Wow, just like death and taxes.

Must every Posnanski thread turn into a Paterno discussion?

Must every Posnanski thread turn into a Paterno discussion?

That's a nice piece of business.

Another thread on Posnanski and his Paterno hagiography? The original one is only a week old and looks like it's doing just fine.

Believe it or not, most people don't come here for the discussion. Now, I like reading the discussions but for the visitors who don't, but who might be interested in the topic, I have provided this link. I am quite certain that scrolling past this post will be very easy for you.

This will just get hijacked by Mets fans anyway.

Our hijacking powers have really waned in the past few years.

His book is littered with statements about the game that simply are not true.

I haven't read Paterno, but I did read Barra's bio of Yogi Berra, and it was filled with more factual inaccuracies than any book I've read this side of David Myhra's atrocious books about German aircraft...

The book may be garbage for all I know, but this review is garbage too. My favorite part is where he says Posnanski doesn't know anything about college football-- just a couple of paragraphs after Barra claims Paterno was the all-time wins leader before the start of the 2011 season.

The book may be garbage for all I know, but this review is garbage too.

This.

It's a screed. It's closer to a Fire Joe Morgan (Fire Joe Posnanski?) takedown than an attempt to offer an objective review of the book -- and I say that without saying that I necessarily disagree with any of the many opinions and guesses and subjective judgments that Barra makes.

*As a book review*, this is an embarrassing piece of work.

review any ESPN writings (and other outlets I'm sure) and Paterno was already the winningest major college coach. Robinson's Grambling didn't count,

thus Nike donated to the library in his honor in Jan 2011

or "Major college football's winningest coach is wrapping up his record 45th season on the sideline." in Nov 2010

I thought it was ######## at the time, but everybody's favorite white granddaddy had to win the prize already in case he couldn't make it back.

ETA: & as a book review, going after the failings of the biographer are entirely fair game.

Yep, not much of a review although the book sounds pretty much like what I expect at this point (Not sure I noticed "the other thread" or I've let it go and see no reason to find it now). Anyway, there's still plenty in the review that makes Poz look pretty bad here even ignoring Barra's anger.

The most annoying bit about the review is that, the Sandusky horror aside, Barra writes as though the other things Paterno did were beyond the pale. And perhaps they should be but the other stuff he raises is pretty much just standard issue college athletics. He intervened with the Uni's justice system to try to keep his players out of trouble? I doubt there's a single coach anywhere who hasn't tried to do that under the circumstances. He had a pissing contest with a Uni pres who wanted him gone after 2005 ... again standard practice. That Paterno won says a lot about how screwed up Penn State University was but it doesn't really tell us much about Paterno* and university presidents and academics complaining about their lack of control over athletics is a campus cliche. As far as I know, Dean Smith was an honorable man but there's no way a UNC Chancellor was ever gonna try to fire him and Smith would have won the battle anyway.

*That Paterno apparently wanted to hang on until he was 102 says a lot about Paterno.

When will we see the analysis of the 2nd Mile part of the equation
How may Penn State and 2nd Mile be best viewed
the criminal synergy is the combination of both institutions and their trappings

I've been trying to figure this out for a few months:

I'm a Joe Posnanski defender.
Posnanski is a Joe Paterno defender.
Paterno is (tacitly) a Jerry Sandusky defender.
Jerry Sandusky is a child rapist.

Does this mean I am a defender of child rape, just because I think Joe Posnanski is a good writer and, based only on his writing, a decent guy? Sometimes it feels that way.

I don't doubt that Posnanski really believes every word he wrote in the book. Hell, at times I'm tempted to squint real hard and believe it, because Posnanski is such a good writer and such a respectable person.

Does this mean I am a defender of child rape, just because I think Joe Posnanski is a good writer and, based only on his writing, a decent guy? Sometimes it feels that way.

Spend much time hanging around playgrounds? wading pools?

Does this mean I am a defender of child rape, just because I think Joe Posnanski is a good writer and, based only on his writing, a decent guy?

Nah, by events out of his control this book morphed into needing to be something he couldn't write - a takedown of Joe Paterno. Since he couldn't write the book that needed to be written, he wrote this middling piece which will make no one happy. I feel for him, this book will leave a large permanent stain on what was a pretty solid career. And again, it's not really his fault, it just sort of happened to him.

Believe it or not, most people don't come here for the discussion.

Really? I go months without ever clicking on one of the links.

Really? I go months without ever clicking on one of the links.

Me as well. Actually, I go through a lot of threads without even posting. The banter is amusing.

Seriously -- RTFA is a set phrase for a reason. I feel like Primer was always about the discussion and never about TFA.

Does this mean I am a defender of child rape, just because I think Joe Posnanski is a good writer and, based only on his writing, a decent guy? Sometimes it feels that way.

Hmmm. Let me consult the guidelines first.

Really? I go months without ever clicking on one of the links.

Seriously? There are many a thread that I don't click the link, but I still read it at least a third of the time.

I feel like Primer was always about the discussion and never about TFA.

To those of us who post a lot, this is true. I suspect there are quite a few people who don't use it that way and never post.


Also, I find I tend to click through baseball links. It is a good clearinghouse for baseball news. Links to things like Paterno I never click on. I find there is less discussion in the purely baseball topics but often good links and what few posts there are are good. I think BBTF has tried hard to move chat style stuff out but we all just keep thwarting them. (evil laugh).


Does this mean I am a defender of child rape, just because I think Joe Posnanski is a good writer and, based only on his writing, a decent guy? Sometimes it feels that way.

Joey, ever spend any time in a Turkish prison?

Does this mean I am a defender of child rape, just because I think Joe Posnanski is a good writer and, based only on his writing, a decent guy? Sometimes it feels that way.

I am also a fan of Joe Posnanski's writing. I've found his writing, and especially his blogging, to be the work of a thoughtful and interesting guy.

I think, though, that good decent guys who are good writers can make huge mistakes, and this book sounds like one. Barra's got his hatchet out, but he's also found a very good place to swing it, and he's making contact. As I posted in the other thread, the stuff where Posnanski uses anonymous quotes to smear Vicky Triponey and distort the underlying story is entirely unethical. I expect that sort of thing from all the shitty sportswriters, not from Posnanski.

Robinred and others have argued that Posnanski was the wrong guy for this because he wants to see the best in people and write about their virtues and their triumphs. The really concerning parts of the review, then, were the parts where Barra demonstrates that Posnanski ended up so blinded by JoePa and Penn St football that he distorted evidence and smeared good administrators who tried to get Paterno's out-of-control program back under the authority of the university.

This is the relevant section. Vicky Triponey, Dean of Student Affairs, attempted to do her job and discipline football players who were committing crimes, starting fights, and breaking rules all over campus. Joe Paterno fought this attempt to restore control over the football program, and backed Triponey down until she resigned. And Posnanski tells the story thuswise, per Barra:

In a disgraceful bit of deflecting responsibility away from Paterno, Posnanski tries to taint Triponey's reputation: "One close friend of Paterno wondered, 'Don't reporters know how to use Google?' If they had, they would have found that Triponey's time at Penn State was not without controversy, including well-publicized clashes with the student government, the campus radio station, and fraternities." Too bad reporters can't Google the name of the anonymous close friend who said this and failed to mention that dealing with controversy is precisely what Triponey's job was all about.

Posnanski closes out his chapter by quoting a player: 'If it was up to that woman"—Triponey—"they would have thrown me out of school and let me rot. That's how she was. ... But now I'm a father, and I have a child, and I have a good job. I owe that to Joe Paterno. He wasn't perfect, but he believed in me. When nobody else did, he believed in me." Unfortunately, the player, like the Paterno friend who suggested Googling Triponey, is unnamed by Posnanski.

Posnanski tries to taint Triponey's reputation: "One close friend of Paterno wondered, 'Don't reporters know how to use Google?' If they had, they would have found that Triponey's time at Penn State was not without controversy, including well-publicized clashes with the student government, the campus radio station, and fraternities."

Posnanski has lowered himself so far that at this point I seriously wonder whether this "close friend" is him.

As to the unnamed player, it is bogus to cite an anonymous player without any way for people to check the story to see just what the facts were.

As to the unnamed player, it is bogus to cite an anonymous player without any way for people to check the story to see just what the facts were.

However, virtually all sports journalists do this virtually all the time.

it is bogus to cite an anonymous player without any way for people to check the story to see just what the facts were.

If you could check the facts, wouldn't that almost certainly kill the purpose of granting the anonymity?

Mind you, that's not a defense of the practice, as I hate anonymous sources of all stripes and don't use them. But if you do guarantee the protection, then you can't drop enough clues that guys like us could ID the individual with a little detective work.

Seriously? There are many a thread that I don't click the link, but I still read it at least a third of the time.

I couldn't put an exact number on the links I click through, but I'd say it's much, much lower than that.

Robinred and others have argued that Posnanski was the wrong guy for this because he wants to see the best in people and write about their virtues and their triumphs.

That is part of it. It is also my opinion that Poz is not a deep research kind of guy and therefore not the guy to do a really good bio in the first place. Jason Whitlock is not a writer that I like, and his early attacks on Poz were excessively mean-spirited IMO. But his snarky comment that this book was intended in some respects to be a Poznian extension of Tuesdays With Morrie was, while an oversimplification, in some ways likely accurate, particularly in view of the original Fathers' Day 2013 release date.

So, I think Poz was in bad shape here three ways:

1. He is not a researcher.
2. He was tight with the Paternos.
3. He is not a hard-nosed, investigative reporter type, which this story needed--and still needs.

One close friend of Paterno wondered, 'Don't reporters know how to use Google?' If they had, they would have found that Triponey's time at Penn State was not without controversy

Also, Google is a good way for Coach Paterno to learn what sodomy is.

Also, Google is a good way for Coach Paterno to learn what sodomy is.

Though I advise against clicking on "Images."

they would have found that Triponey's time at Penn State was not without controversy

And from all I've read, she's the one person at Penn State I'd have wanted to call had McQueary brought the news to me.

Though I advise against clicking on "Images."

Ahhh, I've got santorum on my eyeballs!

they would have found that Triponey's time at Penn State was not without controversy

And from all I've read, she's the one person at Penn State I'd have wanted to call had McQueary brought the news to me.

This close friend of Paterno's anonymously tries to insult her credibility and Poz just regurgitates it uncritically. And being involved in "controversy" is not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing. Maybe Poz should have researched her time there himself instead of just spouting the Paterno side by default.

This close friend of Paterno's anonymously tries to insult her credibility and Poz just regurgitates it uncritically. And being involved in "controversy" is not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing. Maybe Poz should have researched her time there himself instead of just spouting the Paterno side by default.

I just don't think there was time/inclination for this kind of research once the book went from hagiography to an "objective account of a complicated man." Writing is hard and that kind of u-turn would take a lot of time. The publishers have to be ecstatic about this turn of events even if Pos is squirming, though.

Does this mean I am a defender of child rape, just because I think Joe Posnanski is a good writer and, based only on his writing, a decent guy? Sometimes it feels that way.

Joey, ever spend any time in a Turkish prison?

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

That is part of it. It is also my opinion that Poz is not a deep research kind of guy and therefore not the guy to do a really good bio in the first place.

Research, Smesearch. Posnanski showed absolutely no interest in learning anything new about this that didn't favor Pateno. What "deep research" is needed to ask Paterno a series of well thought out questions about what he knew about Sandusky? If Paterno didn't answer, or feigned a lack of knowledge, or sugarcoated things as expected, fine, and then ask some follow up questions until it's clear he's given you all he's going to give you - and then explain to your readers what efforts you gave towards that end. But at least ask the questions. Other than a single contrived exchange Posnanski apparently had with Paterno, it seems that there was absolutely nothing.

So Paterno told him, "I should have done more," and Posnanski didn't bother to ask the obvious follow up questions of "What do you mean by that? What, specifically, do you wish you had done instead? Should you have called police? Made sure that Curley or Schultz did it? Worked to see to it that Sandusky was stripped of his access to the facilities? Why, specifically, _didn't_ you report McQueary's account to police, or see that that was done? What reasons, specifically, did you have for allowing this man to operate on your campus for a decade following this? Etc etc."

Posnanski apparently followed up with not a single question, and frankly the entire exchange feels manufactured because Posnanski didn't give us one iota of information from that exchange that was different from what Paterno said in his public statement.

This close friend of Paterno's anonymously tries to insult her credibility and Poz just regurgitates it uncritically. And being involved in "controversy" is not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing. Maybe Poz should have researched her time there himself instead of just spouting the Paterno side by default.

Yes.

The most annoying bit about the review is that, the Sandusky horror aside, Barra writes as though the other things Paterno did were beyond the pale. And perhaps they should be but the other stuff he raises is pretty much just standard issue college athletics. He intervened with the Uni's justice system to try to keep his players out of trouble? I doubt there's a single coach anywhere who hasn't tried to do that under the circumstances. He had a pissing contest with a Uni pres who wanted him gone after 2005 ... again standard practice. That Paterno won says a lot about how screwed up Penn State University was but it doesn't really tell us much about Paterno* and university presidents and academics complaining about their lack of control over athletics is a campus cliche.

I didn't read the review and I am not going to (I am reading Poz's book right now) but what Paterno DID do that was beyond the pale was to support, if not encourage, the bigoted basketball coach Rene Portland who openly discriminated against lesbian players as a matter of policy. And in fact she did so for many years after Penn State had adopted an anti-discrimination policy partly in response to complaints about her bigotry. Paterno responded to her eventual resignation with a "she did a great job". I'm waiting to see how Poz deals with this issue -- according to the index Portland comes up on pages 189-190. Not a good sign.

Also, in the absence of this scandal, letting Paterno stay on made sense from an academic perspective. At that time Spanier already had the BoT in his coat pocket, but the negative attention would have been huge, even at a time when Paterno's reputation had waned considerably after 4 out of 5 losing seasons. Why not just let the old man run out the clock? It made sense to me at the time and as someone who didn't care about football and was glad to see it getting less emphasis, I had no problem with it. And of course, when the team resurged the next season, the entire issue went away. While this proved to be a miscalculation, I can't blame Spanier for not sticking his neck out.

I just don't think there was time/inclination for this kind of research once the book went from hagiography to an "objective account of a complicated man."

I'll point out, though, that Poz has made it very clear that this book is to be taken as his complete statement on Paterno and "everything I have to say is in there". So, although I suppose you could use that excuse for him anyway, he has requested that you not...

Research, Smesearch.

You are addressing the second and third points I made, rather than the first one. Quoting myself:

2. He was tight with the Paternos.
3. He is not a hard-nosed, investigative reporter type, which this story needed--and still needs.

Those are the reasons he didn't grill Paterno. Poz was sitting at the table with a dying man that he admired, in the dying man's home. That is not the set-up, nor is Poz the guy, to follow-up with a bunch of tough questions given that context.

The point about research was not directed that much to the ethical and moral issues; it was directed more to the nature of the project. The book that IMO Poz has the skills to write was a year "embedded" with The Great Man and his family, soaking up the local color and the culture, and reporting on what he saw and heard. Had the bio gone ahead in a non-Sandusky universe, it would have made a ton of money but IMO probably not gotten great reviews.

As it is, well, you can see that as well as I can.

The most annoying bit about the review is that, the Sandusky horror aside, Barra writes as though the other things Paterno did were beyond the pale. And perhaps they should be but the other stuff he raises is pretty much just standard issue college athletics.

I think you missed the point, which is not that Paterno was a monster (Sandusky horror aside), but rather that there was a clear pattern and narrative of flaws, a narrative that Poz utterly missed. Poz thinks that the scandal is an isolated incident, whereas Barra thinks that the scandal sheds light on the rest of Paterno's life, and not only that, but that Poz wrote this angle into his own story without even realizing it.

I just don't think there was time/inclination for this kind of research once the book went from hagiography to an "objective account of a complicated man."

I think this is totally accurate. Poz probably also figured that, after a million reporters descended on Happy Valley to cover the scandal, there was no point in his doing all of that legwork. He had a unique and privileged angle - his access to Paterno - so that was what he was going to work with. Unfortunately, as Ray points out:

What "deep research" is needed to ask Paterno a series of well thought out questions about what he knew about Sandusky? ... Other than a single contrived exchange Posnanski apparently had with Paterno, it seems that there was absolutely nothing.

He apparently does not take advantage of his privileged access in any important way. That's a major failure.

whereas Barra thinks that the scandal sheds light on the rest of Paterno's life,

This is a key point. A skilled biographer weaves a narrative and sees patterns over time. Caro is very good at this, among other things he is good at.

But doing that takes research, time, and distance from the subject. ISTM Posnanski had none of those things WRT Paterno.

I think you missed the point, which is not that Paterno was a monster (Sandusky horror aside), but rather that there was a clear pattern and narrative of flaws, a narrative that Poz utterly missed. Poz thinks that the scandal is an isolated incident, whereas Barra thinks that the scandal sheds light on the rest of Paterno's life, and not only that, but that Poz wrote this angle into his own story without even realizing it.

Yes.

Ahhh, I've got santorum on my eyeballs!

We have a contortionist in the house.

Well, this thread may veer from OT to ONT after all. Sandusky-slayer Bob Costas will interview Poz on his NBCSN interview show Costas Tonight. Air time is Wednesday, August 29th, 9 PM ET. [link]

Salon review by a law professor bludgeons Posnanski with the Freeh report.

Re #46, I'm not completely understanding this quote from the Salon piece:

This fact [that Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were aware of the 1998 investigation] is crucial because it explains why, less than three years later, these four men allegedly decided to cover up Sandusky’s rape of a 10-year-old boy in the Penn State football facility showers. All of them must have known that if they reported this crime, their knowledge of the previous allegation would come to light — and that they might well lose their jobs as a result. So it would seem they decided to protect their careers rather than any of the children whom Sandusky subsequently raped.

I presume he's arguing that they would have lost their jobs because they continued to allow Sandusky to operate on the campus after 1998.

Ok, fair enough. Although the one problem with smearing them all completely with that is that from the email evidence in the Freeh Report, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz had decided to report it to state authorities as part of a three-pronged plan, until Paterno, essentially, talked them out of it.

Spanier, actually, appears to be just letting the other three make the call. In fact, he appears not even to want to be involved in confronting Sandusky, which is one thing they had decided to do, and he leaves that to Schultz/Curley.

Salon review by a law professor bludgeons Posnanski with the Freeh report.

That is a stinging review. It points to another reason I have no interest in the book--there is no possible way Pos had time to incorporate the Freeh report which is a pretty massive whiff on Pos' part. I don't know if they didn't know the timing of the release or what, but the attempt to complicate Paterno's culpability in the wake of that report is massively unfortunate.

I agree with Ray in #35 and I'm still not sure what kind of research was needed that Pos is incapable of doing. Sure, before the scandal came to light it required true investigative reporting to get it out there, but at this point I suspect the vast majority of information we are ever going to get on Paterno's involvement is out there. Sandusky's trial happened, Paterno is dead, I guess there's the Curley/Schultz trials (or is it going to be one trial) and the inevitable jailhouse interview with Sandusky which will come down the road, where we might learn something new or at least get another side of the story; albeit from people who will have questions about their own credibility.

46 is barely a review of the book, but reading it I still get the sense that Pos's greatest failing is not his Paterno apology or his failure to weave the scandal into the rest of the narrative, but simply this: he was granted unprecedented access to Paterno while the biggest story of his life was happening, and Pos was unable to make anything at all out of it.