SBNation.com User Blog: mountaindog

All-State Football Athlete to Walk On

mountaindog — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:56:23 -0000

All-State Football Athlete to Walk On

Apparently the Sun Gazette is not up on the latest "Run-On" terminology. Don't know anything about Von Walker of Central Mountain beyond what is here. Anyone know if he is expected to make an impact?

Appreciating the Underclassmen

mountaindog — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:43 -0000

I love this group of seniors, and the leadership they provided was simply fantastic -- so much poise and passion! However, when you look at it, who had the tougher choice regarding staying or going? It is tough academically to transfer as a senior, as credits and graduation requirements vary. And on the football side, you only have a year to fit into someone else's system and compete with guys who have been there for years, and without a lot of time to form new bonds. Also, you have had three years of opportunities to go bowling and win league championships.

Underclassman may not yet be deep into their majors (may not, in fact have picked a major), have more time to learn new systems, etc. And many will go three or four years without an opportunity for post-season play.

So let's celebrate and congratulate the seniors for their inspiration and moxie, and wish them well in future. Their trial-by-fire has proven their mettle. But as we go into a long offseason, let's look forward to next year and another group of very classy guys (including the new freshman) who are making an even greater sacrifice to be able to say WE ARE ONE TEAM, WE ARE PENN STATE!

Costas Says OK to Doubt Freeh Report

mountaindog — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 04:35:53 -0000

Costas Says OK to Doubt Freeh Report

My sister sent me this, I don't watch M and M since IT. But here is Bob Costas saying reasonable people can doubt Freeh's conclusions.

WE ARE . . . MAKING PROGRESS?

mountaindog — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:34:11 -0000

After reading reviews of the Posnanski book, and following the fallout from the Spanier interviews and lawyers' presentation, I think we are making some progress. While it is certainly true that the majority of the reactions were negative, I think it is important to note how they were negative. It seems to me, for the most part, people attacked Paterno and Spanier for being out-of-touch, naive, incurious, and incompetent.

Sure there are still those out there that see them as evil geniuses that conspired to cover up, but they seem to be increasingly in the minority. Few "serious" journalists (if I can use that adjective here), however, are not strenuously defending the Freeh report, or claiming that Paterno and Spanier organized a cover up. This perception may gain strength through the perjury trial, as Curley and Schultz insist that they did not understand they were dealing with a pedophile, and so had nothing to cover up.

Maybe the believers in conspiracy theory have just moved on, but if indeed there is a changing perception that mistakes were made, not that there was an organized cover up, that gives me some hope. Certainly I hate to see our administration tagged as incompetent, but if that becomes the accepted view, the rationale for the NCAA sanctions and some of the law suits that could cripple the university is weakened significantly. Punishing people for conspiracy is one thing, punishing them for making mistakes quite another.

Most importantly, we could then use IT to teach the real lesson. Not the NCAA lesson "If you find a pedophile, don't cover for him," instead it is "These people walk among us, and only by real vigilance and asking the right questions can we stop them."

Am I overly optimistic, or are we changing the debate?

If Only JoePa Had Retired . . .

mountaindog — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:20:23 -0000

. . . none of this would ever have happened! Really? With apologies to those who want to just get on with football, and to my wife, who thinks I am obsessing way to much on this, let's take a little stroll down Imaginary Lane and assume that Joe Pa decided in January 2001 that five decades was enough, and he rolled down his cuffs and returned to Brooklyn to open a bait shop.

So now it is February 2001, and New Coach has been on the job for 6 hectic weeks, and is finally getting a chance to catch is breath during term break. In walks Mike McQueary, who he has kept on as a graduate assistant. Mike tells him of a troubling incident in the showers the night before, but is not too explicit because he doesn't know New Coach very well. New Coach knows who Sandusky is, the near-saint who made Penn State Linebacker U, the man who could have had his job except he gave it all up To Help the Kids. He knows all this because it is everywhere, from the local press to fawning articles in Sports Illustrated.

Now, if people back in Real World are to be believed, New Coach immediately picks up the phone and calls the police. Is this, however, a valid assumption? Probably not, for a couple of reasons: 1) Mike, his father, and Dr Dranov did not do so, what would Mike tell New Coach he did not tell them that would make him call? 2) More importantly, University regs require that in this situation New Coach report to Tim Curley. So since this is just Imaginary Lane, and not LaLa Land, that is what New Coach does.

A week later, he sees Tim and asks him what happened. "Oh, Jerry brings a lot of the kids from his charity here, Jock Therapy, I guess you could call it. He works out with them, and then showers with them, trying to get them used to the rough housing and stuff that goes on in locker rooms. Kinda creepy, I know, but the police and DA investigated a couple years ago when a parent complained. They found nothing illegal. We'll let 2nd Mile know, they should protect the kids. And we are telling Jerry not to bring the kids around here anymore. Shouldn't be a problem."

Then years later, New Coach's explosive offense and the traditional rock-solid Penn State defense have led to two National Titles. With one loss on the season in November, the Lions are poised for another major bowl. Then, on November 11, 2011, the Grand Jury releases its presentment, and his whole world crumbles around him. He knew about the shower incident, and should have done more.

The final nail in his coffin is the editorial in Sports Illustrated: "Just being a great recruiter, or being an X and O wizard, is not enough to be truly successful in life. A man must have a sense of right and wrong, and the belief that other things are more important than football. It is unfortunate for Penn State that Joe Paterno retired when he did -- this would never have happened on his watch."

So ends our stroll. I think the folks who are so sure that the reason what happened happened was because Joe Paterno had too much power should think about what would have happened had he not been there. It was not because Joe was all powerful, it could just have easily happened with a new coach who had no influence. It happened because Jerry Sandusky fooled hundreds of people, including Joe.

Thanks for letting me rant. You may now return to talking about football.

Walk a Mile In JoePa’s Shoes; or If This Merits Damnation. . .

mountaindog — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 03:46:11 -0000

What follows probably needs some fact-checking, I think I got it mostly right but would appreciate input from what I think is a basically friendly audience at BSD. I think it is a way to get people who are tired of wrangling over the details of Freeh to see why many of us believe Joe is being treated unfairly. In that vein, and if people think it would help, I would welcome any suggestions of how I could get wide distribution.

Walk a Mile In JoePa’s Shoes; or If This Merits Eternal Damnation, God Help Us All
The Freeh report draws numerous conclusions and makes significant accusations. However, much is based on conjecture, and when one attempts to unravel the charges against Joe Paterno, it gets confusing because we are sidetracked by accusations against the others. So rather than argue the merits of all of the allegations, I wanted to start by clarifying Paterno’s role. So I have put together this little drama, where you can go through the 1998 and 2001 incidents from Joe’s perspective. Everything here is consistent with the Freeh report’s facts. The only significant discrepancy with non-Freeh statements by Paterno is whether or not he knew of the 1998 incident. I have given critics the benefit of the doubt and accepted Freeh’s conjecture that he did. So put on your coke bottle glasses, lace up your black sneakers, and roll up your pant legs:

May 1998: You are at a meeting in the office of Athletic Director Tim Curley. Several people have been discussing the future of Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky. You told Jerry several months ago that he would not be the next head coach at Penn State unless he drastically curtailed his time with the charity he founded, Second Mile. He is currently asking about other positions at the University, possibly Assistant AD. After the others file out, Tim asks you to stay behind:

TC: Joe, there is something else that has come up with Jerry. I should not tell you this, because the investigation is confidential, but since you will have an input into Jerry’s future here, I want you to know. The police and DA are investigating a report of child abuse.
You: Child abuse?
TC: Well, it may be nothing. You know Jerry is always working out with his foster kids, and the Second Mile kids, and he often showers with them. The program relies a lot on athletics as therapy, and Jerry seems to think his showering with them reassures them while they are in the locker room, which can be intimidating for kids. Not sure I agree, but he is the one being advised by the child development people at Second Mile. Anyhow, one kid told his mom that Jerry hugged him in the shower, and she complained to the cops. Sounds like she is over-reacting, but the DA is investigating.
You: Yeah, well, let me know what happens.

Three weeks later, you get a phone call:
TC: Joe, just wanted you to know we just got the results of that police thing I told you about with Jerry. The police and the DA both have decided it doesn’t merit prosecution, there is no evidence it is criminal. I guess it is like I said, Jerry horsing around and making some people uncomfortable.
You: Okay, thanks Tim.

Fast forward three years to February 10, 2001. Jerry has continued his work at Second Mile. Obviously the State Department of Public Welfare officials who oversee it did not put any credence in the 1998 incident. The charity has been growing in fame. Jerry has been the Home Coming Grand Marshall at Penn State, the Centre County Chamber of Business and Industry recognized him with the Community Service Award, and Senator Santorum nominated him in Congress as an Angel in Adoption. You see Sandusky around campus once in a while, but have little contact with him.

You’re finishing breakfast. There is a knock on the door, and a few minutes later, Sue brings in your graduate assistant, Mike McQuery.
MM: Joe, thanks for seeing me, we really need to talk.
YOU: Yeah, so you said when you called last night. Like I said then, if this is about moving you into a coaching position, I just can’t do that right now.
MM: No, not about that. I was in Lasch last night to pick up some stuff, and I saw something that was really disturbing. Jerry Sandusky was in the showers with a little kid.
YOU: At night, what the hell was he doing there at night?
MM: Well, I am not sure exactly, I just went in to get some stuff from my locker. I only saw him for a few seconds, but it looked wrong to me, kind of sexual.”
YOU: Really? Did you break it up?
MM: No, right after I saw them, they got dressed and left. The kid wasn’t crying and didn’t seem afraid, so I kind of just left it at that.
YOU: So the kid was okay? Did you call the police?
MM: No, like I said, the incident seemed over, and no one was in danger. The kid went willingly. But I was really upset. I called my dad, and told him what was going on. He told me to just come home. So I went back and described it all to him, and a colleague of his, Dr. Dranov, and they suggested I come and talk to you. They did not think there was any reason to call the police last night.
YOU: Well, what do we do now? It has to be reported, but if it was not an immediate matter for the police, it has to go up the administrative chain. Let me think about this, I have not faced anything like this before, so I’ll call you.

Sunday, Feb 11 Phone Call to Tim Curley
YOU: Hey Tim, Mike McQueary came to see me yesterday. He saw Jerry Sandusky showering with a kid in Lasch. I am not sure what he saw, he was a little vague, but could be serious. Or it could be 1998 all over again, Jerry horsing around and creeping folks out, but nothing criminal. Either way, I think it needs to be looked into. Can you and Gary get together and talk to Mike? Let me know what happens, but I don’t want to get too involved. I don’t want Jerry deflecting from the enquiry claiming I am out to get him.

Sunday, Feb 11 Phone Call to Mike McQueary
YOU: Mike, I told Tim Curley and Gary Schultz what you told me, they should be in touch with you. Tim controls access to facilities, and negotiated Jerry’s contract, so if we need to keep Jerry from coming on campus, he can speak to that. And the police report to Gary. So seems like anything that can and needs to be done at this point they can do. Let me know if you need me to get further involved, but I should probably keep out of it as much as possible.

Monday, Feb 26
You have not heard anything for 2 weeks, but you have been busy, and you are not too concerned. You have known Mike for more than ten years. He is a good, level-headed kid – well, not a kid anymore, he is 28 – and you have every reason to believe he can handle whatever this is, especially with the help of Curley and Schultz. Then you get a phone call from Tim:
TC: Joe, wanted to give you a heads up on the McQueary/Sandusky thing. We checked with legal on our reporting requirements, and then with Graham (University President Graham Spanier). We can’t let the sort of thing Mike saw continue, so first we are going to tell Jerry to bring kids onto campus anymore, report him to Public Welfare, and then report it all to Dr. Raykovitz, who is running Second Mile.
You: Well, that sounds good. Are you going to tell Jerry you are reporting him to DPW?
Tim: Well, have not thought that through yet, why?
You: Well, you know how that stuff always leaks, and if Jerry gets labeled as a pedophile it could really cripple Second Mile. Jerry isn’t my favorite person, but I think we need to consider that.
Tim: Yeah, I see your point, let me think about it and run it by Graham. Not sure how much it matters. If I understand Legal correctly, once we give Second Mile a credible report of an incident like this, they will have to report and investigate.
You: Sure, you are the experts, do what you need to do.
The next time you see Mike, you ask him how he is feeling. He says he is okay, and he is satisfied with what has been done. No one who has heard Mike’s story ever comes to you to complain about inaction, or to suggest more needs to be done. Seems like everyone decided this was a minor incident, and it quickly fades in your memory.
That’s it until 2010 when you are notified of the Grand Jury investigation. Curtain.

As I said, all of the above is completely consistent with the Freeh investigation. When you add in all the things Freeh claims Spanier, Curley and Schultz were doing at the same time, and start trying to match it all up with Grand Jury testimony, other statements made by principles, etc, it gets very confusing. But when you strip it down to just what anyone can know and prove Paterno did, it is, in my opinion, difficult to see some great moral failing or evidence of a cover up. I will entertain any new facts that show Joe knew more or did more, but theydo not exist, to my knowledge. He had two data points: 1) a 1998 allegation of shower hugging that was determined unworthy of charges (we don’t know how it was characterized to Joe; my version above is as good as any); 2. a toned-down description of a similar incident 3 years later. He turned that information over to the right people, and expected them to do their jobs.

What of inconsistencies among this, what JP testified to, and what he told Sally Jenkins? I don’t know. The most significant thing focused on by Freeh and Jenkins was his denial of knowing about 1998. Why he denied it I won’t speculate, but as I demonstrate above, knowing about it in some ways strengthens his case, so there seems little reason to lie.

That is what has people across the country and in the media suggesting that a man who worked tirelessly for 61 years to help make a great University should rot in hell for eternity. So again, I have to say, if this qualifies Joe for internal damnation, God help the rest of us.

How Should Football Team Honor Joe on the Uniform?

mountaindog — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:03:57 -0000

Saw the FanShot last week of the "JVP" tribute on the baseball team's caps, and I think it is great -- I hope I can pick one up! However, since initials for coaches/owners/etc. and numbers for players on uniforms seem to be pretty standard as tributes, if we believe JoePa was special, I hope the football team will do something special. So I thought I would kick it off, list the obvious, and see if some folks with real imagination have some ideas. Then, maybe someone with better computer skills than mine can put the best ideas into a poll. Initially I thought we could send the results to the athletic department for consideration, but my guess is it would just get lost. A better idea might be for someone on the BSD staff with connections on the team to run it by some of the seniors; if they like it, I think BOB would go along with their suggestion.

So, to get the discussion started, I would suggest the oval lion with the teardrop centered on the back of the helmet; the first time I saw that it really move me. You could put JVP underneath if you thought the meaning would be lost, but I think Joe would like simpler. Alternatively, glasses or black shoes on a hook, or a combination of both, would be my second choice. Thoughts?

One Last Lesson

mountaindog — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:06:00 -0000

Certainly we all agree it was a tragedy that the events of the last several months stained Joe Paterno’s legacy and deprived him of the graceful exit from the world’s stage he so richly deserved. Even before his death, I was angry and bitter about the treatment he received from the media and the Board of Trustees. However, reading Joe Posnanski’s column, hearing Sally Jenkins comments, and watching the interview with Jay and Mary Kay, I have come to realize that there was something very fitting in the way JoePa left us.

Had the scandal not happened the tributes to his memory, to the “Grand Experiment,” and to “Success with Honor” would have been wonderful and satisfying, but they would not have added appreciably to what he taught us. However, when Posnanski, Jenkins, and his family all reinforce that Joe himself was not bitter, and that his final thoughts were for his family, his players and his university, he teaches those who are paying attention that anger, hatred and vindictiveness are not healthy emotions, and that concern for others is the always the better course. Another lesson from a courageous man who was a great teacher right up until his last breath.

Companion Piece to "My Shot at the Truth"

mountaindog — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 01:31:36 -0000

I have been considering writing a “Unified Theory of the Shower Incident” because I have thought for some time that there is a narrative that explains away many of the inconsistencies. “Success With Honor Always” post shares my same central thesis, so I thank him/her and express my admiration for his/her taking the initiative that alluded me. Because I had a fair amount add, however, I thought I would do it in a new post.

1). I don’t think it was just MM’s memory changing, I think prosecutors pushed him to rethink the incident in light of the newer allegations, and his conscience subconsciously changed his memories.

2). In addition to other discussions on other postings of the physical problems of anal intercourse between a 6 foot plus man and a 10-12 year old boy, I find it strange that none of the victims who allege JS had a multiyear relationship with them accuse him of sodomy, only of fondling and oral sex. But the one incident that MM saw, and in which he admits he did not actually see intercourse, is now accepted as an incident of anal intercourse. While certainly possible, it does not seem consistent with the stories of the other victims.

3). If the allegations against JS are true (and I believe in general they are), he was obviously skilled at covering up or explaining away his activities. Paterno, a coach for 50 plus years, and Curley, a footballer through college, were obviously used to being around naked young men in showers. So when JS claims he is just trying to acclimate these kids to the locker room experience, it is perhaps a little more believable to them than it is to the rest of us. A lot of us less confident students remember hating high school gym classes because we were uncomfortable in group showers. JS’s explanation may have sounded odd, and PSU may not have wanted him to be trying out his acclimatization process on their campus, but I can understand why they may have believed it was not sexual. After all, that seemed to be the conclusion of the previous DA investigation several years earlier.

4). A lot has been made of the fact that the PSU administration was not prepared for the media storm that hit after the GJ presentment. Perhaps one explanation is that Paterno, Curley and Schultz came back from their GJ appearances and told Spanier and members of the BoT that there was nothing to worry about because they had explained to the GJ that they had done the right thing given the information they had at the time. If they were engaged in a cover up that was about to be exposed, I would think they would have been better prepared when the media feeding frenzy began. Remember, Paterno seemed very confident he could explain the whole thing at press conference before it was canceled. Would he have been so confident if he was trying to hold together a cover up that was unraveling?

Those of us who defend Paterno, Curley and Schultz are accused of being naïve and denying the obvious, but to me, “Success With Honor Always’” view seems to require much less a suspension of belief than to believe what has become conventional wisdom.

To believe the conventional wisdom, you have to believe media-savvy Joe Paterno, who has instilled in multiple generations of athletes a high code of honor, decided to orchestrate a cover-up to protect a child molester who was not a University employee. He decided this even though three other people (MM, his doctor’s father and his father’s doctor friend) already knew about the incident and two of them, as doctors, had a particular moral, if not legal, obligation to report the incident, and had no reason to cooperate in a cover-up. Amazingly, he then informed two other people who had a legal and moral obligation to report the incident. In summary, we must believe that six adult men, all of apparently good moral character to this point in their lives, professional educators or physicians, are aware of an incident that all but the most perverted among us find to be completely reprehensible, but agree to ignore it. Two of them then go on to perjure themselves to a grand jury.

On the other hand, if we accept that MM, 7 years after the incident, and prodded by an aggressive district attorney, embellishes his story in order to help put away someone he now is convinced is a monster, the rest of the story makes sense. You can argue that Paterno, Schultz, and Curly were naïve to believe Sandusky, and should have been more aggressive, but that is 20-20 hindsight, and there is a huge difference between making a mistake and committing a crime, moral of legal.