal before any debate when they were forced by the media to bring it up at a board meeting.
 
What’s the evidence of that? The only thing I’ve ever seen is a report by ESPN - I don’t think the network that stood by Mark Schwarz has any journalistic integrity and don’t deserve the assumption on anyone’s part they get any story right.

If there’s other journalistic organizations which found the same (independent of ESPN’s research), please post them because I’d be interested in that. If you’re basing your beliefs solely on a report from an organization we already know has reported incorrect information in the past (and continues to stand by their process in that case) - why?
Saw a documentary on Hodne once I’ll see if I can find it. A witness actually said Paterno was contacting them.
 
4 year elimination of scholarships, bar on inbound transfers, free one-time window for outbound transfers and a full coaching staff turnover. That's all the NCAA had to do to institute a death penalty without instituting a death penalty.

You allow everything else - home games, recruiting, postseason participation, no cancellation of seasons, etc. They wouldn't be able to recruit as a result and wouldn't participate in the postseason anyway.

The thing with SMU where stakeholders could have potentially sued was the cancellation of a full season and the cancellation of home games the following season, along with the postseason ban. As long as the home games are happening, I can't see how someone could sue for breach.
 
Care to defend that claim? Do you have anything more substantive than a couple trustees secretly lobbying for the field to be named for Paterno (and publicly proposing it, then immediately pulling it so no debate can occur)?

There's a reason why virtually no Penn State fans give a crap about your opinion (or people like you) - its because your opinion is devoid of any factual basis, it is entirely driven by your emotions. Since its entirely emotional and not rational or factual, there is no way for it to be factually disproven - the best course of action for Penn State fans is to recognize that and ignore the nonsense.

While what Paterno did was legally adequate - it was not morally adequate. I don't think even Joe Paterno would dispute that. The field isn't ever going to be named for him because the debate - if it were to ever occur - would be about the wisdom of naming a field for someone with such a public and significant moral failing on his record. That's not a debate that supporters of Joe Paterno can win in a public debate in Pennsylvania (in spite of what you appear to be indicating you believe)- and that is why they were discussing this in secret and pulled the proposal before any debate when they were forced by the media to bring it up at a board meeting.
Do you live in Happy Valley?
 
Care to defend that claim? Do you have anything more substantive than a couple trustees secretly lobbying for the field to be named for Paterno (and publicly proposing it, then immediately pulling it so no debate can occur)?

There's a reason why virtually no Penn State fans give a crap about your opinion (or people like you) - its because your opinion is devoid of any factual basis, it is entirely driven by your emotions. Since its entirely emotional and not rational or factual, there is no way for it to be factually disproven - the best course of action for Penn State fans is to recognize that and ignore the nonsense.

While what Paterno did was legally adequate - it was not morally adequate. I don't think even Joe Paterno would dispute that. The field isn't ever going to be named for him because the debate - if it were to ever occur - would be about the wisdom of naming a field for someone with such a public and significant moral failing on his record. That's not a debate that supporters of Joe Paterno can win in a public debate in Pennsylvania (in spite of what you appear to be indicating you believe)- and that is why they were discussing this in secret and pulled the proposal before any debate when they were forced by the media to bring it up at a board meeting.
You might want to watch the Sandusky documentary on Netflix to get a different viewpoint on Paterno.

I don’t know what the truth is, but Paterno was the most powerful man on campus. The college officers and the board did his bidding. And I find it very hard to believe that he didn’t know what was going on, and I believe he turned a blind eye while kids were being raped on campus.
 
Last edited:
Do you live in Happy Valley?

No, I'm just not an irrational person who allows my emotions to overrule my reasoning capability and commitment to using verifiable facts to draw definitive conclusions. That appears to be an issue for you.

You might want to watch the Sandusky documentary on Netflix to get a different viewpoint on Paterno.

I don’t know what the truth is, but Paterno was the most powerful man on campus. The college officers and the board did his bidding. And I find it very hard to believe that he didn’t know what was going on, and I believe he turned a blind eye while kids were being raped on campus.

The bolded part is the part that matters most. In fact, it pretty much negates the need for any further commentary - although the fact you choose to provide it does serve as evidence to my claim above.

EDIT - Any interest in admitting I obliterated your claim Joe Paterno committed a crime in the Sandusky case by citing the relevant facts and statutes? Or would you prefer to stick with your irrational, factually untenable position that Paterno committed a crime….you just can’t figure out what?
 
Last edited:
4 year elimination of scholarships, bar on inbound transfers, free one-time window for outbound transfers and a full coaching staff turnover. That's all the NCAA had to do to institute a death penalty without instituting a death penalty.

You allow everything else - home games, recruiting, postseason participation, no cancellation of seasons, etc. They wouldn't be able to recruit as a result and wouldn't participate in the postseason anyway.

The thing with SMU where stakeholders could have potentially sued was the cancellation of a full season and the cancellation of home games the following season, along with the postseason ban. As long as the home games are happening, I can't see how someone could sue for breach.

I doubt the NCAA would have gone anywhere remotely close to this, for one incredibly obvious reason - if you put Penn State into a position where they have no other option than to put athletes on the field who have no business being there, it’s a gigantic player safety issue. That was one of the big issues when SMU came back - they realized player safety hadn’t been fully accounted for.

If the argument is Penn State didn’t HAVE to, they could have just stopped playing - the lawsuits come back in play because that’s admitting this was in all relevant ways a death penalty - just one the NCAA was too clever by half in implementing.
 
EDIT - Any interest in admitting I obliterated your claim Joe Paterno committed a crime in the Sandusky case by citing the relevant facts and statutes? Or would you prefer to stick with your irrational, factually untenable position that Paterno committed a crime….you just can’t figure out what?
You’re asking the wrong question. The right question is “should the person who knew that the athletics department facilities were used by a pedophile to rape young boys have their name on a building at Penn State?”

I would go with NO, but you have every right to say YES.
 
I doubt the NCAA would have gone anywhere remotely close to this, for one incredibly obvious reason - if you put Penn State into a position where they have no other option than to put athletes on the field who have no business being there, it’s a gigantic player safety issue. That was one of the big issues when SMU came back - they realized player safety hadn’t been fully accounted for.

If the argument is Penn State didn’t HAVE to, they could have just stopped playing - the lawsuits come back in play because that’s admitting this was in all relevant ways a death penalty - just one the NCAA was too clever by half in implementing.
From Oxygen True Crime:

ESPN’s writers unearthed a report about another 1978 victim known only as “Karen” in the article. Karen’s attack was similar to the others, except she said Paterno was involved in covering it up.

“She had heard from the police that there were others who had been attacked recently. She had heard some of the other women had received phone calls after their assault, possibly from the assailant." reports ESPN. "But when she picked up, she did not hear the voice she feared. This was someone familiar but not someone she knew. It was a man everyone knew. And when she realized who it was, she wondered immediately how he knew her name:

“‘Karen, this is Joe Paterno,’” the man said. “Are you OK?’”

Several of Hodne’s teammates would be called to testify in Hodne’s trial for the rape of Sailor, including Hodne’s long-time friend Tony Capozzoli, who said players were not allowed to talk about Hodne’s cases without Paterno’s blessing.

“So right off the bat, [Paterno] says, ‘Todd Hodne is guilty, and if you testify for him, you’re off the team,’” Capozzoli recalled.

Capozzoli went on to testify against Hodne and claimed he was kicked off the team for it.

Capozzolis testimony and what happened afterwards is well documented. Paterno was a scumbag that was idolized on that campus per actual testimony. Witness intimidation .., stay classy Joe.


They along with two other media outlets did documentaries on Hodne. It’s a scumbag institution with a track record of hiring vile people. Not even dogs are safe on that campus. As for your stance that he was not idolized the article I shared dispels that pretty quickly. How about we stop protecting a detestable institution and call a spade a spade … there is a large amount of publicly available info on this. Football is more important than a safe campus to these nut jobs.

Love this too …

When officers secured a warrant and contacted then Penn State head coach Joe Paterno and asked about Hodne’s whereabouts, they found out he was in Long Island. Paterno said he would try to locate the player.
“Joe Paterno was extremely influential on campus,” Musser recalled. “The football players to the students were gods. They walked on water. Players could do just about anything they wanted to do.”
Still, Musser alleged, “Penn State will do whatever they can to create a wonderful image of Penn State with no issues anywhere.”

 
You’re asking the wrong question. The right question is “should the person who knew that the athletics department facilities were used by a pedophile to rape young boys have their name on a building at Penn State?”

I would go with NO, but you have every right to say YES.

Find anywhere in here where I’ve said Paterno should have his name on a building (or field) at Penn State.

After you don’t, I expect an apology. Without that, since I know I didn’t say that - I’ll know you are contemptible, disgusting, vile person.

Paterno might have been a horrible human being. But - and this is key - you are hell bent on proving you are as well.
 
From Oxygen True Crime:

ESPN’s writers unearthed a report about another 1978 victim known only as “Karen” in the article. Karen’s attack was similar to the others, except she said Paterno was involved in covering it up.

“She had heard from the police that there were others who had been attacked recently. She had heard some of the other women had received phone calls after their assault, possibly from the assailant." reports ESPN. "But when she picked up, she did not hear the voice she feared. This was someone familiar but not someone she knew. It was a man everyone knew. And when she realized who it was, she wondered immediately how he knew her name:

“‘Karen, this is Joe Paterno,’” the man said. “Are you OK?’”

Several of Hodne’s teammates would be called to testify in Hodne’s trial for the rape of Sailor, including Hodne’s long-time friend Tony Capozzoli, who said players were not allowed to talk about Hodne’s cases without Paterno’s blessing.

“So right off the bat, [Paterno] says, ‘Todd Hodne is guilty, and if you testify for him, you’re off the team,’” Capozzoli recalled.

Capozzoli went on to testify against Hodne and claimed he was kicked off the team for it.

Capozzolis testimony and what happened afterwards is well documented. Paterno was a scumbag that was idolized on that campus per actual testimony. Witness intimidation .., stay classy Joe.


They along with two other media outlets did documentaries on Hodne. It’s a scumbag institution with a track record of hiring vile people. Not even dogs are safe on that campus. As for your stance that he was not idolized the article I shared dispels that pretty quickly. How about we stop protecting a detestable institution and call a spade a spade … there is a large amount of publicly available info on this. Football is more important than a safe campus to these nut jobs.

Love this too …

When officers secured a warrant and contacted then Penn State head coach Joe Paterno and asked about Hodne’s whereabouts, they found out he was in Long Island. Paterno said he would try to locate the player.
“Joe Paterno was extremely influential on campus,” Musser recalled. “The football players to the students were gods. They walked on water. Players could do just about anything they wanted to do.”
Still, Musser alleged, “Penn State will do whatever they can to create a wonderful image of Penn State with no issues anywhere.”


Can you point me to exactly where in the articles the facts are that you find compelling enough to claim certainty Paterno committed illegal activity? I must have missed it - what I saw was comments about things which happened followed by speculation Joe Paterno was involved. Not exactly “smoking gun” material here as far as I can see.

I’ll reiterate that ESPN forfeited any right to credibility with the Bernie Fine reporting (and response after it imploded). It’s very possible Paterno had undue influence in the Hodne case - but hanging your hat on “investigative journalism” articles is probably not wise. It’s how we as Syracuse fans got run through the wringer. It’s especially dubious when the investigative journalism doesn’t even pretend to have uncovered anything conclusive and relies on speculation instead.
 
From Oxygen True Crime:

ESPN’s writers unearthed a report about another 1978 victim known only as “Karen” in the article. Karen’s attack was similar to the others, except she said Paterno was involved in covering it up.

“She had heard from the police that there were others who had been attacked recently. She had heard some of the other women had received phone calls after their assault, possibly from the assailant." reports ESPN. "But when she picked up, she did not hear the voice she feared. This was someone familiar but not someone she knew. It was a man everyone knew. And when she realized who it was, she wondered immediately how he knew her name:

“‘Karen, this is Joe Paterno,’” the man said. “Are you OK?’”

Several of Hodne’s teammates would be called to testify in Hodne’s trial for the rape of Sailor, including Hodne’s long-time friend Tony Capozzoli, who said players were not allowed to talk about Hodne’s cases without Paterno’s blessing.

“So right off the bat, [Paterno] says, ‘Todd Hodne is guilty, and if you testify for him, you’re off the team,’” Capozzoli recalled.

Capozzoli went on to testify against Hodne and claimed he was kicked off the team for it.

Capozzolis testimony and what happened afterwards is well documented. Paterno was a scumbag that was idolized on that campus per actual testimony. Witness intimidation .., stay classy Joe.


They along with two other media outlets did documentaries on Hodne. It’s a scumbag institution with a track record of hiring vile people. Not even dogs are safe on that campus. As for your stance that he was not idolized the article I shared dispels that pretty quickly. How about we stop protecting a detestable institution and call a spade a spade … there is a large amount of publicly available info on this. Football is more important than a safe campus to these nut jobs.

Love this too …

When officers secured a warrant and contacted then Penn State head coach Joe Paterno and asked about Hodne’s whereabouts, they found out he was in Long Island. Paterno said he would try to locate the player.
“Joe Paterno was extremely influential on campus,” Musser recalled. “The football players to the students were gods. They walked on water. Players could do just about anything they wanted to do.”
Still, Musser alleged, “Penn State will do whatever they can to create a wonderful image of Penn State with no issues anywhere.”


Can you point me to exactly where in the articles the facts are that you find compelling enough to claim certainty Paterno committed illegal activity? I must have missed it - what I saw was comments about things which happened followed by speculation Joe Paterno was involved. Not exactly “smoking gun” material here as far as I can see.

I’ll reiterate that ESPN forfeited any right to credibility with the Bernie Fine reporting (and response after it imploded). It’s very possible Paterno had undue influence in the Hodne case - but hanging your hat on “investigative journalism” articles is probably not wise. It’s how we as Syracuse fans got run through the wringer. It’s especially dubious when the investigative journalism doesn’t even pretend to have uncovered anything conclusive and relies on speculation instead.
If your standard for disqualifying a news outlet is that they got a report wrong then don’t listen to any of them because they all do. I’ll reiterate the following … Paterno witness tampered … illegal and it’s stated above. Everything else is about his moral compass which points due south and stinks of cover up and deceit … if you love that detestable institution and its former and current scumbag head coach then go cheer for them.

Wring your hands over this legal bare minimum nonsense … evil triumphs when good men do nothing: He could have done far more but was a lowlife coward. Because of his actions two women were killed … defending him is pathetic and disgusting. Had Hodne been jailed (instead he gets him an attorney) which I think is an NCAA violation two women would still be alive. Your constant defense is puzzling and sad for a school you claim to care nothing about. I’m done explaining the fact that they are devoid of morals on top of it all.
 
Find anywhere in here where I’ve said Paterno should have his name on a building (or field) at Penn State.

After you don’t, I expect an apology. Without that, since I know I didn’t say that - I’ll know you are contemptible, disgusting, vile person.

Paterno might have been a horrible human being. But - and this is key - you are hell bent on proving you are as well.
I would refer you to the title of this thread.

On this topic, you’ll be waiting a long time before you get an apology from me.

And to steal OttoinGrotto’s line - “I’ll see Paterno in hell”.
 
I would refer you to the title of this thread.

On this topic, you’ll be waiting a long time before you get an apology from me.

And to steal OttoinGrotto’s line - “I’ll see Paterno in hell”.
He is a lost cause and quite frankly you owe him nothing … defending Paterno using the what’s legal excuse is as ridiculous as it comes and you can quote me on that.
 
He is a lost cause and quite frankly you owe him nothing … defending Paterno using the what’s legal excuse is as ridiculous as it comes and you can quote me on that.
Aye , it wasn’t about what was legal, it was about what did he do for those dozens of shattered lives……. both past and future….nothing
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
4
Views
479
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
6
Views
605
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
5
Views
422
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
6
Views
566
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
5
Views
534

Forum statistics

Threads
167,409
Messages
4,701,877
Members
5,907
Latest member
Jojo123

Online statistics

Members online
31
Guests online
1,414
Total visitors
1,445


Top Bottom