A little nugget on academic resentment of football...

[Aoshiro]

I've always thought that from the very beginning of the Sandusky mess there were academics at Penn State who actively promoted the "bad football culture enabled the pedophile" narrative because they harbored a lot of resentment towards football in general and maybe even Paterno specifically. I've always believed that Rodney Erickson was one of these people. They are, frankly, idiots for their inability to see how the academic side of the university has benefited from football (how do you like that library?). They were even bigger idiots for not understanding the massive damage that narrative would do to Penn State and its alumni. I think that there's a good chance that this is part of the reason that Barron et al are working so hard to keep the Freeh source materials secret.

Anyways, I was looking for something else today and I stumbled across this gem. http://www.flbog.edu/pressroom/newsclips_detail.php?id=19537

 

[mbahses]

I've always thought that from the very beginning of the Sandusky mess there were academics at Penn State who actively promoted the "bad football culture enabled the pedophile" narrative because they harbored a lot of resentment towards football in general and maybe even Paterno specifically. I've always believed that Rodney Erickson was one of these people. They are, frankly, idiots for their inability to see how the academic side of the university has benefited from football (how do you like that library?). They were even bigger idiots for not understanding the massive damage that narrative would do to Penn State and its alumni. I think that there's a good chance that this is part of the reason that Barron et al are working so hard to keep the Freeh source materials secret.

Anyways, I was looking for something else today and I stumbled across this gem. http://www.flbog.edu/pressroom/newsclips_detail.php?id=19537

Surma was another big brown dropping along with Roidney.

 

[mbahses]

Good find on the article.

 

[Evan Ceg]

Keep in mind that this article was from early January 2012.

 

[fairgambit]

What the academics fail to understand is that without Joe Paterno, his fund raising, and the Penn State football tradition he built, this would be a nice regional school like NC State with limited national impact and much lower salaries for the professors. Football drove the fundraising that made this a world class institution.

 

[colt21]

What the academics fail to understand is that without Joe Paterno, his fund raising, and the Penn State football tradition he built, this would be a nice regional school like NC State with limited national impact and much lower salaries for the professors. Football drove the fundraising that made this a world class institution.

That is what so many people just fail to realize - Joe used football IN SUPPORT OF EDUCATION - not the other way around! BASTAGES

 

[RobBliz]

What the academics fail to understand is that without Joe Paterno, his fund raising, and the Penn State football tradition he built, this would be a nice regional school like NC State with limited national impact and much lower salaries for the professors. Football drove the fundraising that made this a world class institution.

Look, I love Joe. But there is simply no way to know if that is true or not. Personally, I find it hard to believe the only reason PSU is not a "regional school" is because of their football coach.

 

[Aoshiro]

Keep in mind that this article was from early January 2012.

Yes, I know. That's exactly when these people were fanning the flames.

 

[Aoshiro]

Look, I love Joe. But there is simply no way to know if that is true or not. Personally, I find it hard to believe the only reason PSU is not a "regional school" is because of their football coach.

I don't know that it's the "only" reason, but it is just delusional to deny that the popularity of Penn State football played an enormous role in the development of Penn State as an academic institution.

 

[fairgambit]

Look, I love Joe. But there is simply no way to know if that is true or not. Personally, I find it hard to believe the only reason PSU is not a "regional school" is because of their football coach.

It was a regional school until he became head coach. It was considered a cow school in the middle of no where. He got people interested in football and those people gave money to Penn State...lots of it. He was popular and he raised money for academics in a way few coaches could or would. He donated his own money toward the Library for godsakes and that sent a message. He set the standard. I have heard this from two professors who were here in the 60's and know what Penn State was, and where it was headed before Joe got involved as head coach. Joe Paterno's dedication to academics drove the money machine. The money machine made Penn State a world class university.

 

[simons96]

if only there was like, a speech or something, like when Joe was coach and won a national championship or something, when he like said hey, we need to take this opportunity and like, build a world class institute of higher learning.

OR SOMETHING

 

[BobPSU92]

if only there was like, a speech or something, like when Joe was coach and won a national championship or something, when he like said hey, we need to take this opportunity and like, build a world class institute of higher learning.

OR SOMETHING

I was just thinking of that reading this thread. Joe could have talked about himself and X's and O's, but he didn't. He realized that the academics were far more important, and he wanted the trustees to realize it as well.

 

[simons96]

I was just thinking of that reading this thread. Joe could have talked about himself and X's and O's, but he didn't. He realized that the academics were far more important, and he wanted the trustees to realize it as well.

some people are so damn arrogant and insecure they bristle at the thought that a popular football coach would have the stones to tell them to worry about taking care of a great University, and let him deal with his football things

 

[RobBliz]

It was a regional school until he became head coach. It was considered a cow school in the middle of no where. He got people interested in football and those people gave money to Penn State...lots of it. He was popular and he raised money for academics in a way few coaches could or would. He donated his own money toward the Library for godsakes and that sent a message. He set the standard. I have heard this from two professors who were here in the 60's and know what Penn State was, and where it was headed before Joe got involved as head coach. Joe Paterno's dedication to academics drove the money machine. The money machine made Penn State a world class university.

Paterno did great things... but he is far from the only reason that the university grew and became great. If he was not here, there would have been another coach (coaches to take his place)
In 1966 PSU had now enrollment of 22,766 and now has enrollment of 46,606. Great growth (and i recognize that total student enrollment is only one factor) But things changed for many other schools too. They would have for PSU also. Here are some other schools that managed not to be regional schools without a Paterno.

U of Texas 27,345 to 52,213
ASU 26,425 to 76,771
Iowa 17,755 to 31,387
U of Ill 26,225 to 44,520

In my opinion, Paterno was a great man, but he did not single handedly make Penn State great the way you inply.

 

[fairgambit]

We will just have to disagree. True, Joe did not do it alone, no one could, but he was the driving force.

 

[RobBliz]

We will just have to disagree. True, Joe did not do it alone, no one could, but he was the driving force.

Yeah, I guess we will. There were many great folks that did many great things and Joe was a great cog in the wheel. The popularity of football exploded over that time period. It would have exploded at PSU with or without Joe.

 

[fairgambit]

Yeah, I guess we will. There were many great folks that did many great things and Joe was a great cog in the wheel. The popularity of football exploded over that time period. It would have exploded at PSU with or without Joe.

Let me throw this in, from an ESPN article in 2012 after Joe's death: Paterno devoted his entire career to a belief in the power of intercollegiate athletics, but only when coupled with the power of academics. His will and his enthusiasm provided a public face for the transformation of Penn State from a regional agricultural school to one of the most important public universities in the country.

 

[RobBliz]

Let me throw this in, from an ESPN article in 2012: Paterno devoted his entire career to a belief in the power of intercollegiate athletics, but only when coupled with the power of academics. His will and his enthusiasm provided a public face for the transformation of Penn State from a regional agricultural school to one of the most important public universities in the country.

Ha... ESPN really? Sorry but I don't hold their opinion in high regard. You never addressed how texas, ill, iowa or ASU grew into world class universities without Paterno. Hell, U of I and ASU did it while historically sucking at football.

I guess I just don't get the near worship. Honestly, I don't think Paterno himself would approve of it.

 

[fairgambit]

Ha... ESPN really? Sorry but I don't hold their opinion in high regard. You never addressed how texas, ill, iowa or ASU grew into world class universities without Paterno. Hell, U of I and ASU did it while historically sucking at football.

I guess I just don't get the near worship. Honestly, I don't think Paterno himself would approve of it.

ESPN is exactly why I used the quote. ESPN has no love affair with Joe Paterno, and yet they realized his worth. It's not worship, it's realty. That said, reasonable men can disagree, and we do. As to the other schools you mentioned, Texas and Illinois were never destined to be regional schools and I would respectfully suggest that Iowa and ASU are not in our class. US News ranks us 48, with ASU 121, and Iowa 71st.

 

[Fizz1]

Good find on that article.

http://onwardstate.com/2014/01/22/remembering-joe-paternos-1983-board-of-trustees-speech/

First, read this speech from Joe Paterno, an English major from Brown who was invited by the BOT to address them following the 1982 national championship. If you have not read this, please do. Here is part of what he said: "You know, obviously, all of us are disappointed in the newspaper reports that some of our academic departments are not rated very high. That bothers me. It bothers me to see Penn State football be Number One and then to pick up a newspaper several weeks later and we find we don’t have many of our disciplines rated up there with the other institutions in the country."

I too believe there was/is some academic resentment about the football program, especially from Erickson who I think was quoted as desiring to put football in its place (not his exact words, but something like that). Nobody has or is stopping academics from leading - and they are. But, it is a shame some felt/feel the need to put football down. To what end?

 

[Bygsky]

It was a regional school until he became head coach. It was considered a cow school in the middle of no where. He got people interested in football and those people gave money to Penn State...lots of it. He was popular and he raised money for academics in a way few coaches could or would. He donated his own money toward the Library for godsakes and that sent a message. He set the standard. I have heard this from two professors who were here in the 60's and know what Penn State was, and where it was headed before Joe got involved as head coach. Joe Paterno's dedication to academics drove the money machine. The money machine made Penn State a world class university.

What a DA

 

[91Joe95]

I've always thought that from the very beginning of the Sandusky mess there were academics at Penn State who actively promoted the "bad football culture enabled the pedophile" narrative because they harbored a lot of resentment towards football in general and maybe even Paterno specifically. I've always believed that Rodney Erickson was one of these people. They are, frankly, idiots for their inability to see how the academic side of the university has benefited from football (how do you like that library?). They were even bigger idiots for not understanding the massive damage that narrative would do to Penn State and its alumni. I think that there's a good chance that this is part of the reason that Barron et al are working so hard to keep the Freeh source materials secret.

Anyways, I was looking for something else today and I stumbled across this gem. http://www.flbog.edu/pressroom/newsclips_detail.php?id=19537

Its funny to watch all those who attacked the football program and said academics should be the focus and then be unable to grasp why the university's accreditation officially questioned and why average sat scores dropped 50 points. Its sad the breadth of the damage that has been done to Penn State, especially on the academic side.

 

[Doc-M]

Not all academics were resenting Penn State Football or Paterno. The ones who resented were misinformed or living in a fog of abstract theories.

An Imprortant Fact often missed: Football funded tens of thousands of scholarships over Paterno's career with an overall annuity value of hundreds of millions.

 

[simons96]

Not all academics were resenting Penn State Football or Paterno. The ones who resented were misinformed or living in a fog of abstract theories.

An Imprortant Fact often missed: Football funded tens of thousands of scholarships over Paterno's career with an overall annuity value of hundreds of millions.

I think most professors appreciated what Joe contributed to "Penn State" and building the educational brand of the University. A few dingbats like Erickson and McCue exist in every group.

 

[rjg82]

Let me throw this in, from an ESPN article in 2012 after Joe's death: Paterno devoted his entire career to a belief in the power of intercollegiate athletics, but only when coupled with the power of academics. His will and his enthusiasm provided a public face for the transformation of Penn State from a regional agricultural school to one of the most important public universities in the country.

Fairgambit I am 100% with you here.

 

[Evan Ceg]

You'll find some faculty who resent athletics/football on every campus that features a major, Div-I football program. Penn State is in no way unusual or notable in this regard.

No one is required to be a Penn State Football fan. If a great physics professor is focused on physics and doesn't give a damn about football, I hardly think that's a crime.

Athletics, especially football and basketball, are often described as the "front porch" of a university. You can make a compelling argument that teaching, research, academic rigor should be that front porch, not football/basketball, but that argument applies to Alabama, Texas, UNC, USC, FSU, Duke, Notre Dame, etc., not just Penn State.

I didn't read anything in the article that I found particularly surprising or worrisome, especially given when it was written.

 

[psu1969a]

I've always thought that from the very beginning of the Sandusky mess there were academics at Penn State who actively promoted the "bad football culture enabled the pedophile" narrative because they harbored a lot of resentment towards football in general and maybe even Paterno specifically. I've always believed that Rodney Erickson was one of these people. They are, frankly, idiots for their inability to see how the academic side of the university has benefited from football (how do you like that library?). They were even bigger idiots for not understanding the massive damage that narrative would do to Penn State and its alumni. I think that there's a good chance that this is part of the reason that Barron et al are working so hard to keep the Freeh source materials secret.

Anyways, I was looking for something else today and I stumbled across this gem. http://www.flbog.edu/pressroom/newsclips_detail.php?id=19537

Agree wholeheartedly, many wanted to bring Joe because of perceived slights over the years. As a former educator, have found that many academics are very vindictive. Even if Joe held a PhD as a rocket scientist (sic), there would be some who would look down their noses at someone who was just a football coach and who got more press./accolades.

 

[Fizz1]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ickson-interview-football-emphasis/51686080/1

Lest we forget, here is a quote from a USA Today article (see link) after everything hit. Take note of the comment about a "new great experiment" that "properly positions athletics without compromising academics." Amazing comment, and not in a good way.

But for now, the university will wrestle with how to de-emphasize the spotlight on football without damaging the program's success, if that's even possible.

"We at least need to try," Sims said. "That would become the new great experiment. Can you properly position athletics and not compromise academics?"

 

[simons96]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ickson-interview-football-emphasis/51686080/1

Lest we forget, here is a quote from a USA Today article (see link) after everything hit. Take note of the comment about a "new great experiment" that "properly positions athletics without compromising academics." Amazing comment, and not in a good way.

But for now, the university will wrestle with how to de-emphasize the spotlight on football without damaging the program's success, if that's even possible.

"We at least need to try," Sims said. "That would become the new great experiment. Can you properly position athletics and not compromise academics?"

thanks for reminding me that Damon Sims is another worthless toady who needs to find his walking papers

 

[Aoshiro]

You'll find some faculty who resent athletics/football on every campus that features a major, Div-I football program. Penn State is in no way unusual or notable in this regard.

No one is required to be a Penn State Football fan. If a great physics professor is focused on physics and doesn't give a damn about football, I hardly think that's a crime.

Athletics, especially football and basketball, are often described as the "front porch" of a university. You can make a compelling argument that teaching, research, academic rigor should be that front porch, not football/basketball, but that argument applies to Alabama, Texas, UNC, USC, FSU, Duke, Notre Dame, etc., not just Penn State.

I didn't read anything in the article that I found particularly surprising or worrisome, especially given when it was written.

I find it pretty worrisome that people with PhD's are stupid enough to promote the idea that one enables a pedophile by simply attending a football game. It doesn't really give me much confidence in the caliber of our academics.

Other sports organizations have had similar crimes occur without the entire organization and everyone who supports it being dragged through the mud. For example, pedophiles have been exposed in Olympic-level swimming and gymnastics programs. But no one was stupid enough to say that everyone involved in those programs was a "pedophile enabler."

There's a legitimate debate to be had about the role of football at Penn State, but it was completely dishonest to link that debate to Sandusky's crimes. I think that we had a unique set of circumstances where some truly nasty people sought to leverage a tragedy to re-shape Penn State into their vision of what Penn State should be (remember how the chatter about privatizing the university started almost immediately?). In doing so, these people exponentially magnified the damage to Penn State. I think those people should be held accountable for the damage they did.

 

[T J]

Paterno did great things... but he is far from the only reason that the university grew and became great. If he was not here, there would have been another coach (coaches to take his place)
In 1966 PSU had now enrollment of 22,766 and now has enrollment of 46,606. Great growth (and i recognize that total student enrollment is only one factor) But things changed for many other schools too. They would have for PSU also. Here are some other schools that managed not to be regional schools without a Paterno.

U of Texas 27,345 to 52,213
ASU 26,425 to 76,771
Iowa 17,755 to 31,387
U of Ill 26,225 to 44,520

In my opinion, Paterno was a great man, but he did not single handedly make Penn State great the way you inply.

Penn State Enrollment 1966 and 2014

Year - University Park - Total University

1966 - 22,766 - 34,958

2014 - 46,606 - 95,973​

Nobody said "single handedly" - However Joe Paterno drove his Agenda, via the "Grand Experiment," that put Academics and high graduation rates first.

• Penn State Football adopted Joe's high academic standards and high Grad Rates.

• The Athletic Department adopted the focus on high academic achievement and high Grad Rates.

• Penn State Football fans and sports fans adopted JoePa's "Grand Experiment" in a big way.

• That led to enormous influx of cash for Academics, higher Prof Salaries and Improved Facilities, all of which help to attract Top Students.

• PSU achieved the highest number of applications in the US, which allowed for greater selectivity in admissions, including higher rated students and greater diversity... all driven by high demand for enrollment at Penn State.

 

[RobBliz]

Penn State Enrollment 1966 and 2014

Year - University Park - Total University

1966 - 22,766 - 34,958

2014 - 46,606 - 95,973​

Nobody said "single handedly" - However Joe Paterno drove his Agenda, via the "Grand Experiment," that put Academics and high graduation rates first.

• Penn State Football adopted Joe's high academic standards and high Grad Rates.

• The Athletic Department adopted the focus on high academic achievement and high Grad Rates.

• Penn State Football fans and sports fans adopted JoePa's "Grand Experiment" in a big way.

• That led to enormous influx of cash for Academics, higher Prof Salaries and Improved Facilities, all of which help to attract Top Students.

• PSU achieved the highest number of applications in the US, which allowed for greater selectivity in admissions, including higher rated students and greater diversity... all driven by high demand for enrollment at Penn State.

I am not count the "world campus" nor did I in any other growth statistics. Again, you missed my point. All of those schools I listed had similar growth. None of the schools I listed had a grand experiment or a Paterno. The idea that Penn State, without Paterno would be a regional school in a cow pasture is idiotic. Writing your post in bold does nothing to explain why other universities achieved similar growth and success without Paterno. Populations grew as did the popularity of college football. Those things were growing with or without Paterno.

 

[Aoshiro]

I am not count the "world campus" nor did I in any other growth statistics. Again, you missed my point. All of those schools I listed had similar growth. None of the schools I listed had a grand experiment or a Paterno. The idea that Penn State, without Paterno would be a regional school in a cow pasture is idiotic. Writing your post in bold does nothing to explain why other universities achieved similar growth and success without Paterno. Populations grew as did the popularity of college football. Those things were growing with or without Paterno.

Is enrollment supposed to be some kind of measure of academic excellence?

US News ranking
Penn State (UP) #48
Univ of Texas #53
ASU #129
Iowa #71
Illiinois #42

I don't know if similar data exist for, say, 1965, but I would be very surprised if Penn State ranked above Texas or Iowa back then. The change at Penn State over all these decades hasn't been just about enrollment -- it has been about raising academic standards, which is something Paterno directly challenged the Board to do in 1983. I certainly don't think Paterno singlehandledly re-shaped Penn State (thousands and thousands of people were involved in various ways) but it is just plain dishonest to pretend as if Paterno & football didn't play a major role in the university's transformation. The university leveraged the goodwill generated by football to get alumni and football fans to open their wallets for the endowment and the library. The enormous crowds attending football games made it economically feasible to build the kind of infrastructure like restaurants and hotels that you need to accommodate non-football visitors to what had been a pretty rural area (precisely why it was such a crisis when the idiots in Old Main almost managed to kill the goose). Hell, they made it possible to build an airport and new roads to State College. It's really hard to overstate the role that football played in the development of Penn State, and I absolutely don't think that impact would have been the same without Paterno. That's an attempt revisionist history that is not going to fly.

 

[Doc-M]

I am not count the "world campus" nor did I in any other growth statistics. Again, you missed my point. All of those schools I listed had similar growth. None of the schools I listed had a grand experiment or a Paterno. The idea that Penn State, without Paterno would be a regional school in a cow pasture is idiotic. Writing your post in bold does nothing to explain why other universities achieved similar growth and success without Paterno. Populations grew as did the popularity of college football. Those things were growing with or without Paterno.

Penn State received national recognition due to football. JoePa and Penn State became identified as one. National recognition lead to recruitment of top faculty. It snowballed from there in terms of grant money, state funding, research, ... JoePa help raise more then four billion dollars for Penn State used to build programs to say the least.

Academics are too busy in their own niches to recognize JoePa's contribution.

 

[RobBliz]

Is enrollment supposed to be some kind of measure of academic excellence?

US News ranking
Penn State (UP) #48
Univ of Texas #53
ASU #129
Iowa #71
Illiinois #42

I don't know if similar data exist for, say, 1965, but I would be very surprised if Penn State ranked above Texas or Iowa back then. The change at Penn State over all these decades hasn't been just about enrollment -- it has been about raising academic standards, which is something Paterno directly challenged the Board to do in 1983. I certainly don't think Paterno singlehandledly re-shaped Penn State (thousands and thousands of people were involved in various ways) but it is just plain dishonest to pretend as if Paterno & football didn't play a major role in the university's transformation. The university leveraged the goodwill generated by football to get alumni and football fans to open their wallets for the endowment and the library. The enormous crowds attending football games made it economically feasible to build the kind of infrastructure like restaurants and hotels that you need to accommodate non-football visitors to what had been a pretty rural area (precisely why it was such a crisis when the idiots in Old Main almost managed to kill the goose). Hell, they made it possible to build an airport and new roads to State College. It's really hard to overstate the role that football played in the development of Penn State, and I absolutely don't think that impact would have been the same without Paterno. That's an attempt revisionist history that is not going to fly.

Enrollment is an indication we are not a regional school in the middle of a cow pasture, which is what the original post I responded to claimed we would be without Paterno.
So you or I have no idea if Texas was ranked higher or lower than PSU in 1965. But you assume they were and that Paterno fixed this. (but actually have no basis for this claim)
Illinois had similar growth and is currently ranked higher than PSU with no Paterno.
As the university grew so did the infrastructure around it. With or without Paterno it was going to grow. It was a 50 year time span. The state college area was going to grow with our without Joe. The University was going to grow, with or without Joe.
Joe was a great man and a great coach. But to me, some people make him sound like Jesus H. Christ .

 

[Aoshiro]

Enrollment is an indication we are not a regional school in the middle of a cow pasture, which is what the original post I responded to claimed we would be without Paterno.
So you or I have no idea if Texas was ranked higher or lower than PSU in 1965. But you assume they were and that Paterno fixed this. (but actually have no basis for this claim)
Illinois had similar growth and is currently ranked higher than PSU with no Paterno.
As the university grew so did the infrastructure around it. With or without Paterno it was going to grow. It was a 50 year time span. The state college area was going to grow with our without Joe. The University was going to grow, with or without Joe.
Joe was a great man and a great coach. But to me, some people make him sound like Jesus H. Christ .

Frankly, some of the JoePa worship makes me queasy, too, but you go too far in the other direction when you try to pretend that Paterno did not have a substantial impact on Penn State's development. That's just dishonest.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Paterno did great things... but he is far from the only reason that the university grew and became great. If he was not here, there would have been another coach (coaches to take his place)
In 1966 PSU had now enrollment of 22,766 and now has enrollment of 46,606. Great growth (and i recognize that total student enrollment is only one factor) But things changed for many other schools too. They would have for PSU also. Here are some other schools that managed not to be regional schools without a Paterno.

U of Texas 27,345 to 52,213
ASU 26,425 to 76,771
Iowa 17,755 to 31,387
U of Ill 26,225 to 44,520

In my opinion, Paterno was a great man, but he did not single handedly make Penn State great the way you inply.

Rob: While I would readily concede your main point (JVP did not single handedly make PSU the great university it is today), saying that his impact on PSU was "profoundly positive" does him a disservice. He was transformational. He was, at least to date, the single most important person in the history of PSU.

I was particularly amused by your statement that "If he [JVP] was not here, there would have been another coach (coaches to take his place)." LOL. Yes, there would have been someone else holding the title of head football coach, but the chances that anyone else could have done what Joe did are not slim; they are nonexistent.

BTW, I would not cite ASU in any post discussing great academic universities. ASU has a large undergraduate population (the biggest in the country, in fact), but it is a glorified junior college.

 

[Doc-M]

RobBliz, if you do your own diligence, you will find Penn State did not have the academic stature of Illinois or Texas in 1965. Momentum swung in the direction of Penn State starting 1965 with an ongoing recruitment of top notch faculty. Penn State's early success on and off the field brought national attention. JoePa expended a lot energy raising funds from donors sorely needed to recruit faculty in competition with other top schools.

Fans are more than happy to support a winning team by buying tickets or by making other contributions, however, very few are willing to donate say to history or biology program. JoePa and his winning teams help raise big dollars for the benefit of Penn State not to ignore enhancement of national recognition!

JoePa was not alone in this journey, he was a catalyst for this change.

 

[91Joe95]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ickson-interview-football-emphasis/51686080/1

Lest we forget, here is a quote from a USA Today article (see link) after everything hit. Take note of the comment about a "new great experiment" that "properly positions athletics without compromising academics." Amazing comment, and not in a good way.

But for now, the university will wrestle with how to de-emphasize the spotlight on football without damaging the program's success, if that's even possible.

"We at least need to try," Sims said. "That would become the new great experiment. Can you properly position athletics and not compromise academics?"

Academics never needed to be dragged into this mess. When the BOT and Erickson did, they took a massive hit too.

 

[bamasota]

This causes one to raise the question: Was Paterno just a football coach or was he more than a football coach? When discussing his role in this saga, I've seen many strong responses stating that he was just a football coach that had little influence outside that arena. However, in threads such as this, he is described as having a role that goes way beyond that of just a football coach.

So which is it? Football coach or something much more powerful and influential?