Joe Posnanski: Lord of Lists
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
Did anyone get through his Vegas article? Have to admit I bailed after about the first 1000 words. Maybe the most boring thing he's ever written. I think he's probably just the completely wrong guy for that job. He's almost Dale Arnoldian in his awe of Vegas and betting. This story in so amazingly old I can't believe his editor gave him the greenlight and that SI agreed to spend the money on it.
Here's a choice quote he brings forward:
I don't know. I just went back and tried to read more and was even more bored. How can Pos cover sports for this long and still think anybody might be interested in how there's REALLY a lot of gambling going on around these sporting events? You'd be AMAZED!
Just bad.
Here's a choice quote he brings forward:
Doesn't that go for every sporting event ever held? I can bet 5 bucks and watch the game and be excited the whole time every time I go to the sportsbook.
I don't know. I just went back and tried to read more and was even more bored. How can Pos cover sports for this long and still think anybody might be interested in how there's REALLY a lot of gambling going on around these sporting events? You'd be AMAZED!
Just bad.
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/03/olive-garden.html
Not sports related, but thought this was really well done
Not sports related, but thought this was really well done
One of Joe's touchstones is to admire people who do simple or small things earnestly (and, implicitly or explicitly, defend them against the sarcastic wolves of the internets). When he pulls that club out of the bag he almost always hits greens and fairways.
Bah. He's won be back after the all the Paterno crap. I love when he goes into his "Katie the Prefect" mode.
Time to change the thread title.
http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/03/30/joe-posnanski-is-leaving-sports-illustrated/
Someone just got a raise. It's a pretty good time to be a writer who "gets" the internet. There's a bit of a land grab going on as organizations try to figure out how to monetize the web and if you can create pageviews, you can get paid. Good for Joe.
I'm pretty surprised by this. He went on at length three years ago regarding how much of a dream come true it was to work for SI, and now he's gone.
That said, this venture ("a joint venture to develop and produce new content and products for sports fans across all digital and mobile platforms") sounds suspiciously like a Grantland competitor (though one with access to all of MLBAM's video content). I'll be curious to see how this develops.
That said, this venture ("a joint venture to develop and produce new content and products for sports fans across all digital and mobile platforms") sounds suspiciously like a Grantland competitor (though one with access to all of MLBAM's video content). I'll be curious to see how this develops.
Yeah, that's the first thing I thought, didn't he want to write for SI? Plus the venture sounds like he'll do a lot less writing -- or, at the least that kind of long-form magazine writing SI offers. It just seems...weird. Like he's burning bridges and doing something un-Pos-like. I'm guessing we won't see a tearful farewell column like he wrote when he left the Star.
Of course, as soon as I submit the comment, I see ol' Pos already had a "farewell" piece up on his blog.
I stopped reading Pos after Penn State and I haven't been back since. I click on the thread here and there, but haven't clicked on his blog once. I wish him the best wherever he goes, because he seems like an earnest enough guy, but his reaction to Paterno and the Penn State scandal was simply too revolting for me to give him another click. And I'm saying this as somebody who at one time thought Joe Posnanski was one of if not the greatest sports writers who ever lived.
And he did write for SI. It's possible it wasn't what he thought it was from the outside.
Are you going to read the book?
I think everyone who posts in this thread was disappointed in varying degrees in his reaction to Penn State. I haven't given up hope that what ends up in the book will somehow explain what his thinking was at the time.
I have trouble envisioning a scenario where any explanation for his equivocating would be justified. And when I say 'I have trouble', I mean that no such scenario exists.
That's certainly not how he frames it in his farewell post.
Best guess? He's a baseball guy first, and between the chance to break new ground with this venture and the money, he got a Godfather offer.
Also, this is a reversal of my previous position, but I'm glad Pos isn't involved with Grantland, for two reasons.
1) It seems like the more sites there are that have a solid reason to check it daily, the better it is for us consumers.
2) Pos has the wrong tone for Grantland. That site, despite how it was initially positioned, is more about snark than anything else. It's a sports & pop culture site for the modern-day Internet consumer. It does that quite well, but what it's not is a rebirth of long-form sports journalism. Pierce's pieces come closest, but they're more like op-eds than stories. Pos is more about celebration and analysis than deconstruction. I'm not saying he wouldn't produce great work on Grantland, but it's not a natural fit.
1) It seems like the more sites there are that have a solid reason to check it daily, the better it is for us consumers.
2) Pos has the wrong tone for Grantland. That site, despite how it was initially positioned, is more about snark than anything else. It's a sports & pop culture site for the modern-day Internet consumer. It does that quite well, but what it's not is a rebirth of long-form sports journalism. Pierce's pieces come closest, but they're more like op-eds than stories. Pos is more about celebration and analysis than deconstruction. I'm not saying he wouldn't produce great work on Grantland, but it's not a natural fit.
Probably. And I was just guessing--sometimes people get what they want and it isn't what they thought. He's also not going to burn any bridges on the way out the door.
1) Yep agreed
2) I'm not sure I'd go so far as 'snark' but it's definitely more like a non-gossipy, bro-style Deadspin and I agree with you that JoePos would be lost there. A good example is referenced above - the Jonah K baseball previews, which are a great little read, are buried on that page, surrounded by pop culture articles and reality tv shit.
I think Simmons and ESPN have great intentions for grantland but the fact is that they have to post new content every day (or at least they *think* they have to) and the number of people who can crank out reliably excellent long-form stuff....well, you can count them on one hand. Pos really stands alone in his ability to produce both high-quality and astoundingly high volume.
The kind of stuff BS wants to curate doesn't really lend itself to a daily platform. There just isn't enough of it. So by necessity you fall back on marginally more clever snark with the occasional gem mixed in, which is kind of where I think Grantland has landed.
It's more for the grantland thread but I suspect they ran into budgetary issues. They big names they had early on aren't writing for them any more and they haven't replaced them with new big names other than Keri, who's not even that big a name.. Eggers had one early piece and that's it, Colson Whitehead had four early pieces, one in October, and nothing since, Wright Thompson wrote four articles in the first six or seven weeks Grantland was up and only two since then, Jonah Lehrer had two early pieces and only one since, Gladwell had two last summer and nothing since. Chris Jones was writing on roughly a weekly basis at first but hasn't written since October. Klosterman, Keri and Pierce are the only relatively big names other than Simmons who are still writing for Grantland on anything like a regular basis.
I don't get it. The only info that Deadspin has about the book is that Posnanski hopes to have it done by the end of May. Every other word in that article is pure speculation.
I wouldn't be surprised if the book is purely a hagiography, and I don't have any plans to read it, but the only thing that "the timing confirms" is that Posnanski writes really fast, which is something we all pretty much knew.
Their point was that by finishing the book before the trial even starts (when, hopefully, the facts will come out about whatever role Paterno had in the coverup) Poz is deliberately avoiding having to write a truthful, potentially searing account of Paterno's life.
The NYTimes with an utterly fascinating, lengthy piece on Joe Posnanski and the Paterno book. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/sports/ncaafootball/the-coach-the-biographer-and-the-last-chapter.html?hp
It does appear that Posnanski has not broken from his "JoePa is an amazing, almost mythical, figure in American sports!" tack for the book.
Whatever. I was never interested in Joe Paterno, and I sure as hell am not interested now. I just wish Posnanski had never gotten involved in this project at all, and stuck to baseball.
Whatever. I was never interested in Joe Paterno, and I sure as hell am not interested now. I just wish Posnanski had never gotten involved in this project at all, and stuck to baseball.
The NYT piece was much more lengthy than fascinating - if you've been following Paterno/Posnanski story then there isn't much new information relayed. Pos basically wanted to write "The Soul of Football" about Paterno and we found out about the systemic rape and abuse that was going on under his nose. Towards the end of the piece we find out that Pos is going to address the scandal, but we have no idea how he will.
I had no intention of reading Paterno because I don't care about college football. I loved "The Soul of Baseball" because Buck was the kind of person that warrants a narrative like that, and it's one Pos can deliver beautifully. But trying to write something similar about Paterno now simply isn't going to work with the public perception of Paterno's last months. It's a story that doesn't suit Posnanski at all, and I don't think he'll handle it well. I would love to be proven wrong as Pos is my favorite sports writer, but I don't think it will be the case.
I had no intention of reading Paterno because I don't care about college football. I loved "The Soul of Baseball" because Buck was the kind of person that warrants a narrative like that, and it's one Pos can deliver beautifully. But trying to write something similar about Paterno now simply isn't going to work with the public perception of Paterno's last months. It's a story that doesn't suit Posnanski at all, and I don't think he'll handle it well. I would love to be proven wrong as Pos is my favorite sports writer, but I don't think it will be the case.
I think Posnanski is going to surprise a lot of folks, and that 'Paterno' will be critically well received. The fact that he's reached out to other biographers of flawed yet fascinating individuals is a sign of how serious he is taking this. I suspect he didn't have to do that for 'The Soul of Baseball' because he knew Buck so well.
Joe Posnanski is a father with kids - I just cannot imagine him ignoring or glossing over the ugliness of the Sandusky case and Paterno's role in it, no matter what kind of book he thought he was going to write going in. He must know that he has a unique opportunity here and I believe he is a good enough writer to rise to the occasion.
Joe Posnanski is a father with kids - I just cannot imagine him ignoring or glossing over the ugliness of the Sandusky case and Paterno's role in it, no matter what kind of book he thought he was going to write going in. He must know that he has a unique opportunity here and I believe he is a good enough writer to rise to the occasion.
He's a terrific writer, no one is debating that, but I think what has so many people concerned is that this book is written before the Sandusky trial begins. Despite Paterno being dead, this is a hugely significant event that will shape his legacy. It's kind of like writing a book about Nixon in 1974 and not bothering to wait until the Watergate decision is handed down.
For most people that leads them to the conclusion that Posnanski is going to write the book that he was going to write a year ago. And as we all know, the very real perception of Joe Paterno has changed. And no matter how much money he and his wife donated to Penn State or how many kids he's shepherded through Happy Valley it still doesn't change the fact that he had a pretty good idea of what was going down with Jerry Sandusky. And while that doesn't make him worse than Sandusky, in many ways it makes him almost as bad.
So if you're going not going to change your book's course despite this gigantic Pennsylvanian clusterfuck then at the very least it's a bunch of hackneyed pallum designed to get foolish Penn Staters to part with their hard earned cash in the hopes of erasing the latter half of 2011 and at worst it's a book full of lies written by someone either too lazy or too scared to write the truth. And while I don't think that Posnanski is too lazy to rewrite the book, I think that he may be too scared to do so. And that's just a shame because he is a hell of a writer who seem(ed) to get it.
Let me state that I still go to his site every day to read his blog posts because I like what he writes but I'm not sure how seriously I can take any of his writings that deal with issues of morality.
Do we expect there to be a significant amount of new evidence regarding Paterno at trial?
Remember, this is the criminal trial of Jerry Sandusky, not the expected series of civil trials against Penn State and its caretakers. The latter will take years to come to completion, if they are not all settled outright beforehand. I would expect the majority of information about what Paterno knew, and when, would actually be a part of the civil action - most of what the prosecution needs against Sandusky is satisfied by testimony from the victims and McQueary. Plowing into a cover-up just allows jurors off the path, and introduces elements probably best left alone (fandom, cult of Paterno, etc.).
I can understand Posnanski not waiting for the civil trials, especially given their uncertainty, and I'm honestly not sure what is gained by waiting for the criminal trial - most will assume something unseemly no matter the outcome, and he can write from that stance as-is.
Remember, this is the criminal trial of Jerry Sandusky, not the expected series of civil trials against Penn State and its caretakers. The latter will take years to come to completion, if they are not all settled outright beforehand. I would expect the majority of information about what Paterno knew, and when, would actually be a part of the civil action - most of what the prosecution needs against Sandusky is satisfied by testimony from the victims and McQueary. Plowing into a cover-up just allows jurors off the path, and introduces elements probably best left alone (fandom, cult of Paterno, etc.).
I can understand Posnanski not waiting for the civil trials, especially given their uncertainty, and I'm honestly not sure what is gained by waiting for the criminal trial - most will assume something unseemly no matter the outcome, and he can write from that stance as-is.
That's a solid question because I think that you're right, unless a huge bombshell like Paterno was the head of a kiddie porn ring is disclosed, there's probably not going to be too much about JoePa at the criminal trial. But I think that Sandusky and Paterno are intertwined enough to that it would be important to at least get something in the book about the trial, don't you?
And I agree that he probably shouldn't have to wait until the civil trial is done, but honestly, who the hell is going to buy a glowing account of Joe Paterno a year after this scandal? Is this something you want to give your dad for Christmas or Father's Day? One may have purchased it for the morbidly curious information about the relationship between Sandusky and Paterno, but it doesn't sound like there's going to be too much of that either.
I'm not sure what Posnanski could have done in the situation he's in, but I don't think that he's handling it the correct way.
One million head in the sand Penn Statue University alums and fans.
Posnanski is an ardent admirer of Robert Caro's 'The Power Broker', the biography of Robert Moses that showed its subject as a complex and flawed man and more than just the Judge Doom caricature from Who Framed Roger Rabbit that he is often portrayed as. I don’t see him writing a ‘glowing account’ that only mentions the Sandusky situation as some sort of recent unpleasantness that must be mentioned only out of obligation. Obviously I’m in the minority, though.
Honestly, the outcome of the criminal trial seems fairly irrelevant to Paterno's legacy - or, perhaps more correctly, the specific outcome pales in comparison to the damage already done by the scandal.
Like ... if some awkward jury finds Sandusky innocent, is all of the Paterno damage undone? If Sandusky is guilty, is that any additional damage?
It's strange that folks won't read Joe Pos' book regardless of the content, based simply on his reaction to the case. If the book is just a glossy bathroom reader, that will be wicked disappointing. His reaction to date has been disappointing, there's no doubt about that. I think I'll hold off on final judgement until the book is available for everybody to read. No doubt Pos has dents in his greatness as a writer due to this. If it's a puff piece, then I understand blowing off Joe Pos forever, based on his inability to delve deeper into the subject.
What if the book captures the entire saga, from Paterno the great to Paterno the do-nothing-about-Sandusky failure? Does it really not matter at all, if the book is fair, rather than a puff piece? Too little too late?
I'm not defending Joe Posnanski, I'm curious. Personally, I hope the book reveals everything I wondered about why Posnanski barely spoke about the situation, and offers a glimpse into the insanity during the unraveling of Paterno & Penn State.
What if the book captures the entire saga, from Paterno the great to Paterno the do-nothing-about-Sandusky failure? Does it really not matter at all, if the book is fair, rather than a puff piece? Too little too late?
I'm not defending Joe Posnanski, I'm curious. Personally, I hope the book reveals everything I wondered about why Posnanski barely spoke about the situation, and offers a glimpse into the insanity during the unraveling of Paterno & Penn State.
Of course it doesn't, that's not what I'm saying at all. But it's part of Paterno's legacy and if it's there's nothing in there about the trial then it seems to me that something is missing. Especially if this is supposed to be THE book about Joe Paterno.
This is irrelevant. I like Joe Posnanski a lot, I think that he's one of the best (if not THE best) sports writer in America today. But he writes from a very sunny, optimistic perspective. I certainly haven't read everything he's written, but edgy, investigative journalism is not his hallmark. I'm not saying that he can't do it, but judging from his past output plus his comments on the situation; I'm not holding my breath.
All due respect, you DO know what Posnanski "could have done"; your posts on the matter make it very clear that you think the only 'correct' response was to grab a torch and pitchfork and run into the throng of delusional Penn Staters, swinging with a purpose. And while that's a very emotionally satisfying position to take on this whole situation, I'm gonna reserve my opinion on whether he's handled it "correctly" until I read it. Posnanski has earned the right to be read before he's judged here with his other work.
I do agree that Posnanski is fucked any which way he acts; a book that isn't 100% negative on Paterno, vis-a-vis the Sandusky stuff is going to be shredded by a significant number of people who have already vowed that they will "never read it". A book that attempts to walk any middle ground will be pounded by those who believe writing about Paterno is enabling-a-monster-from-beyond-the-grave. And a book that contains any mention of Sandusky will be rejected by the Saint Paterno lobby, who think that Saint Joe's memory shouldn't be sullied by "that thing".
Posnanski cannot "win" - there are only degrees of losing to be had with this subject.
Is the one blog post shortly after the story broke the only reason many of you are swearing off Pos in this situation? He may well surprise everyone. I think it’s far more likely he delivers a poignant and inspiring work than there is he simply deifies JoPa. Pos is not delusional. He well knows well there is an underbelly in college and professional sports usually best left unexamined. But, so do we. Don’t we?
A child molestation case certainly rises well above the typical unmentionables. But as sf121 says, Joe Posnanski has earned the benefit of the doubt, many times over. Let’s give him his due and see what his talent and competence bring us. He’s earned that much, at least.
Caro took like 6 years to write that book and has spent THE REST OF HIS ENTIRE LIFE (nearly 40 years) researching bios on Lyndon Johnson. He's put out 4 on LBJ, which are all enormous, and has one more to come.
Posnanski is wrapping up the book before a big trial that involves his subject. He's clearly not going to be exhaustive and it's going to be hard to do a full analysis of Paterno's complex flaws without including the Sandusky trial and fitting it into the likely 300-350 pages.
I'm not accusing Posnanski of being lazy or anything, but he's not nearly the biographer that Caro is. Which isn't a bad thing in the case of Buck O'Neill, but is likely to be disappointing if you're expecting something that reaches the full depths of Paterno's character.
That's not what I said at all. In fact, I've never been of the opinion that Pos should destroy Paterno at all because that would be just as terrible as a book as one that just tells the reader all of the good things he's done. Posnanski had a golden opportunity, he was smack dab in the middle of the biggest college football story in decades and from all indications doesn't seem interested in writing about that. What I think Joe Posnanski should have done, what he needs to do, is rip up his original outline of Joe Paterno: All-American Awesome Guy and write a detailed, nuanced story about Joe Paterno and specifically this story.
Because it doesn't matter how many football games Paterno has won, how many times he's been coach of the year, SI Sportsman of the Year, how many times his team ended the season ranked number one. What matters is that for a great many people, Joe Paterno was the paragon of virtue and morality. When other college coaches looked the other way as their programs went downhill, when other coaches hopped around the country like Hessians looking for a better pay day, when other coaches demanded multi-million dollar contracts, Joe Paterno seemed to be different. He seemed to have higher standards.
Then this scandal erupted and like it or not, Joe Paterno is looked at differently. It seemed like he knew what was going on, how could he let this happen? Why did he try to lie about how he had no control over the athletic department when everyone knows that's complete bullshit?
There's a compelling story in this about (pick a cliche) the lion in winter, a man who who controlled just about everything but couldn't bring about an end to this disgusting behavior. Posnanski is with this fucking guy for every single piece of bad news and he's not going to scrap what he originally wants to do? Are you shitting me? Posnanski is a newspaper guy and he's missing the big story here.
And yes, perhaps I'm judging a book before it comes out; but if he's not waiting until at least the criminal trial is over, what's the point?
I don't agree with your theory. Posnanski can win, and the way that he can win is by writing the truth; writing what he was lucky enough to witness. To be completely honest with you, Joe Paterno is a pretty boring figure. Guy coaches football, lives life "the right way" (whatever that is) and is loved by millions. There's no pathos in that, there's no real interesting story there. Buck O'Neil is an interesting story because the guy looked racism right in the eye every day for his life and still smiled. That kind of life is something that a reader can learn from. A real triumph of the spirit.
Before the sex scandal, Joe Paterno's life is something that isn't quite intriguing but it'd be a good gift if you have a dumb friend who likes this cliches about working hard, voting for Dwight Eisenhower and marrying June Cleaver. There didn't seem like a lot of difficult moral choices Paterno had to make--though I'm sure there would be some trumped up ones that ultimately don't mean much in the long run (should he start an injured QB during the Big Game?)--but now there is one. And it's too bad that Posnanski doesn't feel the need to really get into Paterno's head.
I apologize - it would have been more accurate to say "Many of the posts on this subject..." There are many, many posts of the pitchfork & torch variety in this thread and elsewhere, based on some supposition about Posnanski's methods & motives and little else. I don't see the one quotation from Posnanski (the one cited by Deadspin & their subsequent 'come on!' post) as confirmation about how he's approaching this subject or as evidence that he is "in the bag" for Paterno or donning knee-pads to genuflect at Saint Joe's statue. Again - I apologize for taking you to task for something you did not directly say. My criticism was better directed at the crowd.
That said, I disagree with continued assertions that "Posnanski doesn't feel the need to really get into Paterno's head" - I just don't see any evidence of that, at all. I see some quotes from Posnanski but, again, I'm gonna wait to see what he actually writes before I determine if he's done "the right thing" or "succeeded" or "covered up", etc. None of that is known until we've seen & read the book.
As for the issue of waiting for Sandusky's trial(s), I disagree. I don't think the outcome of Sandusky's trial does one thing to the Paterno aspect of the story; Paterno is dead and Paterno won't be adding anything at trial. It is presumed by most that Paterno "covered up" for Sandusky and there's certainly a ton of evidence on that point...and THAT should be in the book. A detailed account of why Sandusky left the program in 1998 and why he was still allowed on campus after being dismissed...THAT should be in the book. If/when Sandusky is convicted and sentenced, it'll add a post-script to the re-print editions of Posnanski's book but I fail to see why Posnanski has to write a book about Sandusky's trial. I think Posnanski has to write a book about Paterno; Paterno's choices and Paterno's actions are at issue in a book about Paterno.
A great biolgraphy of Joe Paterno would be neither a hatchet job nor a hagiography, but would present both sides of the man and let the reader make his/her own judgments. I've already made it clear how the scales tip for me.
The NYT article doesn't quote Pos (he refused to talk to them), but does quote someone as saying the book will be "very, very different" as a consequence of the Sandusky scandal. That's a little bit encouraging, I guess.
The NYT also implies that the rushed release date was the publisher's decision, not Pos's. I don't know how book contracts are written -- could the publisher have cancelled the project and required Pos to return the $750k advance if he refused to meet the new deadline? In any event, I don't agree that the trial is likely to be a pivotal moment in this story, so I have no problem with the decision to rush to publication so long as Pos didn't need the time to do more research.
The NYT article doesn't quote Pos (he refused to talk to them), but does quote someone as saying the book will be "very, very different" as a consequence of the Sandusky scandal. That's a little bit encouraging, I guess.
The NYT also implies that the rushed release date was the publisher's decision, not Pos's. I don't know how book contracts are written -- could the publisher have cancelled the project and required Pos to return the $750k advance if he refused to meet the new deadline? In any event, I don't agree that the trial is likely to be a pivotal moment in this story, so I have no problem with the decision to rush to publication so long as Pos didn't need the time to do more research.
I'm so glad people know what a great biography on Joe Paterno would look like. It seems as you could just write it without doing actual research. I think that you are right JMOH that a book about Joe Paterno would need to relay the truth, but it seems from some of your comments that you have a certain vision of what the truth is already beyond that Joe Paterno is involved in the Sandusky scandal in a way that compromises his moral position. Assertions about the level of control and knowledge that Joe Paterno had and has had are unsubstantiated on basically every level. What seems to be over a lot of people's heads is that one can prevent their own firing without being in control of everything else that happens.
If Pos writes that Joe Paterno did in fact have less control as he aged and backs that up, would that be hard hitting truth for readers or would they know that was a bunch of people protecting Joe Pa and Posnanski was just repeating it because he admired the man? If he writes that Joe Paterno, while not a senile old fucker, became less sharp about things and became a valuable figurehead to the University, would that be satisfactory?
I agree that I would be generally disappointed in a shine job for Joe Paterno. I don't know what caused Paterno's moral failure but there is a clear moral failure to write about.
If Pos writes that Joe Paterno did in fact have less control as he aged and backs that up, would that be hard hitting truth for readers or would they know that was a bunch of people protecting Joe Pa and Posnanski was just repeating it because he admired the man? If he writes that Joe Paterno, while not a senile old fucker, became less sharp about things and became a valuable figurehead to the University, would that be satisfactory?
I agree that I would be generally disappointed in a shine job for Joe Paterno. I don't know what caused Paterno's moral failure but there is a clear moral failure to write about.
As someone who covered Penn State football for the local newspaper in State College for a decade way back in the 1970s, I'm looking forward to Poz's book for one main reason. I want to see if Poz can tie any of Joe's behavior in the first two or three decades of his coaching career -- as he gradually gained more and power in the athletic department, the university and the state -- to what happened in the final decade of his life. The seeds for Joe's demise were planted, season by season, over the first 30 years of his head coaching career. Those seeds sprouted weeds in his garden. The weeds eventually strangled the beautiful roses Joe had nurtured for so long.
Anyone close to Penn State football knew about the off-field and on-campus incidents involving players that were covered up over the years. Joe often chose discipline over cover-up but too often as he grew older he chose to protect his program at all costs. What changed in Joe's mental process from the time he was a young man with high ideals? I hope Poz's addresses this. I believe he will.
Originally, Poz wanted to write about all the fathers and sons Joe had coached over the years, and I bet this is also a major part of the book. Poz also wanted to write something like Dave Maraniss wrote about Lombardi. There were some similarities in the lives of these two NYC natives. Maraniss showed the dark side of Vince's personality. Will Poz find the equivalent in Paterno, or was he too late to the dance?
Poz went in worshipping Paterno. What a great challenge it is for a writer/reporter of his talent to come up with an accurate narrative of Paterno's incredible fall from grace. I'll be buying the book on the first day it hits the streets.
.
Anyone close to Penn State football knew about the off-field and on-campus incidents involving players that were covered up over the years. Joe often chose discipline over cover-up but too often as he grew older he chose to protect his program at all costs. What changed in Joe's mental process from the time he was a young man with high ideals? I hope Poz's addresses this. I believe he will.
Originally, Poz wanted to write about all the fathers and sons Joe had coached over the years, and I bet this is also a major part of the book. Poz also wanted to write something like Dave Maraniss wrote about Lombardi. There were some similarities in the lives of these two NYC natives. Maraniss showed the dark side of Vince's personality. Will Poz find the equivalent in Paterno, or was he too late to the dance?
Poz went in worshipping Paterno. What a great challenge it is for a writer/reporter of his talent to come up with an accurate narrative of Paterno's incredible fall from grace. I'll be buying the book on the first day it hits the streets.
.
I don't know whether Paterno changed his ways about discipline in his last decade -- as you say -- or whether information just leaked out a lot more quickly than it had. Either way, my guess is if he did start worrying more about protecting his legacy (and the program's rep, by extension) than about integrity/discipline/honor, then perhaps it's as simple as mortality. He realizes that his physical life is at an end, but he can live forever via his football program and his charitable works so he must do whatever he can to ensure that's untarnished.
Fair enough. I think he knew he was sick, too, and put off finding out how sick until he finished what he figured what would be his final season. That's why the cancer diagnosis came so quickly after he got fired.
Also, I don't think the eroding of his moral standards towards player discipline began in the last decade. It was there in the 1980s with several major incidents that were pushed under the rug in what still was a secret society in State College. Your point about info leaking out more easily really took hold in the 1990s as the Internet expanded and the crowd of media got larger. He didn't know who half those people were anymore. He jumped all over a young female reporter from the Baltimore paper at some point in the 1990s and I remember being disappointed, thinking Joe was better than that.