Why are Ped State fans so delusional?

[WillieGuysIQ]

I get that everyone has a bias towards something. We're all Hawkeye or Cyclone homers. We think our team is better than it really is and our rivals team is crappier than it really is. Iowa State fans think we're delusional, we think they're delusional.

So I get that homerism is a part of sports. Anyhoo...I found myself stumbling onto the State Penn message boards, which is something I don't do very often. Just wanted to get their take on the whole JoePa/Sandusky fiasco. Let me just say this...

After reading their message board, I'll be honest...I lost a bit of confidence in society. It really is plain and simple and something that CANNOT be argued...

If you do not think JoePa was part of a cover-up, you are a STUPID human being. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

This is NOT about being a homer. This is about being a stupid human being. If you are not intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that JoePa (along with others) was part of a cover-up...you're not a Penn State homer...you're a f*cking moron. End of story.

The media is not out to get Penn State. Yeah, they're really just out to make money, not to report the news. But that doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true. JoePa knew about Sandusky all along. He knew that McQueary witnessed "something" going on in the shower....11 years ago. He knew about the 1998 incident. He knew about other rumors. He did nothing. He didn't even at least try to keep Sandusky away from the football program. JoePa (and others) spent about a dozen years just acting like nothing happened.

WTF? Nothing happened? Your former assistant coach was raping little boys. Sometimes even in your football facilities. That's messed up.

And, no, State Penn fan, this is not me "succumbing to media brainwashing". This is me not being a complete effing moron like PSU fans. It was very disgusting to read their message board. To think people are actually dumb enough to believe JoePa was completely innocent in this is just disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

And it's not just a few, or even a small percentage of PSU fans. It's darn near EVERYONE. 99% of that board believes Joe did nothing wrong. Look, I understand if they're upset that the NCAA came down so hard on them. I do agree with the punishment, but I get that they're homers and don't want to see their program in shambles for the next decade. But to spew out their nonsense about how JoePa did nothing wrong and that it's all a media conspiracy....

Get out of here with that nonsense! We're talking about dozens of kids being RAPED. How can you defend a coach that allowed his former coach to continue raping children because he refused to take it to police? This is not the damn media brainwashing me to think this way. These are FACTS. Goodness.

End of rant!

 

[hawkfan1319]

Yawn.

 

[WillieGuysIQ]

Yawn.

I'm sorry, I'll stick to topics Iowans care about next time. Let's see here...

-Gymnastics
-Wrasslin'
-State fair

So, basically, topics no one outside the state cares about. My bad.

 

[daverhawk]

A large part of the problem are the moderators on the PSU boards. The guy on the Rivals site is at least as crazy as the rest of the Paterno cult. He bans people just for disagreeing with their delusional views of Paterno and the Freeh Report. When you do that, you wind up with people reinforcing each other which makes it easy to be a lemming. There is very little dissent allowed but much foul language against outsiders and BOT IS allowed. I still wonder how he can get away with this. Doesn't Rivals have some standards required for those who run their boards?

 

[ICHawk24]

The crazy PSU fans are the ones still posting. The sane ones don't want to talk about it.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Yea, they are pretty lost over there right now & many do have blinders on. Pretty sad given the horrible situation that took place.

 

[BILLBUCKNER]

I have lost all respect for anything Penn State. If they would accept that they are in the wrong, take their punishment like men and make sure nothing like this ever happens again. One can forgive. I hear no loud voices from PSU condeming the lemmings for going on as they are. The rivals board for PSu is a joke. One must tow the company line or get banned. Imagine if Jon or Tom banned all the ISu posters that talk smack they way they do? Its a retrded way to monitor a board there. I really wish the NCAA would have given them the death hammer. They deserve it more now than ever.

 

[Billso]

I get that everyone has a bias towards something. We're all Hawkeye or Cyclone homers. We think our team is better than it really is and our rivals team is crappier than it really is. Iowa State fans think we're delusional, we think they're delusional.

So I get that homerism is a part of sports. Anyhoo...I found myself stumbling onto the State Penn message boards, which is something I don't do very often. Just wanted to get their take on the whole JoePa/Sandusky fiasco. Let me just say this...

After reading their message board, I'll be honest...I lost a bit of confidence in society. It really is plain and simple and something that CANNOT be argued...

If you do not think JoePa was part of a cover-up, you are a STUPID human being. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

This is NOT about being a homer. This is about being a stupid human being. If you are not intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that JoePa (along with others) was part of a cover-up...you're not a Penn State homer...you're a f*cking moron. End of story.

The media is not out to get Penn State. Yeah, they're really just out to make money, not to report the news. But that doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true. JoePa knew about Sandusky all along. He knew that McQueary witnessed "something" going on in the shower....11 years ago. He knew about the 1998 incident. He knew about other rumors. He did nothing. He didn't even at least try to keep Sandusky away from the football program. JoePa (and others) spent about a dozen years just acting like nothing happened.

WTF? Nothing happened? Your former assistant coach was raping little boys. Sometimes even in your football facilities. That's messed up.

And, no, State Penn fan, this is not me "succumbing to media brainwashing". This is me not being a complete effing moron like PSU fans. It was very disgusting to read their message board. To think people are actually dumb enough to believe JoePa was completely innocent in this is just disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

And it's not just a few, or even a small percentage of PSU fans. It's darn near EVERYONE. 99% of that board believes Joe did nothing wrong. Look, I understand if they're upset that the NCAA came down so hard on them. I do agree with the punishment, but I get that they're homers and don't want to see their program in shambles for the next decade. But to spew out their nonsense about how JoePa did nothing wrong and that it's all a media conspiracy....

Get out of here with that nonsense! We're talking about dozens of kids being RAPED. How can you defend a coach that allowed his former coach to continue raping children because he refused to take it to police? This is not the damn media brainwashing me to think this way. These are FACTS. Goodness.

End of rant!

Your first 3 paragraphs are spot-on. But you then go well beyond facts actually present in the Freeh report. Read the links contained here http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/big-10-sports/47998-alternate-take-freeh-report.html Actually READ them before responding, please.

That's the part that is annoying reasonable PSU fans. Not that Joe shouldn't have done more - even he said as much - but that Joe "did nothing" and orchestrated a conspiracy dating back to 1998. An incident which WAS taken to the police, contrary to your post, and investigated by them. Also, if you want to cover something up, you don't generally report it to senior university officials, as Joe did in 2001. They are fighting for the reputation of their beloved football team, and are frustrated that PSU's otherwise exemplary record seems not to count at all. I understand this as far as it goes, and we'd probably do the same.

The delusional PSU fans are the ones who feel they don't deserve sanctions, or that a technicality on trustee approval of Erickson's acceptance of sanctions will save them. They are missing the forest for the trees: they don't understand that even_if JoePa did entirely the right thing, and even_if Spanier didn't receive the full story from his VPs, the institution as a whole failed these kids absymally, and PSU deserve every bit of scorn and sanction they're getting.

 

[Billso]

A large part of the problem are the moderators on the PSU boards. The guy on the Rivals site is at least as crazy as the rest of the Paterno cult. He bans people just for disagreeing with their delusional views of Paterno and the Freeh Report. When you do that, you wind up with people reinforcing each other which makes it easy to be a lemming. There is very little dissent allowed but much foul language against outsiders and BOT IS allowed. I still wonder how he can get away with this. Doesn't Rivals have some standards required for those who run their boards?

The Scout pay board contains a lot of delusion, but also a fair number of PSUers who 'get it'.

 

[IowaFan81]

Your first 3 paragraphs are spot-on. But you then go well beyond facts actually present in the Freeh report. Read the links contained here http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/big-10-sports/47998-alternate-take-freeh-report.html Actually READ them before responding, please.

That's the part that is annoying reasonable PSU fans. Not that Joe shouldn't have done more - even he said as much - but that Joe "did nothing" and orchestrated a conspiracy dating back to 1998. An incident which WAS taken to the police, contrary to your post, and investigated by them. Also, if you want to cover something up, you don't generally report it to senior university officials, as Joe did in 2001. They are fighting for the reputation of their beloved football team, and are frustrated that PSU's otherwise exemplary record seems not to count at all. I understand this as far as it goes, and we'd probably do the same.

The delusional PSU fans are the ones who feel they don't deserve sanctions, or that a technicality on trustee approval of Erickson's acceptance of sanctions will save them. They are missing the forest for the trees: they don't understand that even_if JoePa did entirely the right thing, and even_if Spanier didn't receive the full story from his VPs, the institution as a whole failed these kids absymally, and PSU deserve every bit of scorn and sanction they're getting.

So you're saying nothing that gets taken higher in a organization ever gets covered up? Sure, JoePa took it higher, but why did it stop there, and why were they all in agreement that they should confront him not, not take it external when it happened again? They knew about the alleged 1998 incident, then it happened again in 2001 and they found out, but did nothing. Yes, JoePa said he didn't do enough, but why not. They let Sandusky stick around until he was arrested in November 2011. That's what people don't understand and why they think it was a coverup. They didn't do enough. They didn't even separate themselves completely from Sandusky. Why not? Because it would hurt the program where it hurts. So basically JoePa and others did do nothing.

 

[Billso]

So you're saying nothing that gets taken higher in a organization ever gets covered up?

I said nothing of the sort. The facts are clear that Curley and Schulz covered up, possibly Spanier also (and even if not, it was on his watch as President so no excuses). The facts on Paterno are far less clear, as the only evidence - as opposed to speculation - that Joe Paterno 'covered up' was a single mention of 'after talking to Coach' in an email. What's rarely mentioned, but you'll find in the Freeh report if you care to read it, is the extensive discussions among Curley, Schulz, Spanier and others, not involving or mentioning Paterno, on what to do next.

Paterno was certainly powerful, but the meme is "Paterno knew everything and controlled everything". Inconveniently, the actual facts do not back this up, so far. Perhaps new facts will emerge in Curley and Schulz' trial to shed more light - they will certainly be motivated to point the finger elsewhere if the slightest bit of evidence can help them.

 

[OnLookin08]

Anyone that frequents message boards knows that at least a chunk of the people are delusional and perhaps just as many intelligent. The rest fall in between. It should also be noted that in know way do those small factions of fans represent the fan base. Would you want people thinking some of the posters on here represent Iowa?

If you didn't already know/realize these things you might consider yourself anyone of the names you referred to them as.

 

[OnLookin08]

^no, not know...

 

[bud2380]

Your first 3 paragraphs are spot-on. But you then go well beyond facts actually present in the Freeh report. Read the links contained here http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/big-10-sports/47998-alternate-take-freeh-report.html Actually READ them before responding, please.

That's the part that is annoying reasonable PSU fans. Not that Joe shouldn't have done more - even he said as much - but that Joe "did nothing" and orchestrated a conspiracy dating back to 1998. An incident which WAS taken to the police, contrary to your post, and investigated by them. Also, if you want to cover something up, you don't generally report it to senior university officials, as Joe did in 2001. They are fighting for the reputation of their beloved football team, and are frustrated that PSU's otherwise exemplary record seems not to count at all. I understand this as far as it goes, and we'd probably do the same.

The delusional PSU fans are the ones who feel they don't deserve sanctions, or that a technicality on trustee approval of Erickson's acceptance of sanctions will save them. They are missing the forest for the trees: they don't understand that even_if JoePa did entirely the right thing, and even_if Spanier didn't receive the full story from his VPs, the institution as a whole failed these kids absymally, and PSU deserve every bit of scorn and sanction they're getting.

I just have one question for JoePa supporters. He KNEW about the 1998 incident. That incident got reported and no charges were filed. Ok fine, I can live with that. In 2001 he hears a FIRST HAND account from a former player and current coach of Jerry in the shower doing something of a sexual nature with a kid. So my question is after hearing now a 2nd incident of this, why didn't JoePa just walk up to his long time friend and coach and say "Jerry, Mike tells me you were taking a shower with a kid, is this true? Who is this kid? I need to talk to him". From all accounts I have read, I don't know that anybody confronted Jerry directly on this, nor do I believe did anyone make any effort whatsoever to find out who this kid was, and talk to him and talk to the kids parents. If someone has evidence to the contrary on this send it my way and I'll retract this statement. But if what I just stated is the way things went down, then nobody can defend JoePa or the others involved. Nobody. And if you do you are inhuman and despicable.

 

[Billso]

I just have one question for JoePa supporters. He KNEW about the 1998 incident. That incident got reported and no charges were filed. Ok fine, I can live with that. In 2001 he hears a FIRST HAND account from a former player and current coach of Jerry in the shower doing something of a sexual nature with a kid. So my question is after hearing now a 2nd incident of this, why didn't JoePa just walk up to his long time friend and coach and say "Jerry, Mike tells me you were taking a shower with a kid, is this true? Who is this kid? I need to talk to him". From all accounts I have read, I don't know that anybody confronted Jerry directly on this, nor do I believe did anyone make any effort whatsoever to find out who this kid was, and talk to him and talk to the kids parents. If someone has evidence to the contrary on this send it my way and I'll retract this statement. But if what I just stated is the way things went down, then nobody can defend JoePa or the others involved. Nobody. And if you do you are inhuman and despicable.

I am not a "JoePa supporter" but will answer your question. Had you bothered reading the links contained here http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/big-10-sports/47998-alternate-take-freeh-report.html you'd have noted this, from the attorney who evaluated the Freeh evidence carefully:

if Mr. Paterno had reported the McQueary information to me (were I, like Schultz, the official in charge of the University Police), I would have told him to keep his mouth shut going forward and let the authorities handle the matter. Otherwise, Mr. Paterno could have tainted the investigation. And, because he was a potential trial witness (to McQueary’s prior consistent statements, see Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence613(c)), any further statements or action by Mr. Paterno could have become cross-examination fodder for the defense. Any further action by Mr.Paterno could only have damaged the integrity of the investigation and any prosecution against Sandusky.

The same point has been made by numerous others, and it is exactly right. Where Joe should have done more, in my view, was not going to Sandusky but following up with Schulz and Curley after it became clear nothing was happening. Same for McQueary.

For that matter, why are Second Mile and their staff and board members never mentioned? They had far more contact with Sandusky after his retirement than PSU did, it became Sandusky's full time job then, and they were aware of the incidents. Their board was filled with prominent businesspeople, politicians and others.

 

[daverhawk]

I am not a "JoePa supporter" but will answer your question. Had you bothered reading the links contained here http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/big-10-sports/47998-alternate-take-freeh-report.html you'd have noted this, from the attorney who evaluated the Freeh evidence carefully:



The same point has been made by numerous others, and it is exactly right. Where Joe should have done more, in my view, was not going to Sandusky but following up with Schulz and Curley after it became clear nothing was happening. Same for McQueary.

For that matter, why are Second Mile and their staff and board members never mentioned? They had far more contact with Sandusky after his retirement than PSU did, it became Sandusky's full time job then, and they were aware of the incidents. Their board was filled with prominent businesspeople, politicians and others.

The problem with this theory is that it was Paterno that was running the show. His alleged superiors were keeping Paterno informed of details in the 1998 case. It was Paterno who dissuaded Curley from contacting anyone about the 2001 case.
And Schultz was not the chief of police as people would think of it. He was a department head who just happened to have the police (as well as other departments) under his direction. He was not a policeman at all.
Harmon, an actual chief of police, was keeping PSU officials informed and prevented the 1998 case from being documented in the log book. This prevented the charge from becoming public knowledge. He apparently was part of the coverup too.
I don't find it surprising that you can find an attorney who agrees with what Paterno did. You can find thousand of others who recognize this as a conspiracy to coverup child rape.

 

[Billso]

The problem with this theory is that it was Paterno that was running the show. His alleged superiors were keeping Paterno informed of details in the 1998 case.

The Freeh report doesn't say that. Read the links.

It was Paterno who dissuaded Curley from contacting anyone about the 2001 case.

The Freeh report doesn't say that. Read the links.

And Schultz was not the chief of police as people would think of it. He was a department head who just happened to have the police (as well as other departments) under his direction. He was not a policeman at all.

That's correct, but was nonetheless the right person for Paterno to report the incident to. Paterno's great failure, as I've said, was in not following up to see the local police and/or FBI had been contacted.

Harmon, an actual chief of police, was keeping PSU officials informed and prevented the 1998 case from being documented in the log book. This prevented the charge from becoming public knowledge. He apparently was part of the coverup too.

Why should the 1998 charge have "become public knowledge"? Sandusky was investigated for hugging a boy (not rape) and was cleared by the police. In hindsight, we all understand this was a grave mistake, and the police made an especially egregious error not immediately questioning Sandusky after his "wish I was dead" conversation with the mother. But you don't seem to grasp the problem with publicizing a charge like that if it might not be true (even the victim denied it was anything more than hugging)

Again, like so many, it's painfully obvious you have not read the Freeh report or this attorney's analysis, preferring instead to rely on 'facts' published in the media. Your mind is made up. Any facts which defy your preconception must be dismissed or disparaged.

Contrary to your final comment, I've not yet encountered a single attorney who believes Freeh's report isn't deeply flawed, specifically that the actual facts simply don't match the summary 'findings' wrt Paterno and to a lesser extent, Panier.

 

[deanvogs]

The Freeh report doesn't say that. Read the links.



The Freeh report doesn't say that. Read the links.



That's correct, but was nonetheless the right person for Paterno to report the incident to. Paterno's great failure, as I've said, was in not following up to see the local police and/or FBI had been contacted.



Why should the 1998 charge have "become public knowledge"? Sandusky was investigated for hugging a boy (not rape) and was cleared by the police. In hindsight, we all understand this was a grave mistake, and the police made an especially egregious error not immediately questioning Sandusky after his "wish I was dead" conversation with the mother. But you don't seem to grasp the problem with publicizing a charge like that if it might not be true (even the victim denied it was anything more than hugging)

Again, like so many, it's painfully obvious you have not read the Freeh report or this attorney's analysis, preferring instead to rely on 'facts' published in the media. Your mind is made up. Any facts which defy your preconception must be dismissed or disparaged.

Contrary to your final comment, I've not yet encountered a single attorney who believes Freeh's report isn't deeply flawed, specifically that the actual facts simply don't match the summary 'findings' wrt Paterno and to a lesser extent, Panier.

Billso, sorry, but I just disagree with you on all of this. You may be 100% correct that the Freeh report is a FLAWED for a criminal case. Last I checked the NCAA isn't out to prove a criminal case against anyone, and they don't have to. They are looking at things like a civil case would. They are looking at if the University, Schultz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno are liable in what went on during those 14 years. Clearly they are liable, and Penn St. knows this, and that is why a civil suit won't see the light of day. That is all the NCAA was looking for. Never has the NCAA run criminal cases against these schools, that isn't want they do. This is why the NCAA can punish the school and football programs for what AGENTS do, and what BOOSTERS do. They could never prove in a court of law in a criminal case that the university itself was guilty, and this Penn st. case is no different.

 

[daverhawk]

Re: Billso post


No It's painfully obvious that you haven't read the Freeh Report.

It was standard procedure to log all investigations. Usually it would not have mattered if the charge was proven or dismissed. But in this case - "University Police Department Chief Harmon emails Schultz: "We're going to hold off on making any crime log entry. At this point in time I can justify that decision because of the lack of clear evidence of a crime." (Page 48 Freeh Report)
The first day of the investigation, someone also had already decided it was not a criminal matter! (Page 48 Freeh Report) What investigation one might ask.

Also, the police thought charges should have been filed. "One of the investigators who interviewed the boy and Sandusky at the time, Ronald Schreffler, told the court he thought charges were warranted but that the district attorney, Ray Gricar, disagreed.
Gricar cannot explain his decision — he disappeared in 2005 and was later declared legally dead. (Detective wanted to charge Jerry Sandusky in ?98 - Page 2 - Boston.com)

It is also standard procedure to report any accusations to the State of Pennsylvania. " Once again, this was not done in this case. (Page 49 Freeh Report)

The psychologist said Sandusky exhibited signs of being a pedophile. PSU had a counselor, (who we find out later on wasn't even certified at the time), also interview Sandusky and come up with a different result. (Page 44 Freeh Report) Guess which one they went with.

The obvious point is that all the major figures knew of 1998 and yet did nothing in 2001. That is inexcusable.

Like I said before, you have found one lawyer who disagrees. I imagine all the lawyers who worked for Freeh, the NCAA and Penn St. are among those who do agree with the findings.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Billso, sorry, but I just disagree with you on all of this. You may be 100% correct that the Freeh report is a FLAWED for a criminal case. Last I checked the NCAA isn't out to prove a criminal case against anyone, and they don't have to. They are looking at things like a civil case would. They are looking at if the University, Schultz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno are liable in what went on during those 14 years. Clearly they are liable, and Penn St. knows this, and that is why a civil suit won't see the light of day. That is all the NCAA was looking for. Never has the NCAA run criminal cases against these schools, that isn't want they do. This is why the NCAA can punish the school and football programs for what AGENTS do, and what BOOSTERS do. They could never prove in a court of law in a criminal case that the university itself was guilty, and this Penn st. case is no different.

Okay, not to argue or tear down, but you make one statement above: <<Last I checked the NCAA isn't out to prove a criminal case against anyone, and they don't have to. They are looking at things like a civil case would.>>

That's fine, on the surface, IF that is the way NCAA "normally" proceeded. But it is NOT the way they normally proceed. The NCAA practically "rewards" what i call "stallers", those programs who delay and defer and flat out fail to answer questions and allegations.

If they looked at things "like a civil case would", would Cam Newton have remained eligible? Would USC be off probation this soon? Would teams like Oregon be able to practically be an offshoot of the Nike corporate umbrella? And would things like player deaths at Northwestern or rape investigations at Iowa be left alone?

<<The NCAA has never run criminal cases against these schools, that isn't what they do>>
Fair enough. But the problem some PSU folks, and even media folks, have with the NCAA is that they are relying, at least partially, on tesimony from a criminal case.

<<They could never prove in a court of law in a criminal case that the university itself was guilty, and this Penn st. case is no different>>

Wait. The NCAA, even Freeh group, said they didn't want to interfere in the criminal case(s). If that is the case, why was the Freeh report even necessary? Indeed, why did the NCAA not defer to the court to have the final say, i.e., Sandusky's conviction was the final answer?

Again, no doubt something needed to be done. But folks have to understand that, delusional though it may seem, PSU fans are devastated by this. We, as outsiders, (obviously) see this differently.