Kovacevic: Cut Penn State's sanctions? Sure, for right reasons
By Dejan Kovacevic
Published: Sunday, July 21, 2013, 10:33 p.m.
Bill O'Brien is one tough B.O.B. Give him that, no matter your feelings about Penn State or your fandom in college football. The man took on an impossible challenge amid the stench and sanctions of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, and he stirringly came up roses.
Coach of the year?
Try coach of forever.
Because of that, and, infinitely more important, because of concrete action the university and O'Brien have taken to address child abuse, I hope the NCAA considers reducing its sanctions on the football program.
Really, I do.
But there's a catch: It's got to be the university and O'Brien leading the charge.
Not the Paterno wackos.
Excuse the brusque term. It's not meant to be broad. Rather, it isolates on the small, radical but strangely influential wing of alumni who prioritize the exoneration of Joe Paterno over, you know, serial child rape.
They can't be allowed to prevail here.
They can't be allowed to succeed through the May lawsuit filed by the Paterno family and others — not the university — that purports to seek the elimination of sanctions but, in reality, is a transparent attempt to clear Paterno of the public perception that he enabled the monster Sandusky.
That's all the lawsuit is about. It's got nothing to do with football or current or future athletes, and absolutely nothing to do with, you know, serial child rape. The naive thinking is that, if the NCAA loses, the Freeh Report is discredited, Paterno's statue comes out of storage, and it's a Happy Valley all over again.
The good part: It won't win.
The NCAA will never cave on any aspect of its ruling — $60 million fine, four-year postseason ban, loss of scholarships — if it's seen as an exoneration of anyone involved. And you'd better believe that includes Paterno, lest anyone forgets how boldly — but rightly — NCAA president Mark Emmert stripped away those 111 coaching wins.
The bad part: The Paterno wackos still muddle the process of what the university and the coach hope to get done.
So, what's O'Brien to do?
Fortunately, he's tough and smart. He's learned to suffer the fools around him, including the cardboard caricature formerly known as Franco Harris. He's learned to avoid the scandal and, most deftly, Paterno. (Yes, some lingering JoePa worshippers in the Central Pennsylvania media still ask O'Brien about him.)
O'Brien's top priority must be to hold firm to that stance, and he's off to a great start. Listen to this from a conference call Friday: “I understand exactly why the sanctions are in place. It's about putting an end to child abuse. It's about the victims. I get that. I really do. And we're doing our part to put an end to child abuse. But at the same time, I want to do what's right for this program, and I think this program is headed in the right direction in behaving well.”
Tough and smart.
O'Brien didn't indicate if/when Penn State might approach the NCAA, but he stressed it would be through discussion, not legal action. He expressed hope the NCAA could “meet us halfway.” Maybe it will happen soon. Tuesday marks the one-year anniversary of the sanctions.
Here's hoping that works out to the satisfaction of all.
But here's also hoping O'Brien continues to keep the Paterno wackos at arm's length, as their public image only deteriorates by the day.
Happen to catch the item on Deadspin.com the other day?
It told of how the folks behind Framingpaterno.com — that's what it's called, I swear — uncovered legit documentation of Paterno being interviewed by the state attorney general's office Oct. 24, 2011, just before Sandusky's arrest. Most of the interview is about the infamous 2001 incident when then-assistant coach Mike McQueary told Paterno of witnessing a sexual encounter between Sandusky and a young boy in the Lasch Building showers. It's the example most used to illustrate Paterno knew of Sandusky's behavior and took no action beyond telling his immediate superiors a full day later.
In this extraordinary interview — and who knows why Framingpaterno.com put it out? — Paterno acknowledges McQueary told him he saw “touching ... whatever you want to call them, privates.” Paterno uses the term “sexual” four times in reference to what McQueary described.
Paterno's lone defense for staying silent for a decade: “I have no authority over Jerry.”
There's more, all damning.
Asked if he'd ever heard back from those superiors as to what action had been taken on Sandusky, Paterno replied: “No, no, I didn't. I had other things to do. We had ... as I said, Jerry was not working for me.”
That's a smoking gun no one should have to pick up.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Depleted Penguins knock off Wild, run home winning streak to nine
- Starkey: What did Super loss signify for Steelers?
- Steelers rookie receiver Wheaton is waiting for chance to contribute
- NHL violence concerns former Penguins’ pest Cooke
- Pittsburgh scam changed American hustler’s game
- Steelers’ Foster has definitive role this year
- Steelers notebook: Snow awaits in Green Bay
- Senators defy Obama in bid to back Israel
- THE GIFT OF READING
- PUC rejects Elizabeth Bridge appeal
- West Mifflin Area organizations help fuel toy drive