Response to Dr. Saunders

My response to your comment is too big to be posted as a comment so I have to include it as a separate post. For those reading this, please check out Dr. Saunders' comments on the "Get Off Joe's Back" post below.

___

Ah, Dr. Saunders. I thought you might chime in. Good to hear from you too. Your thoughts on the wider picture are well known and I of course agree with you. College football is the tail wagging the dog, writ large. I guess on that point the question is, why do I still partake in the circus? And I can't answer that other than to say that I enjoy the game itself and am still able to separate the game from the baggage it comes with. Maybe I'm wrong to do so. I also know that you object to the game itself (I do read your blog after all) and understand your concerns about the violence involved and the injuries sustained. Playing football is undoubtedly a risk, but then again, so is walking out your door in the morning. The easy answer is that players take that risk knowingly. I know you would counter that they are pressured into that life and don't always know the risks...but I believe that is changing. Maybe I'm naive but it seems that the NFL is doing what it can to limit the ugly side of football injuries - concussions and the like. Eric LeGrand's story is still the exception - every weekend, how many people across the country take part in college or pro football, and the percentage of them who suffer a debilitating injury is probably a percentage any factory would consider pretty good for its own safety record. Maybe I am wrong there, I don't have those numbers. And the answers to long-term effects are of course, still being discovered. But I have not seen anything yet that tells me the whole sport should be shut down for the safety of its participants.
And I am also the rare person who enjoys football in SPITE OF it's violence. I don't watch to see a big hit or anything like that. I personally enjoy other things about football. I like the idea that a group of people all with disparate and seemingly unrelated skills and tasks, must work together seamlessly as a unit to be successful - a good play is...dare I say it, a symphony of movement? Maybe overstating it but you get the point. I also love that that unit must do all it can, but sometimes, an outsider must be called in, because the work of that machine was not quite enough - I am talking of course about the kicker. And suddenly, the work of the group rests in the hands of a single person who doesn't fit in with the rest. Metaphor for life? I like the chess-game aspect of play calling and I like the artificially constructed, but very real force called momentum, whereby suddenly the powers of the diverse unit become greater or less due to this magical force. And lastly, I like the storylines, the narrative of a 'season' and the meanings that develop around certain games and certain years.
All this keeps me watching and caring, despite the very real problems below the surface. I don't worship at the monster the game created, because I don't see them as the same thing. Take away all the extra junk and I still like the game. I tolerate the rest. Maybe I shouldn't...and maybe some day it will get so bad that I won't be able to enjoy it any more.

But to your original point. Joe, Tressel, Sandusky, thinking the rules don't apply. Let's tackle those one at a time. My thoughts on Tressel are well-documented, and our friend's rebuttal above worth mentioning. As far as Sandusky, he thought the rules didn't apply, but I believe that was because the man has a sickness that makes him do these things. I don't think that football is what made him act on his impulses. Guy could have been a janitor and he still would have felt compelled to do these things. You could argue that the football establishment let it happen, and the investigation will determine that. Right now I am inclined to believe that Joe wasn't sure what to do, told his boss as required by law and then naively thought it either had been taken care of, or that Sandusky would stop, and it would be an isolated incident. I think his mind didn't work in the ways of sexual predators, and he didn't live in a world that told him, the guy will do it again. They always do it again. That's a lapse in judgement, and a big one. But from what I know of the man from watching him for all my life, I don't believe for a minute that he thought "I'm Joe, I can cover this up because I'm the face of Penn State." Every action the guy has taken before (and since this broke) has been consistently in keeping with not wanting everything to be 'about Joe', the university coming first, in life being more important than football.

I know it seems unfair because I keep saying "This is different" but the fact is, I firmly believe that Joe WAS different. And THAT's why this is such big news. Any other schmo who did something like this, I'd agree with you and say that it was trying to be above the law for the sake of the football program. But not Joe.

Now, that said, if the investigation reveals that Joe knew more and continued to let Sandusky be on campus and at team events after learning about additional incidents, then I will without hesitation post on this board renouncing all my defenses of him. But I don't expect that to happen. And now that I think of it, maybe that's why everyone is piling on Joe now, because they know that this is as bad as it's going to get, and the investigation isn't going to come up with any more seedy details that directly relate to him.

I certainly respect your opinion and always enjoy engaging in discussion with you. Framing my thoughts in a conversation with you always keeps me on my toes.

Matt