se-alum wrote:You're really comparing basketball to cancer?

No. I was being somewhat facetious with that comment. I do take basketball very seriously, but obviously life does go on..

Well we know reclegend considers sports more important than raping children, so cancer is far from a stretch.

2kool4skool wrote:Well we know reclegend considers sports more important than raping children, so cancer is far from a stretch.

What's the big deal? Am I coming back next year?

In all seriousness, while what allegedly happened to the children at Penn State is horrifying and certainly more important than anything that could ever happen on a field, I am a firm believer in the entitlement that citizens hold to have their side of the story fairly heard before they are publicly hanged by a sensationalist media that thrives on tragedy and a university scrambling to save face for its incredible ineptitude. Joe Paterno was never given that right of due process in the court of public opinion, and that is eventually why he was let go by the university. People enjoy tearing down heroes far too much for that to have happened. And Joe Paterno -- the coach, the leader, the humanitarian -- is as heroic a sports figure as this nation has or ever will see.

So, if it makes me a terrible person that I didn't join in with the hoards of the posters here who were calling for the sodomy of JoePa just hours after the story broke, without even bothering to wait to hear Joe Paterno defend himself, then I guess I am a terrible person.

reclegend22;1001631 wrote:


What's the big deal? Am I coming back next year?

In all seriousness, while what allegedly happened to the children at Penn State is horrifying and certainly more important than anything that could ever happen on a field, I am a firm believer in the entitlement that citizens hold to have their side of the story fairly heard before they are publicly hanged by a sensationalist media that thrives on tragedy and a university scrambling to save face for its incredible ineptitude. Joe Paterno was never given that right of due process in the court of public opinion, and that is eventually why he was let go by the university. People enjoy tearing down heroes far too much for that to have happened. And Joe Paterno -- the coach, the leader, the humanitarian -- is as heroic a sports figure as this nation has or ever will see.

So, if it makes me a terrible person that I didn't join in with the hoards of the posters here who were calling for the sodomy of JoePa just hours after the story broke, without even bothering to wait to hear Joe Paterno defend himself, then I guess I am a terrible person.

You have that right, as well as the person being called out (Paterno). The problem I have with defending him, and it stems from being in the media, is that these storys arent leaked by rumor. Journalists do their homework. When shit like this comes over the wire and hits the news outlets....its usually correct. Even the small stuff such as "Paterno was notified". Again, Im in the media so I have a bias and think they get a bad rap for outing people because I think 99% of the time they have done the necessary work to find the facts. No journalist is going public with this without a minimal of 3 sources confirming the SAME stuff that the TRUST 100%.

I also get angered because people rail on the media, but without the media how many awful things by people go unreported??? Does Sandusky ever get outed???

Laley23 wrote:You have that right, as well as the person being called out (Paterno). The problem I have with defending him, and it stems from being in the media, is that these storys arent leaked by rumor. Journalists do their homework. When **** like this comes over the wire and hits the news outlets....its usually correct. Even the small stuff such as "Paterno was notified". Again, Im in the media so I have a bias and think they get a bad rap for outing people because I think 99% of the time they have done the necessary work to find the facts. No journalist is going public with this without a minimal of 3 sources confirming the SAME stuff that the TRUST 100%.

I also get angered because people rail on the media, but without the media how many awful things by people go unreported??? Does Sandusky ever get outed???

Having graduated from BGSU's school of journalism and reporting for its school magazine (although I never went into journalism), I fully get where you are coming from and you should defend it.

I just want to hear Joe Paterno have his chance to sit down at length and discuss what he was in fact told by the PSU administrators regarding their investigation into the report Paterno gave them about Mike McQueary's story before I make my final judgement. For all we know, and from the little we have heard from Paterno and his family on the matter, those PSU administrators relayed to Paterno that they had thoroughly looked into the case and that the proper authorities had been notified. Why would Paterno have any reason to not believe that was the truth? And why would Paterno, if under the impression that the proper authorities had determined the incident was not be what it seemed (remember, the version McQueary gave Paterno was much different than the one McQUeary gave the GJ, so McQueary's story was kind of blurred anyhow), feel the need to do anything more? He would have thought it had been resolved.

And besides, the guy was in his late '70s at the time, and, as Coach K said on the matter a few weeks back, people of Paterno's generation come from a much different time and tend to deal with different social issues very differently from the rest of us. There's a lot to be said of that, I think.

I just think Paterno was unfairly tossed under the proverbial bus before he was even given a chance to really be heard. That's my main contention here.

Laley23 wrote:You have that right, as well as the person being called out (Paterno). The problem I have with defending him, and it stems from being in the media, is that these storys arent leaked by rumor. Journalists do their homework. When **** like this comes over the wire and hits the news outlets....its usually correct. Even the small stuff such as "Paterno was notified". Again, Im in the media so I have a bias and think they get a bad rap for outing people because I think 99% of the time they have done the necessary work to find the facts. No journalist is going public with this without a minimal of 3 sources confirming the SAME stuff that the TRUST 100%.

I also get angered because people rail on the media, but without the media how many awful things by people go unreported??? Does Sandusky ever get outed???

Having graduated from BGSU's school of journalism and reporting for its school magazine (although I never went into journalism), I fully get where you are coming from and you should defend it.

I just want to hear Joe Paterno have his chance to sit down at length and discuss what he was in fact told by the PSU administrators regarding their investigation into the report Paterno gave them about Mike McQueary's story before I make my final judgement. For all we know, and from the little we have heard from Paterno and his family on the matter, those PSU administrators relayed to Paterno that they had thoroughly looked into the case and that the proper authorities had been notified. Why would Paterno have any reason to not believe that was the truth? And why would Paterno, if under the impression that the proper authorities had determined the incident was not actually what it seemed (remember, the version McQueary gave Paterno was much different than the one McQUeary gave the GJ, so McQueary's story was kind of blurred anyhow), then feel the need to do anything more? He would have thought it had been resolved.

And besides, the guy was in his late '70s at the time, and, as Coach K said on the matter a few weeks back, people of Paterno's generation come from a much different time and tend to deal with different social issues very differently from the rest of us. There's a lot to be said of that, I think.

I just think Paterno was unfairly tossed under the proverbial bus before he was even given a chance to really be heard. That's my main contention here.

In the end, maybe we will find out that I am wrong in my defense and that Paterno did in fact know of a coverup. I am just hoping, out of the tremendous respect and adulation I have for Paterno and what he has done over his lifetime and 60 years in the game, that's not the case.

Cleveland Buck;998594 wrote:

Still think he was vertical, dumbass? Watch the video you posted.

Outstanding.

Having been fortunate enough to survive a cancer that routinely kills 80 plus percent of people within two years, I no longer take ANY loss in sports seriously at all. It may make my mood drop a bit for a couple hours, but I'm over it in no time -- whereas when I was growing up and the Browns lost a game, it would put me in a down mood for half the next week. Of course, those Browns teams didn't lose that often, so I was usually a pretty happy guy.

Laley: I'm the biggest media critic on this site (at least where politics is concerned) and also worked in the profession for a number of years, and NOBODY has more respect for the media than I do -- when they do their jobs properly.

On a case like this, I've not seen a rush to judgment by the media, for the most part. Everything has been pretty well documented, a lot of it with the grand jury report.

I honestly don't know what Joe Paterno could tell me that would make me change my mind on his culpability in this matter. He clearly knew about Sandusky for years without doing more than the very minimal effort to stop what was happening. His own words tell us that.

Plus, he's already changed his statements twice on this when the first thing he said pretty much blew up on him (his "he fooled me" statement).

Paterno is a very smart man. Period. You can't be anything but smart to accomplish all that he has. That's why the ignorance defense doesn't fly here -- especially when in his own words he admits to having been told something "sexual" had happened in the showers between Sandusky and a boy.

The media has actually been pretty soft on Paterno since he's been let go. They could easily have kept following up on that angle (what did he really know) and continued to batter him publicly.

I don't believe we've heard the last of this, though. If this goes to trial (doubtful in the end), it will get dredged up again.

Back on topic: I hope Sullinger is back at full strength for Kansas. That may be the Buckeyes' first loss, even if he's healthy; tough, tough place to win.

^^any update?

Writerbuckeye;1002818 wrote:Back on topic: I hope Sullinger is back at full strength for Kansas. That may be the Buckeyes' first loss, even if he's healthy; tough, tough place to win.

Completely agree. Kansas isn't the Kansas of the past few years. But they are still certainly capable. ANd this being OSU first road game, a loss wouldn't surprise me at all. I wished they had scheduled a road game prior to this. The frosh will have a rude awakening in this game.

Vball, not sure we wil get any updates until Weds. Matta said they would re-evaluate Sullinger on Monday(today) or Tuesday. Based on Matta comments from the MRI, was not overly concerned this would be something that lingers on the season. Didn't sound like there were any serious damage. Just an inflamed disk, which can cause the spasms. Rest and rehab.

Saw Matta said sully worked in the pool today and told Matta he feels better.

Lots of us have lived with back spasms for years -- but then again we don't play college basketball, either. The important thing is that there's no risk for the kind of damage that could sideline him for a year. If they can get the inflammation down, and strengthen the muscles in that area of his back, it will help make him more comfortable and less likely to experience those symptoms in the future.

buckeyes by 10+

Back spasms only keep you out of meaningless games.

se-alum;1004322 wrote:Back spasms only keep you out of meaningless games.

I'm guessing you've never had them.

Sullinger tweeted a short time ago that he was taking finals and still having back spasms. I'm gonna guess he sits out the game Saturday as a precaution...whether he wants to play or not.

Writerbuckeye;1004461 wrote:I'm guessing you've never had them.

Sullinger tweeted a short time ago that he was taking finals and still having back spasms. I'm gonna guess he sits out the game Saturday as a precaution...whether he wants to play or not.

I'm guessing you're a self-proclaimed expert on them, just like everything else. Playing sports all through high school, I knew alot of people diagnosed with "back spasms", and it never kept anyone from playing in a game they needed to play in. Occasionally it would flare up, and they'd sit out for a few, but it's not agonizing, debilitating pain. He may sit out, but if this game was in March, he'd be playing.

If they were just plain old muscle spasms I'd agree. He has a bulging disc that is contributing to this. That's a whole different animal, and the doctors have to be careful not to put him in a position where it becomes herniated.

On this issue, yes I do have some knowledge. I wish I didn't because it would mean I didn't have to manage pain every day of my life.

Writerbuckeye;1004724 wrote:I wish I didn't because it would mean I didn't have to manage pain every day of my life.

Writerbuckeye;1004724 wrote:If they were just plain old muscle spasms I'd agree. He has a bulging disc that is contributing to this. That's a whole different animal, and the doctors have to be careful not to put him in a position where it becomes herniated.

On this issue, yes I do have some knowledge. I wish I didn't because it would mean I didn't have to manage pain every day of my life.

The good news for Ohio State and for Sullinger is that Thad Matta also has a lot of knowledge as he has dealt with severe back problems himself.

se-alum;1004692 wrote:I'm guessing you're a self-proclaimed expert on them, just like everything else. Playing sports all through high school, I knew alot of people diagnosed with "back spasms", and it never kept anyone from playing in a game they needed to play in. Occasionally it would flare up, and they'd sit out for a few, but it's not agonizing, debilitating pain. He may sit out, but if this game was in March, he'd be playing.

No offense, but I have dealt with spams that basically crippled me while I had them. Back issues are not fun at all. Have dealt with them my entire life. Spasms are very painful.

You won't need Sullinger, Bucks will still win..it's just the dfiference between T-Rob going for 30 and 10 vs 15 and 10

centralbucksfan;1005238 wrote:No offense, but I have dealt with spams that basically crippled me while I had them. Back issues are not fun at all. Have dealt with them my entire life. Spasms are very painful.

I hate spams. I wish my ISP would filter them better.

SportsAndLady;1005253 wrote:You won't need Sullinger, Bucks will still win..it's just the dfiference between T-Rob going for 30 and 10 vs 15 and 10

You obviously didn't watch OSU play without Sullinger last Sat. I am sure part of that was a Duke hangover. But it wasn't pretty. If Sully doesn't play, I think Kansas wins. Even if Sully plays, I think it will be a good/close game. First road game, Kansas isnt' as bad as you make them out to be, and a big game in Allen will have that place rocking.