I grew up in Maine, where Mitchell is from and still resides for the most part, and his reputation is better than almost anyone I can think of. And Mainers love to hate politicians. Point taken on the steroid report, i was living in Boston at the time this came out and I remember everyone being really scared of the outcome and then really happy that no on on the sox was named - there was some criticism since I think Mitchell was either a small share owner or on the board or something of the team - but I recall critics of his initial appointment came out afterwords and said the report was fair. Of course it came out later that Manny was using steroids the whole time (man that guy was fun to watch at the plate)... But in any case sticking to my guns on Mitchell - friends of mine know him very well and integrity is always the word that comes up first in reference to George. I don't know the details of the Penn state situation, but it's possible that the initial reasons for the sanctions were not sufficiently proven --- sort of like trying to convict someone for insider trading which is difficult to prove when you know you have them on tax evasion but neglect to bring charges on that front. It's also possible that blame flowed in the wrong directions, again I don't know the details. Mitchell would have been very detail oriented in his work and would have made sure that substantial changes had been made by the University before making his recommendation. the outcome still sucks, but I would bet on Mitchell being a fair arbiter 10 times out of 10.
Yeah, I shouldn't really knock the guy's reputation, I just tend to be skeptical that way. But what I don't think I quite understand is what the criminal charges have to do with the university's punishment (unless the NCAA cited criminal proceedings as part of it's ruling).
My point is, let's take the best view possible of Ped St in this whole scandal. We still know the following is true:
-- There was a pedophile running around on campus (sickening, but admittedly it can happen anywhere)
-- The suspect's actions were unquestionably brought to the attention of the AD and head coach.
-- The university failed to take the allegations to authorities and act in a proactive fashion, an error in judgment (again, I"m being kind here) that caused irreparable harm to many (dozens?) of young, disadvantaged kids.
So maybe paterno truly was not in great health and simply made a wrong decision. But any way you slice it the university clearly had lost control of it's football program and, in fact, may have even been on board with the decision to handle the matter quietly in order to preserve the football program's and the university's reputation.
In what world is not proactively and aggressively seeking justice on a matter as grave as sexual abuse of already disadvantaged youth not worthy of an extremely heavy-handed punishment? What fact comes to light that makes people feel better about the conduct of the university over the course of a 5, 10 or 20-year period? In what world do we give credit to the university for, after the fact, complying with the requirements set forth in the punishment that was handed down?
It just makes no sense. I'm not out to punish the new coach and the current players, but I simply can't think of an example of a program acting in a more self-serving way at the expense of trampling the simple human rights of a group of children. It makes SMU seem laughable in almost every way imaginable.
