3 comments Barry Larkin Makes No Sense & Peter King Ties Up Loose Ends

Terence Moore wrote an article for MLB.com about how Chipper Jones should not retire from baseball after this season and has the talent to play one or more seasons, whether it be for the Braves or another major league team. He seems to be ignoring the fact Chipper Jones can barely run down the first base line and tends to take a day off if he plays more than two games row. That's not the story I want to focus on. The story I want to focus on is Moore asked Barry Larkin for his opinion on Jones' retirement and whether he truly believes Chipper will retire. In giving his opinion, Barry Larkin delivered a money-quote about Chipper being injury-prone as only an ESPN analyst could deliver.

According to Barry Larkin, who knows a little something about Cooperstown ... not so fast -- not when it comes to Jones and the Hall of Fame, but in regards to that retirement thing.

Nearly every MLB player retires, either voluntarily or non-voluntarily, so Terence Moore could ask nearly any ex-MLB player about retirement and the want to play more baseball after you have retired and gotten a decent answer. It does make sense to ask a player who retired on his own terms, but there are non-Hall of Fame players who could have fielded this question. Fortunately for us, he chose to ask Barry Larkin.

"All I know is, the man can still swing the bat," said Larkin, over the phone, before emphasizing that he hasn't huddled with Jones about whether or not Jones is contemplating pulling a Favre.

Well then I am glad you asked Barry Larkin his opinion on this subject since he knows nothing about Chipper's intentions. I wonder what this stray black cat thinks about Chipper Jones and whether he should retire (asks stray black cat what Chipper should do after this season, followed by the stray black cat responded with irritated-sounding noises).

Apparently this stray black cat believes Chipper Jones is still a good hitter, but wants to emphasize he isn't sure what decision Chipper will make and at this point he only knows Chipper plans to retire. So this stray black cat knows what Barry Larkin knows.

"You know, I don't know where he is [in his thought process], because I haven't spoken to Chipper at all, but if he would consider being a DH in the AL, he could help somebody very well with that bat," said Larkin, now a baseball analyst on ESPN.

If only we could ask Chipper Jones if he would consider being a DH or if he plans to retire after this season to end the speculation, but I guess we can't do that. Wait, here's a quote in this very article from Chipper Jones!

"I have no desire to go to the American League to be a designated hitter," Jones said, with one of his crooked smiles. "I always said that I wasn't going to stick around just to attain numbers. Even though I've been in reach of 500 homers and 3,000 hits, my legacy has already been written, you now, regardless of what I do now."

I think that's our answer. Regardless, Barry Larkin wants us to know there is one condition where he thinks Chipper could continue to play after this year and be less injury-prone. Here is that way Chipper could be less injury-prone...

"I think he would be less injury prone if he didn't have to go out there defensively and didn't have to hit or run the bases.

Let's read that quote one more time.

"I think he would be less injury prone if he didn't have to go out there defensively and didn't have to hit or run the bases.

So if Chipper didn't have to play defense and hit the baseball or run the bases, then Chipper could be less injury-prone. So as long as Chipper plays a sport that in no way resembles the sport of baseball, he could be less injury-prone.

I'd love to hear Barry Larkin of ESPN's ideas about how Chipper can find a roster spot on a baseball team that doesn't require hitting and/or having to run the bases. Perhaps MLB can pass a new rule saying Chipper can have a designated runner every time he comes up to bat. Maybe MLB can change the entire rules of baseball around and not require players to run the bases. I don't know. Even if Chipper were to be a DH he would have to hit the baseball (which isn't an issue) and/or run the bases. There's really no getting around this.

So good luck Chipper. Use this brilliant analysis from Barry Larkin on how to be less injury-prone and factor it into your decision-making. Perhaps you can find your way onto a team's roster and bat without having to run the bases. Because from my recollection of baseball, and unless they have changed the game since 10pm last night, all hitters are required to run the bases and/or hit the baseball when they come up to bat. Does ESPN know how to hire people who have a way with words or what?

-I didn't feel up to doing a full MMQB last week, so I will do a shorter version with some of my favorite Peter King comments. I'm planning on doing a full version of this week's MMQB, which should be posted soon. It seems Peter is tying up some loose ends, as well as transcribing a loooooooooooong Paul Brown speech that takes up 25% of MMQB. Not that it matters. It's a good speech, but it is one of two parts where this MMQB gets turned over to someone else to write. This seems to becoming a trend in MMQB. Peter seems to be inserting someone else's writing into MMQB for us to read.

The highlight, at least for me, is a 39-year-old pre-training-camp speech by one of the greatest coaches of all time: Paul Brown, speaking to his 1973 Cincinnati Bengals. This is sort of a risky thing here, running much of a coach's pre-camp talk to his team.

What's so risky about transcribing an entire looooooooooooooong speech from 1973 in a weekly column that is supposed to contain NFL tidbits and information fans want to know? It's not like Peter could have Tweeted the speech out to his 887,000 followers.

(And yes, I realize from some of the feedback in his mailbag and on Twitter it seemed quite a few people loved the speech. I never said I had my pulse on what people like. It didn't hurt my feelings he included the speech. I enjoyed parts of it. It felt out of place to me, like an intentional space-filler. I think the speech deserved its own column and reaction from Peter King. I just felt like he included it to make MMQB longer when he could have easily Tweeted the link out or written an entire other column on it. I feel he included it in MMQB in order to say he writes a lot in MMQB on a weekly basis. Sometimes on Twitter when someone criticizes MMQB he will respond with something like "7000 words isn't enough for you?" or another reference to the length of MMQB. So I feel like he is sensitive to making MMQB as long as possible, which probably isn't the best way to go about writing it. It's fine to have a shorter MMQB, it really is, especially before the training camp tour starts.)

4. Hines Ward is "devastated." He should be, and of course we all are, after the horrific shootings at the midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises movie Friday in suburban Denver, where 70 people were shot by a gunman dressed as the Joker. In Ward's first movie role, he returns a kickoff in the movie at an incendiary Heinz Field in Pittsburgh.

I don't want to hear from Hines Ward anymore, even when it comes to him commenting on tragedies. Just retire and go home. I have a list of retired NFL players who I don't care to hear about in Peter King's MMQB from now on. It looks like this right now:

1. Brett Favre
2. Hines Ward
3. Tiki Barber
4. Backup QB Jets (He's retired in my mind)

Nothing against these guys, but I heard enough of/about them when they played in the NFL. I also like how Peter says it is Wards "first movie role," which pretty much guarantees his stint on "Dancing with the Stars" was only the beginning of his post-NFL assault on the world to become relevant in some other entertainment field outside of football. Next thing we know Hines Ward is starring as the wacky side-kick in a romantic comedy that stars Kate Hudson and it is going to all be Peter King's fault for encouraging Ward to act.

Peter then brings up a really good point about NFL players whining about Commissioner Goodell's complete control over punishments and the appeals process.

Let's say the NFL at some point said to the players, You want to change the appeals process so much, fine. But we want two percent more of the shared gross revenue. Midway through the labor deal, one percent will probably be about $150 million. Do players want neutral appeals so much that they'd have authorized surrendering something like $300 million? And there's no guarantee the league would have ever proposed that anyway; it's just a hypothetical advanced by me. My point is, I don't think players would have pushed for a neutral appeals process if it would have cost them a lot of money.

No way the players give up anything like $300 million to have some say over the appeals. It would be nice to check Roger Goodell's power in some fashion, but the only way this was going to happen is through negotiating and the players would have had to leave some money on the table if the owners were going to make a concession for Goodell to not have complete control over punishment and appeals. I don't think the players would make this concession. The lockout was about money, so I have no doubt the players would have given the power to Goodell rather than give up money.

Then Peter transcribes the Paul Brown speech which I will mostly skip over because I have no respect for the history of the NFL and I am nothing but a young, snarky asshole.

Though I do enjoy his "don't smoke" portion of the speech which led to him saying this:

As for smoking, I ask you not to do it for your own good. I know it's a difficult thing to stop. I've never smoked and I don't know like probably some of you know it, but I'd suggest you give it a try. People are dying of this thing. All of a sudden when you've got to have part of your lung removed or something of that sort, you'll give yourself a little talk.

If you have your lung removed then you may only be able to give yourself a little talk since you possibly won't be able to speak to anyone else without one of your lungs. I don't even think someone could even play NFL football in 2012 and smoke cigarettes regularly. Maybe a kicker could do this.

I smoked off-and-on for 10 years (and yes, I started smoking off-and-on in my early teens. The "off" portion was because I couldn't get my hands on cigarettes, which apparently is really easy to do for everyone but me when I was in my early teens) and there is no other substance I have ever used that is more addictive than cigarettes. I still want one every other day or so, except I don't really "want" one, but I crave one. I went to a graduate school that didn't sell alcohol in the city limits but sold cigarettes at every possible destination in the city. This blows my mind. Marijuana and beer are in no way more addictive than cigarettes are (at least to me), yet cigarettes were sold in the city limits while beer wasn't. Wouldn't want anyone to drink demon beer, but who gives a flying fuck if you die of lung cancer, after all the local economy relies on your money. My point? I have none. That's your "The More You Know" segment for today.

"You'll be all getting into homes or apartments to rent. Live with some class, especially if you're a single guy. If you're one of these love-nest people, it eventually comes back to me too. Live with some class. When we leave here and go back to Cincinnati and you may have made the team, get your wife and children there. Probably the worst kind are the kind that give speeches about their wife and their family and how wonderful they are. When you find out they've really got a girlfriend on the side, what a letdown.

Translation: Don't get married if you play in the NFL.

Last fall, I was critical of the Penn State administration for firing Joe Paterno over the phone, during the crazy week when the board of trustees decided to dump the coach. I thought it was classless, given what Paterno had meant to the university and the football program.

Now, obviously, things have changed. I've thought for years that the Penn State football program, to Joe Paterno, had gotten to be more about Joe than it was about the players. There's no way Paterno was energetic and vital enough in his 80s to coach a Big Ten football team as well as a younger man, yet for years no one could oust him from the job. It was Paterno running the school, doing what he wanted, staying as long as he wanted, and it set the stage for other bad things to happen. Other very bad things.

Here's the issue with Peter's explanation for why he has changed his mind since last November about whether firing Paterno over the phone was classless or not. Every single one of these things Peter describes in the paragraph above he already knew in November 2011 before Penn State fired Paterno by phone. Peter knew the program was more about Paterno. Peter knew Paterno was in his 80's and wasn't coaching the team. Peter knew Paterno couldn't be ousted from his job. Peter knew absolute control can set the stage for bad things to happen.

What Peter claims he "thought for years" doesn't exactly jive with him also believing firing Paterno over the phone was classless. If he really had these thoughts for years, upon the revelation of Sandusky's actions Peter would see firing Paterno was the right call because (as Peter himself said),

"It was Paterno running the school, doing what he wanted, staying as long as he wanted, and it set the stage for other bad things to happen."

Obviously Peter had no clue the extent of the bad things that could happen. Nobody knew that, outside of Penn State's administration. So to explain how he has changed his mind using facts that were present and known as true in November 2011, when Peter stated firing Paterno by phone was classless, rings hollow to me. Peter makes a better statement in the paragraph below, but the circumstances in the paragraph above were still present when Peter said firing Paterno was classless. If Peter really believed over the last few years that Paterno had set up an environment where bad things could happen I would think Peter would have understood in November 2011 why Penn State fired Paterno over the phone.

For those reasons, particularly now that the second one is out in the open, it's clear to me the university didn't owe Paterno anything at the end -- other than to take down the statue that would have been a constant reminder of the stain caused by looking the other way while young boys were sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky.

This does not ring hollow and this is all Peter had to write.

Then Peter has a Penn State student wrote something about the situation. This seems to becoming a trend. Peter employing the use of guest writers to kill space in MMQB. I'll skip this part.

"First of all, the money was too good. The money was too good, and I hate to say it's about money. But, you know, I felt the money was a lot."

-- Brett Favre, in an interview with Deion Sanders of NFL Network, on coming out of retirement to play in 2010 for Minnesota.

Seriously, Peter. No one gives a shit about Brett Favre anymore...even when he admits what everyone who didn't work in the media already knew, that Favre didn't come back to play for the Vikings because he loved the game and wanted to play it like a little kid for another year (or two), but it was all about the money. No matter how much ESPN and other sports media members wanted to paint Favre as unable to step away from the game of football, it's always been about the money or revenge for Brett Favre. Maybe in the year 2020, every sports media member will realize this. Favre wants to get paid a lot of money and get revenge on the Packers for having the audacity to move on without him.

In line, a man approached me and said he liked my work and was glad to meet me. We small-talked about his Ravens for a minute until a taxi-boat driver approached. "Want a ride to your hotel? Where are you staying?'' he asked.

"The Westin,'' my new acquaintance said.

"So are we,'' I said. "Want to share it?''

So this story goes on and ends this way...

Now that's weird. Same train. Same hotel, for the same number of nights. Same end site for vacation halfway across the world in a place that I'm certain only two parties in Venice would be going to as the end of their vacations.

Oh sure, when it is two middle-aged couples that have the same traveling schedule and destinations it is cute and fun, but when it is a 20-something guy who has the same traveling schedule and destination as a 20-something girl she thinks "something doesn't feel right," so the police call it "stalking" and want to "bring you in for questioning."

3.Being the PA announcer at Fenway Park for a game. A month ago, my buddy with the Red Sox, Corey Bowdre, texted out of the blue, "Would you be interested in doing the PA at one of our games in July?'' Come on, now. Seriously? I believe I set the American record for quickest response to a text. "I'm in."

"My only other question is who has ever heard of this Will Middlebrooks character? I'm a huge Red Sox fan and haven't ever heard of him."

I did only one affectation. Introducing the White Sox lineup before the game, I came to the second batter and said, "Batting second, the third baseman, number 20, Kevin YOOOOOOO-kilis.'' Just had to.

Well, you actually didn't have to.

1. I think --

You only think?

no, I know --

That's better.

c. The Jets used seven or more defensive backs on 11 percent of pass plays, far more than any other team. In fact, only one other defense used seven or more defensive backs on more than 1.5 percent of pass plays -- Dallas. Rex and Rob Ryan sure think alike.

Rob Ryan: Defensive genius for those who don't actually like defensive coordinators to be actual defensive geniuses.

9. I think I'll miss most of the Olympics, hopping from city to city over the next month.

If only there were ways to view these Olympics and keep up with the events while traveling from city to city. If only they made phones that could provide this information.

If you think the fact he hasn't seen any of the Olympics will stop Peter from commenting on events that happen at the Olympics then you don't know Peter King. He will probably DVR the Olympics and comment on them sometime in mid-October, much like he does by discussing episodes of television shows that were shown two months ago.

e. I'll be running another half marathon in the fall. Details to come soon.

I definitely want the deets ASAP. Also, please update me on your next colonoscopy and when you plan on purchasing a new mattress. Hopefully these two events won't be related to each other.

h. I find myself as a Sox follower not being angry with Lester, but rather pitying him. He doesn't want to be this horrible.

Is this as opposed to players who are struggling and want to be this horrible? Are there players who are struggling and want to be horrible? Would Peter by chance believe John Lackey and Carl Crawford fit into this non-existent category?

j. I don't know how I missed The Descendants when it was out a year ago. But that's one great movie. Not a good movie. A great one, a great slice of real American life.

Again, we will be getting commentary on the Olympics in mid-October.

"Saw Tom Hanks in a film called 'Big' the other night. I think that kid is going to go on to have some great performances over his movie career."

n. Good to be back. Looking forward to hitting the road.

By "the road" I'm guessing Peter means "Brett Favre's ass when I make an unscheduled and all-too-brief stop in Mississippi to sit on Favre's porch."

Brett Favre-Peter King jokes never (always) get (feel) old, do (don't) they?

3 comments Without Statues, How Will We Discuss Important Social Issues?

Jeff Pearlman recently wrote a column for CNN about why Penn State should keep the Joe Paterno statue. I generally enjoy Pearlman's writing. I have read three of Jeff Pearlman's books and have enjoyed all of them. What I find interesting about Pearlman, and I've noticed this following him on Twitter, is that he comes off as a very self-conscious writer. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. It could just be me, but I feel like he demonstrates he cares what people write or say about him, which can't be said for many other writers who tend (pretend) to shake off criticism easily. Some people probably find this endearing in some fashion and others find it annoying, while I find it somewhat interesting because few writers will openly admit criticism has hurt him/her in some way.

So Jeff Pearlman thinks Penn State should keep the Joe Paterno statue in order for society to have a way of discussing child molestation. To tear down the statue, says Pearlman, would be to sweep the Paterno-Sandusky story under the rug. I don't think statues have very much to do at all with whether we continue to discuss child molestation in a public fashion. This Joe Paterno-Sandusky-Penn State saga is going to be widely discussed even if they tear down the entire university. That's just how it is, so whether the statue gets removed or not seems irrelevant to furthering the discussion on child molestation.

Over the past couple of days, I've listened with mounting frustration as people debate whether Penn State University should remove from its campus the 900-pound bronze statue of Joe Paterno, its once-legendary football coach.

I don't think the Joe Paterno statue looks that much like Paterno. The glasses look pretty accurate, but otherwise it looks way too much like my grandfather for my tastes...and he didn't look anything like Joe Paterno. My point is that this is a statue meant to honor Joe Paterno and may not serve a purpose to society outside of this.

It's as if, to the folks who demand action, taking away a metal JoePa would serve as another blow to the real JoePa; one last spear in the heart of the fallen hero

The folks who demand action aren't trying to serve another blow to Joe Paterno, they want to remove a monument to Paterno that stands on the campus. A statue at a university has unspoken meaning to people. It says, "This person is important, served this university well, and he/she should be honored for their contributions to the university." So those demanding action don't want to serve as a blow to JoePa, they just don't want to continue viewing a monument that seems to celebrate him and his legacy. His silence towards child molestation is now a part of his legacy that some people do not want celebrated.

Sadly, it just doesn't work that way.

It very well could work that way if Penn State decides to take the statue down.

As much as I have come to abhor Joe Paterno's indifference and arrogance and self-serving loyalty (to himself and his image and his stupid little football program), I fail to see how digging out a statue does anything but conflict with (what should be) one of the most important elements of higher education:

Not honoring people with statues when this person has a hand in allowing the molestation of multiple children over a multi-year span?

Open and honest and intelligent dialogue.

The Joe Paterno statue doesn't have anything to do with the open and honest and intelligent dialogue about child molestation. This dialogue can start and continue with or without the Joe Paterno statue. The statue serves as a reminder of the greatness of Joe Paterno, and it is not a symbol that allows open dialogue to continue. If Penn State tore down the Paterno statue the world wouldn't immediately forget about child molestation and the dialogue would continue and even continue to prosper. The statue is a symbol, not a dialogue-starter.

Were I in command of this decision, not only would I make certain the statue stays, I'd surround it with flood lights and fireworks and hire Flavor Flav to hype its very presence. "Come one, come all! Camp out! Bring classmates! Observe the bronze Joe Paterno! Debate away!"

Using the idea that a statue, or a symbol such as a statue, is the best way to start and further a discussion on important social issues, wouldn't it make sense to build a statue of other people who have perpetuated atrocities throughout time? We want to talk about prejudice and the horrors of genocide? Let's build a statue of Adolf Hitler in Washington, D.C.! We want to talk about child molestation? Then build a statue of Jerry Sandusky and have nightly discussions around it. It sounds absurd, because it is absurd.

My point is these discussions can happen without a statue. That's why the idea of removing the Joe Paterno statue would in some way also inhibit the child molestation discussion seems ridiculous to me.

Truth be told, the last thing we (and Penn State) should be doing right now is trying to hide and forget what happened.

This is not the point of removing the statue. The point of removing the statue is to no longer honor Joe Paterno with a statue that stands for the greatness of Joe Paterno. That is what intrinsic meaning statues have and it doesn't stand for mistakes that Joe Paterno has made. When you see a statue of Ty Cobb, you know it is there to celebrate his career as a baseball player and the benefits of playing at a time when he didn't have to face Negro League pitchers (ok, I added that last part). That statue intrinsically doesn't make a representation about Cobb's personal life and what a huge asshole he seemed to be. The same thing goes for a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. When we see a statue of him it is for the Civil Rights Movement and his fight against racial discrimination, it doesn't also serve as a reminder that even the greatest men and leaders are prone to adultery.

You get my point. A statue is there to honor, not create a discussion. The discussion will happen without the statue.

Bronze Joe Paterno needs to remain, because we need to talk about this. We need to discuss ways to stop child abuse. We need to discuss the courage it takes to step forward, especially when it's significantly easier to remain silent.

Then we can discuss it. No statue is needed for this discussion. I'm also not sure how much we need to discuss child molestation. Child molestation is wrong and right-minded people should do anything and everything in their power to stop or prevent it from happening. I guess the how and specific ways to stop child abuse are important, but the legacy of what happens when people keep their mouth shut is a lesson learned from the Sandusky saga and is not taught by the presence of the Joe Paterno statute. His statue reminds us he was a successful football coach.

Mostly, we need to discuss statues themselves -- and what they reflect.

It reflects Joe Paterno made Penn State a lot of money by winning football games and they built a statue as a thank you for making the football team so successful.

The reason Jerry Sandusky was able to perpetrate his evil is because at Penn State (as at hundreds of other Division I schools across America) sports have exceeded academics in importance.

While this statement is true, the reason Jerry Sandusky was able to perpetuate his evil is because Penn State coaches and administration valued the football team over the lives of innocent children. This situation didn't have much to do with academics. It had to do with Penn State protecting their football program and Paterno's legacy. Jeff Pearlman seems upset sports have exceeded academics in importance, so I would think the tearing down of Paterno's statue would be something he would favor. The tearing down the statue would show the importance of social responsibility over the importance of academics at Penn State.

The athletic programs are responsible for large dollars; for large enrollments; for national attention; for eternal glory. They are not to be stopped or interfered with or questioned.

Again, while this is true, this isn't a case of sports exceeding the value of academics in the eyes of the Penn State administration. It's about the football program exceeding the value of children's lives in the eyes of the Penn State administration.

Joe Paterno has a statue for the same reason Auburn University built one for former quarterback Cam Newton (a non-graduate who attended the school for one year) -- because football (literally, the launching of a synthetic oval contraption through the air) exceeds all else.

In terms of making money, it probably does. This is sad, but true.

Why, in 2007, five Penn State scientists (Richard Alley, William Easterling, Klaus Keller, Michael Mann, Anne Thompson) shared the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change issues. None of them have statues (rest assured, had any committed Sandusky-like acts, they would have been turned over to the authorities in minutes). None of them will have statues. Ever.

What if Penn State tore down the Joe Paterno statue and built a statue for these five Nobel Peace Prize-winning scientists? Problem solved.

Bronze Joe Paterno needs to stay because, deep within his metallic eyeballs, there is a story to be told.

Does that story happen to be a story about how he coached for a long time and won a lot of football games? If so, that's the story the statue is telling me too.

Years and years from now, when most of us are gone and this scandal is merely a blip in history, he will hopefully serve as the essential reminder that, once upon a time, we deified people for their ability to win ultimately meaningless and trivial games.

Yes, he probably will serve as this reminder and we don't need a statue of Joe Paterno on the Penn State campus to help serve as the reminder. I don't care if the statue comes or goes, but if it stays then it won't represent a beacon of knowledge about what happens when people keep their mouth shut about crimes committed against children. It will serve as a reminder of there being a statue on Penn State's campus because Joe Paterno won a lot of games as a football coach.

And we paid a dear price for doing so.

Wouldn't you think removing the statue would show that no matter how many wins Joe Paterno has, his silence in the face of knowledge concerning crimes against children is now part of his overall legacy and he no longer deserves a statue on the Penn State campus?

It's weird because Jeff Pearlman rails against colleges favoring athletics over everything else, but then he favors the Joe Paterno statue remaining standing when this statue is a reminder of Penn State choosing to honor Joe Paterno's success in athletics over his actions as a human being. I don't care if the statue stays up or goes down, but if it stays up then it isn't going to further the discussion of child abuse and how we can prevent further child abuse. That statue will serve to show what a great football coach Joe Paterno was at Penn State.

3 comments Tim Keown Thinks the Penn State Football Team Should Decline a Bowl Invitiation

Tim Keown believes Penn State should decline a bowl invitation. I disagree. He does his best to refute my point of view, but I think he ultimately fails. What I find to be so incredibly interesting is Keown goes on a rant in this article about the lack of a presumption of innocence and how Penn State isn't saying "allegedly" to describe the actions of Sandusky. Yet, Keown thinks despite his own pleas for the assumption of innocence, Penn State should decline a bowl invitation. So he wishes there was more of a presumption of innocence and then encourages Penn State to penalize their current players based on a presumption of guilt.

The questions will not go away, no matter how hard the people around the Penn State football program try to wish them away. They're going to be there through this season, into the offseason and through the summer. They're going to be there through Tom Bradley's interim reign, through a coaching search and well into the tenure of the next guy. A stench this strong doesn't disappear just by opening a couple of windows.

So let's get directly to the point:

One paragraph consisting of four sentences later, Tim Keown announces we are getting straight to the point. Maybe he doesn't understand what "directly to the point" means.

Penn State should step up and decline any invitation to a bowl game.

No, they should not. I don't believe Penn State should punish the current players for the actions of the Penn State coaches and leadership. (cue violins playing sad music) These players didn't do anything wrong except choose to believe Joe Paterno and his other coaches when they made all of their promises during the recruitment process. Why should the Penn State players be punished for actions they had nothing to do with? I realize Penn State should be punished in some fashion, but the current players shouldn't be punished for the actions of their leadership.

They should play Wisconsin on Saturday and, if they win, play in the Big Ten championship game, and then call it a season.

What would this prove exactly? Would not playing in a bowl game help the rest of the public forget about Sandusky's (alleged) actions with 40 children? Is not playing in a bowl game and giving the football team a chance to put Penn State in a positive light and the best way to show how serious Penn State is about cleaning up the program? I think the way to put Penn State in a positive light goes further than just declining a bowl bid. These problems Penn State has experienced over the past couple of weeks aren't "team" problems. They are leadership problems. I say don't punish the players for the actions of their leadership.

They should reverse their recent trend and do something that doesn't reek of self-interest.

I can see how the Penn State team going to a bowl game would be seen as looking out for the school's self-interest. To me, participating in a bowl game would say the current Penn State players aren't going to be punished for the actions of their leadership. It would also say the school won't punish the current players for actions they aren't responsible for taking.

We've heard Ken Frazier, who is leading the trustees' inquiry, talk tough, and seen the school hire former FBI director Louis Freeh to conduct an investigation to measure the depth of the corruption surrounding Jerry Sandusky's alleged activities.

It sure sounds like Penn State is serious about cleaning up the actions of Sandusky and company. Time will tell if this is true.

(It's worth noting that Freeh's résumé looks better from a distance. He was a blundering FBI director -- Richard Jewell, the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, Wen Ho Lee -- but an FBI director nonetheless.)

I bet Penn State hired Freeh to oversee the investigation knowing he was incompetent and would screw the investigation up! Those Penn Staters are always up to shenanigans like this.

We've heard that Penn State will make the difficult decisions that will restore a sense of dignity to the administration and the football program.

So prove it. Walk away from a bowl game.

Again, while I can see some value in doing this, I also see value in not punishing the current Penn State football players by not allowing them to participate in a bowl game. Declining a bowl invitation this year would be more about punishing the current players and making a small statement rather than other actions down the road which will make a larger statement about the overall direction of the football program.

Walk away from something that would put money in your pocket. Make the tough choice.

Depending on the bowl game they make, Penn State could very well lose money in going to the bowl game. Many times these bowl games are for the athletes and not used as a way to line the pockets of the school.

The University of Miami became eligible for a bowl game with a win over South Florida on Saturday, and on Monday the school announced it would not accept a bowl invitation.

Tim Keown is unable to determine the difference in Miami announcing they would not accept a bowl invitation because of actions surrounding players in the football program, as opposed to Penn State not accepting a bowl bid based on the actions of the leadership in the Penn State program. I think there is a difference.

The Penn State situation is much different. Obviously, it's much worse.

The Penn State situation is also much worse because the allegations of impropriety around the program does not involve the players, who are young adults, but the allegations of impropriety at Penn State involve the adults running the program.

(By the way, is it possible to be repelled by Sandusky while still being a little troubled by the utter lack of presumption of innocence? This became cringingly apparent when the new president used his PSA to discuss "the victims" without even bothering to qualify it.

Here goes Keown on his "innocent until proven guilty" rant. Remember this is a guy who has spent this entire column saying Penn State should decline to participate in a bowl game based on the actions of those leading the program. Now he wants to act as if he is being open-minded and not wanting to indict the Penn State leaders and Sandusky for their alleged actions.

So we will keep a presumption of innocence for those accused, but punish the current Penn State players for these alleged actions before they were proven? Somehow I think this makes Keown's position even less defensible. Sandusky and company are getting the benefit of the doubt by using the word "allegedly," but Keown wants to go ahead and punish the school by not assuming the charges are "alleged" and suggesting Penn State should decline a bowl bid.

To that end, shouldn't people like the school president -- and Paterno, for that matter -- at least drop an "allegedly" into the conversation every so often?

And yet, again, while Tim Keown recognizes the "alleged" part of the allegations he doesn't care about the charges being alleged when doling out punishment to the Penn State football program. When it comes to the program and whether Penn State should accept a bowl bid, the charges are factual. When it comes to discussing Sandusky, the charges are alleged.

If Penn State goes to a bowl game, if it glad-hands the guys in the garish blazers and takes the gift bags and the check and the national attention, it'll be nothing short of an act of hypocrisy.

You mean hypocrisy like reminding people the Sandusky charges are alleged, but then suggesting a punishment for Sandusky's employer that acts as if the charges are factual? That's some good hypocrisy there. You can't have it both ways. You can't lay the gauntlet down on Penn State and then complain the charges are only alleged.

If that coaching staff -- filled with men who worked alongside Sandusky and sat near him as he brought preteen boys on road trips and into hotel rooms and to meals with the coaching staff, for God's sake -

Allegedly.

There's a coherent argument to be made for banning football altogether at Penn State, at least temporarily,

It makes perfect sense in Tim Keown's world to ban football at Penn State temporarily based on alleged charges for Sandusky, because he is concerned Sandusky won't get a fair trial. I love how he plays both sides of this issue. Keown is like an attorney who wants to get his client a plea deal, while at the same time pleading innocent to all charges.

Even if the Sandusky allegations are true, which all indications is they are, I still don't see why the Penn State players should be punished for the transgressions of their coaching staff. I realize most of us want Penn State punished for what occurred. Unless the NCAA is willing to let Penn State players transfer to another school without having to wait a year, I simply don't believe it is fair to the Penn State players to pay for their leadership's transgressions by banning the Penn State team from playing football next year.

It came up when the idea of canceling the Nebraska game was raised, and even back when the quaint prospect of canceling the rest of the schedule was raised.

Canceling one game, declining a bowl bid and banning football altogether at Penn State are all completely separate issues with separate reasoning for why each should be done. I think the Nebraska game should have been canceled, but I think Penn State should accept a bowl bid.

And that argument is this:

The kids had nothing to do with it. You shouldn't punish the kids for the failures of adults.

That is my argument. Tim Keown does not refute it.

This isn't the Juice Box League, so can we stop turning college athletes into infants?

Wow. That's really all you have, Keown?

No one is turning the athletes into infants, simply recognizing these athletes worked hard all year to make a good bowl game and they shouldn't be denied this opportunity because Jerry Sandusky likes boys in a sexual way (ALLEGEDLY!) and there was a cover-up among the leadership about his (ALLEGED!) activities.

Let's say ESPN gets in trouble with the Bristol police because there is an alleged culture of sexual assault and mistreatment of women on campus. Would Tim Keown believe it is fair to him if ESPN says those executives responsible for the assault and mistreatment, or had knowledge of the behavior, are now fired and the network is going to take a 6 month break from covering sports in order to gain control of the organization. The catch is the current employees can't write columns during that time, but also aren't being let out of their contract and aren't getting paid. Do you believe Tim Keown thinks this would be fair? Probably not. He would wonder why he can't write and get paid. He would also wonder why he has to pay for transgressions he didn't commit.

When the issue is paying athletes, they're kids.

Weak. Paying athletes has nothing to do with the present discussion. Stop trying to confuse the issue because you can't refute a valid argument.

When the issue is trading memorabilia for tattoos, they're adults who should know better.

I know Tim Keown isn't stupid. So he has to see the difference in punishing an athlete for trading memorabilia for a tattoo (which is against the rules even though I disagree with this even being a rule) and punishing an athlete because 12 years ago the school employed a coach who liked to molest and rape underage boys (ALLEGEDLY!). For one, the Penn State football players have zero culpability in this situation. That's the biggest difference.

They can handle the repercussions. They can understand that men make mistakes -- sometimes huge mistakes -- that have ramifications on younger men.

Of course they can handle the repercussions. They shouldn't have to because they didn't commit the crime.

These "kids" have dealt with disappointment before. They've lost games they thought they should have won.

So now Tim Keown is equating the disappointment with losing a game they should have won with not playing in a bowl game because an ex-defensive coordinator (ALLEGEDLY!) committed a sexual crime against boys and the university helped cover it up. Sure, these are comparable situations.

They've played seasons that ended before they thought they should have ended, and they've cried because of it.

And please remember, Tim Keown wants to decline a bid to a bowl game based on Sandusky and the actions of the Penn State leadership despite the fact he wants to give Jerry Sandusky the presumption of innocence...which would also mean the Penn State leadership would also deserve a presumption of innocence.

The letdown came a few weeks ago, when they were forced to come to terms with the possibility that the people they trusted weren't worthy of that trust. After that, a bowl game is a minor disappointment.

So why should the players be punished for the fact the people they trusted weren't worthy of the trust?

And really, the whole thing is easy. When the bowl committee calls, whether it's Rose or Capitol One or Little Caesars, just say one word: Pass.

I think Penn State shouldn't decline a bowl game bid. If they want to cancel the program, the NCAA should allow the players to transfer without sitting out a year, but this year's team should be able to finish out the year.