• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Realistic thoughts on what price to pay for a successful program

Lavaman

Rebel Scum
5 Year Member
So my history with the Huskers goes back to the Devaney era and it's funny how perception varies depending on who you're talking about. I left Nebraska in '72, so most of the views I heard about the Huskers were from fans other than Nebraska fans. Before Lawrence Phillips and before Christian Peter, I frequently heard that Nebraska was a 'Win at all cost' program. I never looked at it that way, well, almost never, but opposing fans sure did.

When the Big Red was wearing everyone out on Saturday after Saturday, I looked at the late Devaney and early Osborne teams as groups of guys doing it the right way on and off the field. They had great players and many of them also happened to be great students as well. Sure, you'd have a kid here and there stray, but that's true in all of society. Perfection in any age group is a pipe dream and maybe no group is harder to find it or more unreasonable to expect it in than in the 18-22 year old male.

Through that time frame I also didn't see the seemingly rampant rule breaking of an SMU, or Oklahoma or a Miami or an FSU. Outside looking in, I thought NU did it the right way. That wasn't what other folks thought. Of course much of that was sour grapes because Nebraska was kicking the crap out of them every year. Of course a CU fan was going to say Nebraska was cheating back prior to 1986. We even have a handful of folks here who lament some of the decisions of AD's and head coaches going back to Devaney, but I suspect they'd always be upset about something related to the football program. From my perspective, Nebraska has always done a pretty good job of balancing the rules, the balance between talent required to field a competitive team and the character desired in the locker room, on campus and in the community. Again, not perfect and yes, there were some misses. Show me an organization without them. Any organization.

College football is different in 2020 than it was in '65 or '75 or even '95, but we can still have high expectations of our teams on the field and the individuals off it. Winning at any cost isn't on the menu. Really for Nebraska, it never has been.

We'll win again. All it will cost us is a few more curse filled Saturdays between this August and when this thing gets turned around.
Great post
 

DuckTownHusker

Blackshirt Sith Lord
5 Year Member
I think that there's still a lot more to Paterno's story that has yet to be told. Call me crazy, but I don't believe that he fully grasped what was going on with Sandusky when it was reported because I cannot fathom that he was okay with keeping an assistant coach around who was raping kids. Don't get me wrong because I think that the whole way that everything was (not) handled was atrocious, but I think that it's plausible that he was too naive to grasp what Sandusky was being accused of doing. I don't think that I have anything invested in Joe Paterno's legacy, one way or another, so I'd just like to know the truth of what he knew, when he knew it, etc.
JoePa had some idea of wrongdoing, but it's impossible to lay it solely at his feet.

With him dying right after, it's one of college football's "who shot JFK" or "where's Jimmy Hoffa" things.
 

CrabHusker

Alienating everyone, one post at a time.
5 Year Member
I think that there's still a lot more to Paterno's story that has yet to be told. Call me crazy, but I don't believe that he fully grasped what was going on with Sandusky when it was reported because I cannot fathom that he was okay with keeping an assistant coach around who was raping kids. Don't get me wrong because I think that the whole way that everything was (not) handled was atrocious, but I think that it's plausible that he was too naive to grasp what Sandusky was being accused of doing. I don't think that I have anything invested in Joe Paterno's legacy, one way or another, so I'd just like to know the truth of what he knew, when he knew it, etc.
I think you're right. I never met the man, but I too find it impossible to align what I've seen and know of him with Sandusky's actions and what some think was a complete cover job by Paterno. I put myself in his shoes back in the '80's and I don't know if I believe it. I mean that kind of stuff was just unheard of, though I'm sure it happened more than we know. I suspect he couldn't believe a guy he'd known that long was capable of it or like you said, just couldn't fully grasp it.
 

Show Me State Red

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
I think that there's still a lot more to Paterno's story that has yet to be told. Call me crazy, but I don't believe that he fully grasped what was going on with Sandusky when it was reported because I cannot fathom that he was okay with keeping an assistant coach around who was raping kids. Don't get me wrong because I think that the whole way that everything was (not) handled was atrocious, but I think that it's plausible that he was too naive to grasp what Sandusky was being accused of doing. I don't think that I have anything invested in Joe Paterno's legacy, one way or another, so I'd just like to know the truth of what he knew, when he knew it, etc.
There was a point in time early on where I had similar thoughts about Paterno. How could someone with his standing in the college football fraternity have knowledge of these acts and not do anything? As the stories circulated we learned that many people within Penn State knew about Sandusky and despite some reporting and some asking questions everyone at Penn State shrugged their shoulders and went about their way including Paterno. Would people still hold out hope for Paterno's reputation if we swap young girls getting raped by Sandusky instead of young boys? The answer is no. Because society devalues the life of young boys predators like Sandusky ran freely on the sidelines of Penn State. If Sandusky is caught in the Penn State showers with an underage girl they would never field another football team and Paterno would have died in jail.
 
There was a point in time early on where I had similar thoughts about Paterno. How could someone with his standing in the college football fraternity have knowledge of these acts and not do anything? As the stories circulated we learned that many people within Penn State knew about Sandusky and despite some reporting and some asking questions everyone at Penn State shrugged their shoulders and went about their way including Paterno. Would people still hold out hope for Paterno's reputation if we swap young girls getting raped by Sandusky instead of young boys? The answer is no. Because society devalues the life of young boys predators like Sandusky ran freely on the sidelines of Penn State. If Sandusky is caught in the Penn State showers with an underage girl they would never field another football team and Paterno would have died in jail.
This is why it's difficult to discuss this: we're always starting with the end in mind. We know that there were rapes, and we know that Paterno should have known and acted,... but he didn't. Why? We don't yet know that, and we possibly never will. Again, I'm not even remotely trying to pretend that what happened wasn't awful. I plainly acknowledged that Sandusky was raping children, literally. I can't imagine much worse. If I was a parent of one of those children, I think that it's quite likely that I would have killed Sandusky. That's not a boast or a brad, or whatever; that's just my gut reaction whenever I hear of such things, and how I feel when I'm trying to watch over and protect my children. Maybe it's just the cultures I've known, but I know of very few fathers who wouldn't have done the same. Apparently, Sandusky was aware of this, too, as he targeted fatherless boys.

I've learned more than I ever wanted to know about what Sandusky did, and I have no interest in feeling sorry for those above Paterno who we know did the cover-up. I'm saying that I don't believe that Paterno understood that Sandusky was literally raping children. Maybe I'm wrong, and Paterno was okay with that, but I doubt it. It's too easy for us to sit back and say that we know all of this, but we still don't know what he knew, or when he knew it. I know enough about the roles of the AD and the chancellor to know that they knew enough to dive in deeper. There's an uncomfortable area still left unexplained which is either that Paterno didn't grasp what was being reported to him and then did what he said he did--passed it on to his superiors--because it wasn't something that he knew how to deal with, or that he was okay with his assistant coach raping kids. Which seems more plausible? I'm pretty sure that if the witnesses had come in and said, "Joe, I just saw Sandusky raping a kid," Joe Paterno doesn't sweep that under the rug and pretend that everything's okay.

I suspect that the assistant coach--who admitted under oath that he was confused by what he saw, and that he called his own father because he was confused and scared--said something more oblique and ambiguous, probably along the lines of, "Coach, I just saw something that made me very uncomfortable, and I think that you need to know about it.... I saw Sandusky taking showers with those kids in his program." How likely is it that the main adult witness to what happened was so confused and scared that he called his dad before going forward, yet he would then boldly and brazenly go into the office of the most legendary head coach in America and tell him that his almost equally legendary defensive coordinator appeared to be raping kids in the shower? It's human nature to question yourself when what you see seems unbelievable. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing, and we all do it with different areas of our lives, and it's incredibly common when confronted with something that shocks our perceptions of the world. I'm NOT saying that that's what happened, but it's more logically consistent with everything else that has come out. When the AD and then the chancellor were informed of a lot more of the details, they were in a position where they were required to dig into the details.

If you're Joe Paterno--85-year-old devout Catholic who thinks that sex outside of marriage is sinful, that homosexuality is sinful, yet everyone around you says that those things are okay and should be celebrated--you probably push it off to somebody else whose job it is to take care of uncomfortable things like that, and you try not to think too much about it. I'm pretty sure that that's what almost every male of that generation with a similar worldview would have preferred to do. I'm not saying that that's what they or he should have done; I'm saying that that's what that generation would have preferred to do when confronted with something as uncomfortable as that. I can't imagine my grandfather asking a co-worker about reports that he was taking a shower with children. He'd probably tell him something like, "Don't do that. It's inappropriate. What the hell is wrong with you?" and that would be that. He'd probably tell someone in authority over him, and he'd feel like he'd done his part. That's how a lot of these scandals got to be worse, so it's not like that equates with being innocent. It just is what it is, and I suspect that that's more likely what happened.
 
Last edited:

Show Me State Red

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
This is why it's difficult to discuss this: we're always starting with the end in mind. We know that there were rapes, and we know that Paterno should have known and acted,... but he didn't. Why? We don't yet know that, and we possibly never will. Again, I'm not even remotely trying to pretend that what happened wasn't awful. I plainly acknowledged that Sandusky was raping children, literally. I can't imagine much worse. If I was a parent of one of those children, I think that it's quite likely that I would have killed Sandusky. That's not a boast or a brad, or whatever; that's just my gut reaction whenever I hear of such things, and how I feel when I'm trying to watch over and protect my children. Maybe it's just the cultures I've known, but I know of very few fathers who wouldn't have done the same. Apparently, Sandusky was aware of this, too, as he targeted fatherless boys.

I've learned more than I ever wanted to know about what Sandusky did, and I have no interest in feeling sorry for those above Paterno who we know did the cover-up. I'm saying that I don't believe that Paterno understood that Sandusky was literally raping children. Maybe I'm wrong, and Paterno was okay with that, but I doubt it. It's too easy for us to sit back and say that we know all of this, but we still don't know what he knew, or when he knew it. I know enough about the roles of the AD and the chancellor to know that they knew enough to dive in deeper. There's an uncomfortable area still left unexplained which is either that Paterno didn't grasp what was being reported to him and then did what he said he did--passed it on to his superiors--because it wasn't something that he knew how to deal with, or that he was okay with his assistant coach raping kids. Which seems more plausible? I'm pretty sure that if the witnesses had come in and said, "Joe, I just saw Sandusky raping a kid," Joe Paterno doesn't sweep that under the rug and pretend that everything's okay.

I suspect that the assistant coach--who admitted under oath that he was confused by what he saw, and that he called his own father because he was confused and scared--said something more oblique and ambiguous, probably along the lines of, "Coach, I just saw something that made me very uncomfortable, and I think that you need to know about it.... I saw Sandusky taking showers with those kids in his program." How likely is it that the main adult witness to what happened was so confused and scared that he called his dad before going forward, yet he would then boldly and brazenly go into the office of the most legendary head coach in America and tell him that his almost equally legendary defensive coordinator appeared to be raping kids in the shower? It's human nature to question yourself when what you see seems unbelievable. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing, and we all do it with different areas of our lives, and it's incredibly common when confronted with something that shocks our perceptions of the world. I'm NOT saying that that's what happened, but it's more logically consistent with everything else that has come out. When the AD and then the chancellor were informed of a lot more of the details, they were in a position where they were required to dig into the details.

If you're Joe Paterno--85-year-old devout Catholic who thinks that sex outside of marriage is sinful, that homosexuality is sinful, yet everyone around you says that those things are okay and should be celebrated--you probably push it off to somebody else whose job it is to take care of uncomfortable things like that, and you try not to think too much about it. I'm pretty sure that that's what almost every male of that generation with a similar worldview would have preferred to do. I'm not saying that that's what they or he should have done; I'm saying that that's what that generation would have preferred to do when confronted with something as uncomfortable as that. I can't imagine my grandfather asking a co-worker about reports that he was taking a shower with children. He'd probably tell him something like, "Don't do that. It's inappropriate. What the hell is wrong with you?" and that would be that. He'd probably tell someone in authority over him, and he'd feel like he'd done his part. That's how a lot of these scandals got to be worse, so it's not like that equates with being innocent. It just is what it is, and I suspect that that's more likely what happened.
I will reiterate what I originally said, if we swap the victims from young boys to young girls this never happens. The first second someone gets wind that Sandusky is inappropriately touching young girls he is done. If he slides through for lack of proof but gets caught in a shower raping a young girl then we are talking about how Sandusky got beat senseless in the Penn State locker room. It is really that simple in my mind. The life of a young boy carries less value then that of a young girl. The implied point being that there was enough evidence, rumor, innuendo, sightings, questions and concerns for Penn State to distance themselves from Sandusky long before he was actually caught.
 
I will reiterate what I originally said, if we swap the victims from young boys to young girls this never happens.
I'll reiterate what I said: You're starting with the end first. It would never be appropriate for a male coach to be around while a girl is showering, so it's not a realistic comparison. That's pretty much intrinsic to everything else that I said. Meanwhile, you can go and change clothes to pretty much any water park, and you'll see grown men and young boys together, in the same place, changing clothes, showering, etc. It's just different. If you start with "raped," yeah, everything is easy. I don't think that that was ever conveyed to Paterno. Everything about your comparison is built around a grown man being around naked girls, which pretty much never has been accepted anywhere in America, coaching anything. Meanwhile, it was fairly common for coaches to talk to players in communal locker rooms while getting dressed. Showering together? Not so common, but it used to happen at changing rooms to water parks, etc., all the time. Kids in the locker room would have already been out of the ordinary.

I don't know that I'm even arguing with what you're saying so much as we're just not talking about the same things. I don't know that this has anything to do with how much society values young boys versus young girls. I don't know how else to explain it. Anybody else understand what I'm saying?

The implied point being that there was enough evidence, rumor, innuendo, sightings, questions and concerns for Penn State to distance themselves from Sandusky long before he was actually caught.
Again, you're speaking in hindsight. There was definitely enough that Joe should have made sure that everything was followed through, but it isn't as obvious as you're saying that Joe knew all of the things that you're assuming. We know that an assistant coach went to him one time and told him that he had seen Sandusky in the shower with a boy in an inappropriate manner. Does anybody have the exact wording that that coach says that he used? I haven't seen it, and I'd be interested. I'm saying that he could have literally said, word for word, what I just said above, and Paterno would have likely assumed that a grown man taking a shower with a boy was "inappropriate," and not necessarily know or understand that the guy was raping kids.
 

Show Me State Red

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
I'll reiterate what I said: You're starting with the end first. It would never be appropriate for a male coach to be around while a girl is showering, so it's not a realistic comparison. That's pretty much intrinsic to everything else that I said. Meanwhile, you can go and change clothes to pretty much any water park, and you'll see grown men and young boys together, in the same place, changing clothes, showering, etc. It's just different. If you start with "raped," yeah, everything is easy. I don't think that that was ever conveyed to Paterno. Everything about your comparison is built around a grown man being around naked girls, which pretty much never has been accepted anywhere in America, coaching anything. Meanwhile, it was fairly common for coaches to talk to players in communal locker rooms while getting dressed. Showering together? Not so common, but it used to happen at changing rooms to water parks, etc., all the time. Kids in the locker room would have already been out of the ordinary.

I don't know that I'm even arguing with what you're saying so much as we're just not talking about the same things. I don't know that this has anything to do with how much society values young boys versus young girls. I don't know how else to explain it. Anybody else understand what I'm saying?



Again, you're speaking in hindsight. There was definitely enough that Joe should have made sure that everything was followed through, but it isn't as obvious as you're saying that Joe knew all of the things that you're assuming. We know that an assistant coach went to him one time and told him that he had seen Sandusky in the shower with a boy in an inappropriate manner. Does anybody have the exact wording that that coach says that he used? I haven't seen it, and I'd be interested. I'm saying that he could have literally said, word for word, what I just said above, and Paterno would have likely assumed that a grown man taking a shower with a boy was "inappropriate," and not necessarily know or understand that the guy was raping kids.
I'll start here: If HC Tom Osborne and the State of Nebraska can be held accountable for the actions of Lawrence Phillips* then I think it's ok for nose pickers like me to hold JoPa accountable for what happens on his watch.

Chew on that and let me know if you want to keep going or adjust your train of thought.

*May the grace of God help him find peace in his troubled sole.
 

CrabHusker

Alienating everyone, one post at a time.
5 Year Member
I'll start here: If HC Tom Osborne and the State of Nebraska can be held accountable for the actions of Lawrence Phillips* then I think it's ok for nose pickers like me to hold JoPa accountable for what happens on his watch.

Chew on that and let me know if you want to keep going or adjust your train of thought.

*May the grace of God help him find peace in his troubled sole.
I don't think you guys are as far off on this as you think.........

On the nose picker thing.........I would recommend a 'Cease and Desist'.....what with the virus and all.
 
Top