A good one about my pop - he spent much of his childhood in a refugee camp without running water. To go the bathroom, you went to the fields with some newspaper and then wiped your ass with your reading material.

I distinctly remember myself at age, oh, probably 6 or 7, being forbidden from leaving the dinner table until I'd eaten all of the helping of seconds I'd taken. Everyone else got to leave, all the other dishes were cleared, but I had to sit there until I ate every bite. Finally, sobbing and sniffing, I did it.

Never committed that blunder again.

Just arguing against the idea that there is a 'pure' version of college athletics to go back to.

If you go to PE/Intramurals in an attempt to eliminate 'professional' college athletics, it won't work. Teams will want to face off against rival colleges. Heck, when I was at BU and an unofficial member of the BU SCA we had scrimmages against the Tufts SCA people.

When teams from rival colleges face off, people will want to go see them. When 10,000 people show up for a venue that holds 2,000, somebody will have the idea of charging admission. When college pride is on the line, you'll have coaches who encourage ringers to sign up to your college for one credit hour so they can play in the big game. You'll want to regulate all that, so you will have an intercollegial athletic association. Bingo, you have all the elements of the current system. It's no coincidence that this sort of thing started up about 15 minutes after the idea of collegiate athletics was invented.

Again and again, Posnanski nudge's us towards accepting the Paterno family's version of events. For instance, in the statement they released to the press, Paterno says "I understand that people are upset and angry, but let's be fair and let the legal process unfold ... Sue [Mrs. Paterno] and I have devoted our lives to helping young people reach their potential. The fact that someone we thought we knew might have harmed young people to this extent is deeply troubling. If this is true, we were all fooled along with scores of professionals trained in such things ..."

But letting the legal process unfold is exactly what Paterno did not do when he chose to not inform the police or make sure they were informed.

Posnanski admits that Paterno concluded that what McQueary told him "was of a sexual nature." Then what else, one wants to scream, did Paterno need to know about whether or not the authorities needed to be called in?

Another point I don't understand - I get why Posnanski might not want to appear on ESPN or whatnot and have Stephen A. Smith or some other dumb, self-promoting prick scream past him, but I would've liked to have thought he'd want to engage with the BBTF community or a community like it - the sophisticated, not-foaming at the mouth folks who think he's greviously erred. You'd think, reading the Barra or Marchman reviews, Posnanski would be motivated to say more than various iterations of "I wanted to find the gray between the black and white", but it's almost as if Posnaski doesn't want to engage with substantive criticism of the path he's chosen. This, in spite of being a guy who was previously distinctively interactive and open with readers and other writers.

This book was supposed to be Father's Day Fluff.

("But," as Posnanski is quick to remind us, they were "immediately released, so there were no long-lasting injuries.")

It's been a truly sorry episode for the serious-minded sports community.

I don't think it's exactly fair to say that JoePoz's "price was 750k."

Posnanski has never impressed me as being much more than another Mitch Albom

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.

Barra thinks Poz doesn't know college football yet writes: Penn State's opponents that year won just 49 of 93 games


So this is wrong? or? They were over .500 so his point is dumb?

Anyone want to corroborate this, even if you think Barra's piece was awesome? Is it a review of the book or of Poz?

It seems clear that Barra set out to demolish Poz. It's excoriating. And I wouldn't be surprised if he had planned his response before he really even read the book, just going off of Poz's reputation as an apologist.

I don't think it's exactly fair to say that JoePoz's "price was 750k." When he signed on to write Father's Day Fluff, and took that advance, that was an entirely acceptable project. Maybe not very exciting, but whatever. It was exciting to Poz, because Paterno was one of his heroes, and I'm sure John Feinstein lives in a real big house.

I think it's far more likely that his personal affection for Paterno is what held him back from (a) keeping his mouth shut during the early days of the controversy and (b) taking the opportunity to critically reexamine Paterno's legacy in light of the revelations.

It looks like West Virginia and Colorado and a bunch of patsies to me.

BC went 6-3 playing against mainly D-IAA schools: Villanova, Buffalo, VMI, Holy Cross and UMass.

FWIW, Nova and Buffalo were I-A back then, although neither were all that good.

I thought the I-A/I-AA distinction didn't exist until like the late-70s?

Near the end of Paterno, as Posnanski tells it, author and subject are sitting alone at a table (we assume in Paterno's home) a couple of week after Joe had been fired. Paterno asks Posnanski, "So, what do you think of all this?"

I told him that it was crazy, but that was not what he was asking.

"What do you think of all this?" he asked me again.

I had not intended to include this in the book. It was a personal moment between writer and subject, but as the story has played out, I decided it was important. I told him that I thought he should have done more when he was told about Jerry Sandusky showering with a boy. I had heard what he had said about not understanding the severity, not knowing much about child molestation, not having Sandusky as an employee. But, I said, "You are Joe Paterno. Right or wrong, people expect more from you."

He nodded. He did not try to defend or deflect. He simply said, "I wish I had done more," again .

Something about this passage simply does not ring true, beginning with Paterno feeling the need to have Posnanski's opinion of his actions.

He nodded. He did not try to defend or deflect. He simply said, "I wish I had done more," again .

and you don't "consult guidelines" in this situation unless you're trying to understand your obligations so that you can find a way around them. Which is exactly what Paterno did.

That's not to say there mightn't be ethical responsibilities beyond what's in the book,

Freeh's report, Lewis said, assumes that former graduate assistant Mike McQueary told coach Joe Paterno in 2001 that he saw something sexual in a locker room shower, and that Paterno echoed that to athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz.

Freeh likewise presumes they in turn told Spanier that McQueary saw something sexual.

"Curley and Schultz have denied that they ever told Dr. Spanier anything of the sort," Lewis said. "Horseplay was referred to over and over again, but never with any sexual connotation. ... But Judge Freeh paid no attention to that."

"The Freeh report, as it pertains to Dr. Spanier, is a myth. And that myth ... ends today," Lewis said.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ex_penn_state_president_lawyers_g6rRnXP4oHwydqY3FfZ5UI#ixzz24IuTZCeF

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?

Mr. Paterno: In the shower.

...

Q: To whom or with whom did you share the information that McQueary had given you?

Mr. Paterno: I talked to my immediate boss, our athletic director.

Q: What is that person’s name?

Mr. Paterno: Tim Curley.

Q: How did you contact Mr. Curley?

Mr. Paterno: I believe I did it by phone. As I recall, I called him and I said, hey, we got a problem, and I explained the problem to him.

Q: Was the information that you passed along substantially the same information that Mr. McQueary had given you?

Mr. Paterno: Yes.

I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends.

I told him that I thought he should have done more when he was told about Jerry Sandusky showering with a boy. I had heard what he had said about not understanding the severity, not knowing much about child molestation, not having Sandusky as an employee. But, I said, "You are Joe Paterno. Right or wrong, people expect more from you."

Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

Joe Paterno testified to the grand jury in January of 2011. When was he summoned?

Because we know the cops never #### anything up

Also, I get really tired of hearing it called "child abuse". That sounds like you are making them mow the lawn when its really hot out. How about rape or at least sexual assault.

Buzz Bissinger made a point of saying we shouldn't even be that polite, but instead call it buttf@cking a child, because that's what it was, and perhaps that will wake some people up to how profoundly depraved it was.

Boiled down: Did Paterno actually understand that McQueary witnessed "rape," and what is the evidence for this? I mean, I've held him accountable for knowing that child sex abuse had occurred, and I think that is plenty enough to hold Paterno in contempt, but I haven't imputed him with knowledge of "rape" because I'm not sure that would be completely fair

Short answer, Ray: I'm checking the guidelines because offhand I don't know who the people are that I'm supposed to contact.

In an organiation that size there are people whose job desription and training include knowing the laws, the chains of notification, etc. I can either sit down, shaken, I would presume, and try to make it up from scratch, or I could go to the procedures, or I could call someone directly above me who would almost certainly say, "OK, let's see what we're supposed to do."

Does it change the dynamic? You've posted proof that Paterno got the idea "something sexual" went on. Is the difference between fondling and rape the line between calling the cops or not?

note: I'm not trying to say that you believe that to be the case, just trying to show my personal belief that the distinction is meaningless.

The state of the evidence is as you wrote. I find the difference between "rape" and conduct of a "sexual nature" between Sandusky and a child in the shower -- what McQueary's said at Sandusky's trial he'd told Paterno -- to be meaningless under the circumstances.

I think it's important to be clear, and not to hang Paterno with knowledge he wasn't guilty of having. IF he indeed didn't have it. And as I sit here I think there's an argument that he didn't have it.

Not a perfect fit, because as has been routinely pointed out this isn't a legal matter so much as a moral one, but I'm hard pressed to believe rape didn't cross his mind and it would have crossed the mind of a reasonable person.

every defense attorney I've ever met has conceded that the cops get it right about 99% of the time.