Thursday, June 5, 2008
Let Joe Paterno Coach
As I've written before, I live in the periphery of Penn State country. As an Ohio State alum myself, I enjoy the ad hoc rivalry I therefore have with a lot of my friends and coworkers.
But as much as I may disdain Penn State for that rivalry, I find it impossible not to admire Joe Paterno. He's 81, but physically looks 60 and is as mentally together as you or I. That we might be that together at that age, but the vast majority of us will not be.
Penn State isn't quite the powerhouse they were in the '80s, but they're not nothing, either. JoePa's team has slightly outpaced their peers in the Big Ten in the last four years to the tune of 18-14, with a Big Ten title in that span. If PSU is not as good as they were 20 years ago, I don't think it's quite as simple as "the game has passed this doddering old man by." Clearly, it hasn't.
So I'm a little puzzled by the sudden media wave to push him out the door. Oddly, I'm not seeing the same level of media uprising against Bobby Bowden, who is just three years younger than Paterno and has the exact same 18-14 conference record in the last four years. FSU's fall from powerhouse status is also a lot more recent.
Paterno has basically indicated he will continue coaching as long as Penn State will allow him to and as long as he is physically and mentally able, and I admire that attitude. The "he's hanging on and it's time let go" stance against him might be appropriate if he has not been competitive, but again, only Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin have a better Big Ten record in the last four years. And then, that 2005 Big Ten title. He clearly can still coach.
The most odious of these retirement calls comes from Sports Illustrated's Peter King (last page). First of all, I do not understand for the life of me why King is given the latitude to write about whatever he wants. He, of course, it the main man of the SI's NFL coverage, pumping out at least two columns a week even during the offseason.
I have few complaints about his NFL coverage. He comes up with a lot of interesting insider tidbits, even if he is self-indulgent in his ingratiating references to his elite access status. ("So last week, Ronde Barber invited me to his favorite Japanese restaurant. He wanted to privately share with me his uncensored feelings on the state of the Buccaneers..." is his typical lead.)
So as a reporter, he's fine. As an NFL opinion columnist, he's average. But who at SI finds his prose so precious as to grant him carte blanche to write his trite, inane "Aggravating/Enjoyable Travel Note of the Week," and "Coffeenerdness," running items, and musings on his daughter's lacrosse team, week after painful, bloody week?
The thing is, these non-NFL thoughts are never insightful and never artistically expressed. They are boring thoughts boringly expressed. I give Bill Simmons more stick than anyone, but I at least recognize that he is capable of being funny and has a signature style.
So I guess this why I find King's recent Paterno-must-step-down comments downright offensive.
Besides pointing out the obvious, that Paterno isn't as sprightly as he was 30 years ago, and that sprightliness would help on the recruiting trail, King offers nothing to indicate why he thinks it would be in Penn State's best interest to step down. It's worth mentioning that Paterno is still more energetic and vital than King is, and if you think that's a cheap shot, consider what King wrote about Paterno:
"[C]an't one of his friends tell him he's being selfish in not stepping aside to allow a younger man to coach the team? At the very least, Paterno should announce that this will be his last year — or confide this to the university president. Every coach should always do what's in the best interests of his team."
Again, it's just a given that it's in the best interest of the team for Paterno to step down, and even his "friends" know it. No evidence offered (and as I've tried to illustrate, the evidence is actually to the contrary unless you insist upon '80s era Penn State). But it gets better (in response to Paterno saying "I want to be a part" of this team):
"That's just it. I want to be a part of it. Of course he does. But what he should be thinking is the team would be better off without me, and with a younger, more energetic person who can recruit, coach, and lead the way I used to. There's no shame in admitting that at 81 you're not as good as you were at 51. The shame is not being able to walk away, and making it about you.
Now, all those who are outraged by criticism of Paterno should ask yourselves these questions: is it about Paterno wanting to coach, even if it might not be best for the team, or is it about the team?"
Dang, he's got us Paterno defenders there. Wait, no he doesn't. It is about the team. It is not automatic that Greg Schiano or anyone else would do better now, in two years, or in five years than Paterno would, and (have I mentioned this?) the Lions have been winning under Paterno.
So King is attacking Paterno's integrity and calling him selfish, and that's the worst part of this. That's just the sort of accusation that you want to be able to back up pretty convincingly given Paterno's well-earned reverential status with allies and foes alike. For him not to offer any demonstrates that, besides being a boring hack, King doesn't have a lot of character, something Paterno has in spades.