This is sad because it's probably true

Huh?

Hey, look: baseball.

A person familiar with the talks says baseball players and owners have reached an understanding that ties for division titles will be broken on the field under the new playoff format.

Okay. Weren't ties already broken on the field?

Since 1995, head-to-head record has been used to determine first place if both teams are going to the postseason.

Right. So yes. Ties were already broken on the field, over the course of like 13 divisional head-to-head games.

But with the start of a one-game, winner-take-all wild-card round, both sides agreed the difference between first place and a wild-card berth is too important to decide with a formula and a tiebreaker game would be played.

Summary: some owners said "let's make more money!" and the knucklehead players said "Yes. Also, home field advantage is way too important to not be decided by the impossibly small sample size of one, nine-inning game." We said: "/faceplant."

A little more than two months before opening day, the sides still don’t know whether the expanded playoffs will start this year.

Free Tank Carter has obtained the off season to-do list for MLB. We would put a scanned image of it here, but our fax/scanner is in the shop. Here it is, transcribed:

1. Make a genuine effort to expand and refine instant replay
2. RETAIN BUD SELIG'S SERVICES EVEN IF IT MEANS UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT (DON'T F AROUND ON THIS ONE, PEOPLE)
3. Decide if we should have playoffs this year;
3.a. and if so, what it should look like.
4. Fix that damn division tie problem that might one day happen.
5. Euthanize Jorge Posada.
6. See Moneyball, Ides of March before the Oscars.

Two months til opening day. Plenty of time to knock off those last few chores.

Negotiators plan to talk again next week and decide by March 1 whether the 2012 playoffs will have eight or 10 teams.

I've been wanting to write a post about the different sports' postseason formats, and undoubtedly we'll be addressing the subject as baseball tinkers with theirs. Without going too deep into it, I'm going to throw the following thoughts out there:

A good playoff format must strike a balance between offering do-or-die excitement, while also keeping flukey, small-sample-size stuff somewhat in check. Ideally, it's the Caps, Pens, Sabres, Caps, Devils or Caps representing the East in the 2010 finals, not the Flyers/Canadiens. But at the same time, sometimes it's awesome when the Cardinals sneak in on the last day of the season, upset the Phillies and Brewers, and then come back from the brink to beat the Rangers. I'm not saying we, as fans, root for top seeds to meet up, nor do we always root for Cinderella stories. But we know it when a team has sneaked its way into a round it doesn't belong in, and we yawn about it (see: 2006 St. Louis Cardinals). So, my point here is that a good championship system is tricky and doesn't always work.

Baseball's format is the smallest of the big four, pro sports. Originally, the point was to win the most games and ignore the rival league. Then in 1903, Pittsburgh and Boston played each other in a cross-league contest to determine who was the best of the best. This was a best-of-nine World Series, so the head-to-head sample size was somewhat meaty (until it was subsequently reduced to the less meaty, best-of-seven). It wasn't until 1969 that a playoff format was introduced, and this was only four teams total. The league championship series to advance to the World Series was a meager best-of-five. 1994 saw one of the few decent innovations by our friend, Mr. Selig, and that was an expansion to an eight team playoff bracket; the first round being a best-of-five, the pennant round and World Series being best of seven. I think it's safe to say that everyone has pretty much approved of this format.

My only real complaint with it is that it starts too late. I love baseball so much that I have been legally married to it twice now, but even I think the season is too long. I don't like rain/snow mix on opening day and then again in the World Series. I'd like to see either more double headers, or fewer games, so that the World Series can be ending in the second week of October. I'll also add that when two teams are forced to play a one-game tie breaker for the right to be the wildcard seed because they have an identical record, that is tremendously exciting (it happened in the AL Central 2 years in a row, and was great). I don't like small sample sizes determining the fate of the really awesome teams, but I don't mind it occasionally affecting two teams that weren't good enough to win a playoff spot outright.

I keep talking about sample size, like there's a huge difference between a best-of-five and best-of-seven or -nine. Well, in baseball there kind of is. And that's due to the unique nature of the game, where individual players of great impact are off the field more often than they're on it. The pitcher is somewhat similar to the goalie or the quarterback in terms of being isolated from and elevated above the rest of the team; but goalies and QBs aren't played in rotation. A best-of-five series really only requires a team have two, stud pitchers, and maybe six to eight good innings from the bullpen. A best-of-seven series requires that a team not only have an ace or two, but also depth behind them. A best-of-nine series requires not only front line quality and depth, but also endurance (imagine how awesome it would be to see Verlander used in four or five games in different capacities, different situations, etc. (in the case of Verlander, specifically, he would actually be kept out of the game in four or five different capacities or situations, etc. JimLeyland etc.).

Okay, so that brings us up to now.

What the gents in the league office are considering, is taking my two complaints (long season, don't want too much small sample size) and making them worse. Instead of consolidating the season, they've decided that the best way to generate excitement for September games is to add an additional round of the playoffs. Potentially a best-of-one round for teams that are almost good enough to be the wild card seed.

Here's the thing though... it's not even middle of the road teams getting an extra chance to crash the big boy party. It's just another spin of the craps wheel for teams that were already good and already had a chance to decide their own destiny but came up short.

For example, if this system was in place last year, that SUPERB ending, where Tampa Bay defied all odds to steal Boston's playoff spot would have been irrelevant, because the 91-71 Rays still would have had to play the 90-72 Red Sox in a game where anything could have happened. All that improbable magic on one night would have been noise, because regardless of Longoria's heroics and Papelbon's meltdown, they'd be meeting up the following night on even ground as if they finished with the same record. (Devil's advocate: the less exciting, though equally important night in which the Cardinals stole the Braves' wildcard seed would have been replaced by a head-to-head matchup that would have had more fanfare than an Atlanta loss to the Phillies. Just saying.)

So that's what it is, or what it could be. From the people who brought you "and the home field advantage shall be decided by the league that wins the All Star game!" we have "oh, we can definitely do worse than the shootout. Give us a few months to reflect. It'll come."

Glad you're back, Bud.






(Twenty two days until pitchers & catchers.)

The Post-Gazette is showing its age

Gene Collier has apparently challenged Ron Cook to a wrong-off.

Oddly enough, the Rooneys have not solicited my suggestions on whom to talk with about replacing offensive coordinator Bruce Arians, likely because I was not in total agreement with his sudden "retirement."

Two Arians columns, two self-deprecating revelations that the Steelers haven't talked to Newspaper Columnist X about who they should hire as their new offensive coordinator. There are two problems with this alone. First, while the self-deprecation might be real, it is insincere. Both Ron Cook and Gene Collier think, either consciously or subconsciously, that their opinions should carry weight on this matter because they're columnists for a newspaper. They might be joking about the Steelers not asking for their opinion, but the only catch is that they're not at all joking. Second, the "nobody asked for my opinion but I'm going to give it anyway" is as weak a literary device as the one-sentence paragraphs both Collier and Cook are so fond of.

Oh, and it's good the Steelers haven't solicited your suggestions because you're wrong.

This won't be the first time I wasn't consulted on urgent policy matters, nor is it unprecedented for my opinions on a range of football issues to be pointedly ignored.

The more you talk about how unimportant you are, Mr. Collier, the less likely it appears to the rest of us that you actually believe it.

By random example, I've made it clear to various Rooneys throughout the years that I'd prefer the Steelers have cheerleaders, but they apparently feel I'd be better off spending the timeouts asking God's forgiveness for even the thought of objectifying young women, and/or praying to Saint Vincent, the patron saint of ball security.

You get it? Because the Steelers train at St. Vincent College! And when they train there, they...try not to fumble? This has all of the canned-cranberry-sauce-saccharine feel of a joke that's built for continuous re-use. BOLD PREDICTION: come August, this line will still not be funny.

Fair enough.

Our first one-sentence paragraph of the column! We should really start keeping track of how often the Two Gentlemen of the Boulevard use these.

But, today, I fear they seriously are overcomplicating the offensive coordinator search, particularly in a city where there is an offensive coordinator every 30 feet. In fact, when they announce the attendance at Heinz Field, I think they now say, "Today's attendance, 63,881 offensive coordinators."

Everyone thinks they're SOOOOO smart! Collier's exempt from this because he's merely pointing out how stupid this all is, which is his way of telling you he's yards smarter than everyone else who thinks they know something about football. Honestly, if you took 64,000 people at Heinz Field for a game, I'd be willing to bet that 4,000 of them could be more inventive playcallers than Arians. Of those 4,000, about 1,500 probably have a disturbingly technical knowledge of football that Gene Collier does not.

On a daily two-mile walk with my belligerent Airedale, I typically meet two to four offensive coordinators, which is how I know Jim Kreiger. Jim's standards for modern offensive football are so high that he calls talk shows to criticize Tom Brady.

Sports writers think people who call talk shows are sad, pathetic, blithering idiots. I have never in my life known an exception to this. For the most part, they're not wrong -- people who call talk shows to criticize Tom Brady sound like inherently sad, pathetic, blithering idiots.

"Hines Ward, you have to get rid of him," Jim said Tuesday. "I mean he was great. I loved watching him. A great Steeler. Great for the city, all that, but it's time to go."

Hey, Jim's actually dead on! I take it back.

"I'd also consider getting rid of Charlie Batch. He's gettin' up there."

I don't think you "get rid of" Charlie Batch, so much as you just bring him to camp, tell him you're going to cut him and allow him to retire a Steeler.

"Now this one, people will say I'm nuts, but I'd think about trading Ben [Roethlisberger]. He's 29, and I think he's just average, maybe a little better than average. I think you could get something for him."

I disagree with this, but not strongly. If the Steelers could have traded Roethlisberger two years ago during the draft, they should have. As it is now, I think they're probably stuck with him for the foreseeable future. That said, were the opportunity to come around for the Steelers to make an upgrade at quarterback, they should take it.

This is what I like about Jim. I was talking to him about the offensive coordinator's job, but he jumped right to vice president of pro personnel. Jim, what about the play-calling?

Yeah, Jim. Tell us about the play-calling.

"Too predictable," he said. "It's very obvious to me it's always run the ball, run the ball, throw the ball. They should mix it up a little. Other teams don't seem to do that."

If Jim can correctly identify 22-Double and when it's coming, he's going to get a guest column on FTC and we're going to take him out to a nice dinner.

This is about where it occurred to me that, if the Steelers were overcomplicating the search, perhaps I was guilty of oversimplifying it, and that just walking around the neighborhood did not necessarily meet the professional standard of due diligence.

By a quick show of hands, who thinks he's setting this up as a transition into something insightful, perhaps a well-reasoned opinion, maybe even the point of the column?

/silence

/crickets

/crickets go silent

Okay, who thinks that this paragraph is actually the gateway to another joke about how fans have stupid and ill-informed opinions?

/raises hand

/crickets explode

So I went to Giant Eagle.

If you're playing along with the FTC home game and you raised your hand, move yourself forward three spaces. If you knew he was going to deliver the joke with a one-sentence paragraph, give yourself a new two-year contract.

I knew there would be at least one strong candidate at the Camp Horne Road store, because that's where I saw the guy with the leather-sleeved 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS jacket that time, but this was after Super Bowl XLIII, so he had ripped off a three-inch square of duct tape, covered the big '5' on the back with it, and wrote '6' right on the duct tape.

Did he do that himself, or did he buy it on etsy?

That's the kind of attention to detail you need in an offensive coordinator.

Funny you mention that, because little patches of duct tape are what hold the Bruce Arians offense together.

I didn't find that guy, but, in the parking lot, I talked with Raymond Connolly, who gave a good presentation and had some football experience on his resume. High school, yeah, but around here, that's closer to pro than a lot of places.

"Anybody but [Arians]," Raymond said. "We've got to run the ball more. Get a fullback. Get back to basics. Quit giving Ben his way all the time. I've been watching for a long time. We've got to get back to some ball control. All that talent and no points."

It'd be nice to carry a real fullback, but I don't agree with experienced football mind Raymond Connolly. An indictment of Arians is not an indictment of the pass-based offense. That said, it's nice Gene Collier didn't have to look too hard to find exactly the quote he was looking for -- some yinzer who played WPIAL football, probably in the 70s, who longs for the days of Franco Bettis and a fullback with one eye who eats rocks and broken glass.

That's not exactly what Art Rooney II said last week, but it's not exactly not, either.

Eerie.

That's six one-sentence paragraphs so far, if you're scoring at home.

As the Steelers' search progresses, you might notice that only men are being considered. My own preliminary interviews were under no such arbitrary restriction.

"I like the way the offense has been going; I like the play-action and I like the passing, but I'd mix it up more," Jeanne told me from behind the lottery tickets at the gas station. "I think the mentality of this team and these fans is that we expect to win, but you can't run the same old thing all the time. You have to mix it up when your progressions aren't working."

Does anyone else feel like Gene Collier is mocking these people?
The sentiment here is totally dead-on. When some guy you meet while walking your dog, some guy you stop to talk to at the grocery store and the lady selling lottery tickets at the gas station all think that your play-calling is predictable, YOUR PLAYCALLING IS PREDICTABLE. But please, Gene Collier, continue to mock these people in the name of telling me why the Steelers should not have fired Uncle Genius Bruce Arians.

Progressions tended to break down for Arians, according to my candidates, specifically in the red zone.

"My motto would be," Jane Ubb told me at the Northland Public Library, "red zone equals end zone. If you get it to the red zone, you have to put in the end zone."

Forgot to ask her how soon she could start.

Maybe that's because you didn't tell her you were going to skewer her in a column, and instead just went up to her and asked for her opinion? I'm sorry, Geno, but for you not to look like an asshole here, you're going to have to convince me that all of these people mobbed you in public to force their opinions down your throat. I refuse to believe that's the case. Also, this woman at the library is the first person you've talked to who hasn't offered any real pointed analysis. Everyone else has had something to say that's been spot on. You haven't paid attention to that because you went into this with one goal, and that was to make people look stupid. You, meanwhile, have offered nothing in the way of solutions or ideas, and we're about three-quarters of the way through this thing. We're running out of space. Do you have anything to say, or are you going to just crack wise from on high?

But, in the interest of thoroughness, and so no one might accuse me of failing to conduct a nationwide search, I interviewed Billy Gardell, the Pittsburgh native now the co-star of the CBS sitcom "Mike and Molly."

/soulpalm

I started by mentioning that the person who succeeded Arians would need skin thicker than a pachyderm.

What are we up to? Is that nine? I've lost count.

"My skin's been that thick since I was 9," said Gardell via cell as he was pulled into work in Los Angeles. "Look, we've been going to the pass too quick. The first thing I'd do is start that [John] Clay at running back and pound him at them in the first quarter, like we used to do with [Jerome] Bettis. That will set up Ben's play-action and sets up our quick receivers because the safeties will have to come up.

"When we get the lead, I'd run it up like it was a college team and then I'd bring back the big back. Then, we don't have to spend the last six minutes wondering if we're gonna get the ball back in time to score."

Geno, if your point is that Pittsburgh fans like the old, two-back power run system, why can't you just say that? If you don't like that this is a fanbase resistant to change, why can't you just say that? If you think the game has changed to the point where the power run is obsolete, why can't you just say that? Why don't you just say whatever it is you're trying to say? All you're doing here is taking up space by trying to be cute. So far, the only positions you have clearly taken in this column have been that you didn't think Arians should have been let go, and that you think the locals are imbeciles. By my count, you've defended neither of those positions.

Sounds like five strong candidates to me. I assume any of 'em will work nights and weekends. No need to thank me.

When did these people you approached ever start pontificating about how they could do better than Arians? Since when is expressing a criticism of a football team the same thing as an assurance the critic could do just as well? This guy didn't call you and say "Man, listen to what I would do because I'm so much smarter than him." You called this guy and you asked him what he would do. You did that with all these people, only to flip it around and write it so that it looks like Steelers fans are claiming they're all way better options than Bruce Arians. Not only is that unfair, it's lazy and mean-spirited.
These folks who were just going about their business when you ambushed them -- none of them said outright that they were right for the job. The gist of their criticism was that they didn't think it was being done well, and that it could be done better.

Look, I do not happen to think I would make a particularly good offensive coordinator. But you know what job I'd be great at, Geno? Post-Gazette sports columnist. Since you're obviously not doing anything but collecting a paycheck, how about you take a buyout and make some room for someone -- anyone -- who has things to say.

Rejoice, for the offensive coordinator is dead

Ron Cook is back to his old tricks.
Seems like everyone is saying the Steelers need to spend more time and money on constructing a better offensive line. The team has invested $102 million in quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Doesn't it need to do a better job keeping him healthy?

Yes.

Well, here are two more questions:

I bet you ten Romney-minutes that neither of Ron's questions has anything to do with how to go about getting better offensive linemen.

Isn't it important to keep Roethlisberger happy?

Is this guy serious? This is a hilarious joke, right? 

If so, why are the Steelers on the verge of forcing offensive coordinator Bruce Arians to retire?

No! Wait! Too fast!

First of all, an emphatic NO, it's not important to keep the Ben happy, so before we elaborate any further on that, let's say it outright as a means to invalidate the second question.

If so, why are the Steelers on the verge of forcing offensive coordinator Bruce Arians to retire?

Moving on...

Whose job is it to keep Ben Roethlisberger happy? It's not the Steelers' job to keep Roethlisberger happy. That's actually his job, and to a certain degree, maybe it's his wife's job. That's it, that's the list. The Steelers do not work for Ben Roethlisberger. Ben Roethlisberger works for the Steelers. In the nicest of situations, Roethlisberger could, conceivably, elevate himself to a point at which he would work with the Steelers. Franchise players are often consulted on major personnel decisions, and rightfully so. But this is never going to happen with Ben for two reasons:

1. The Rooneys do not give a fuck what makes Ben happy.

1a. Nor should they.

2. Ben has given the Steelers no reason whatsoever to believe he deserves to be treated like an adult, let alone like someone on the level of athletes who've had input in picking their own coaches. LeBron gets that. Kobe gets that. Lemieux got that. Sidney Crosby gets that. Going two years without being accused of rape does not automatically elevate you into that company.

In fact, the very reason it was so important that Arians not be retained as the offensive coordinator is that his buddy-buddy relationship with Roethlisberger has been hurting the offense for five years. Arians has enabled Roethislberger, who when he plays poorly, does so because he's quite obviously winging it. He's undisciplined, he doesn't study film, and he doesn't know his hot routes. When he's healthy and does not perform well, that's why. This is not a referendum on the pass-first offense. This isn't even about play calling, though that's been piss-poor, also.

It makes no sense.

You're right, Ron. Nothing you write makes any goddamn sense. Honestly, your first reaction to the Steelers canning this failmachine is to ask what makes Roethlisberger happy? I'm going to finish writing this post, critique your opinions and so on and so forth, Ron, but holy shit, man, that's so depressing. Is that really the direction in which you want to take this? Is that really what concerns you? You know what would make Ben happy? If the offensive coordinator was four slutty 20-year-old girls, practice was optional on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and the cafeteria at the practice facility served nothing but Taco Bell and Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
That's you're so in the tank for this guy is really sad, Ron. It's sad, and it's infuriating to what Norman Mailer so arrogantly termed "my sense of intellectual pollution."

It hardly matters that I think it's a big mistake.

Yes, and we're glad for that. Fuck, man. Take the PG's buyout and see if Ben will hire you for his entourage. I don't think he has a biographer yet. Down the line, when he gets to work on that memoir, he's going to need someone with some journalistic integrity to lend some credence to his version of what really happened in the club that night.

What does Tomlin think? He's a Super Bowl-winning coach and he's being told he has to fire a coordinator who he wants? No one is arguing that Rooney isn't the boss. Make no mistake, he is. But is this a good thing to do your coach? To emasculate him even a little bit? It's not as if the Steelers have been dreadful for a long time, as they were when Rooney's father, Dan, forced Hall of Fame coach Chuck Noll to make staff changes. They went 12-4 this season before losing to the Broncos.

They were a shitty 12-4. We've discussed this.

Firing Arians now is just as wrong as it would have been after the 2009 season when there was media speculation he was out.

Ron is actually dead-on here, except for the part where he says that "Firing Arians now is just as wrong as it would have been after the 2009 season when there was media speculation he was out." Point, Cook.

The Steelers went 9-7 and missed the playoffs that year, although the offense wasn't nearly as much to blame as the defense, which blew five fourth-quarter leads, and the special teams, which allowed four kickoff returns for touchdowns. Roethlisberger went to management and Tomlin and argued to keep Arians. It's hard to say what impact he had, but Arians stayed. Good thing because the team made it to the Super Bowl in '10. In '08, it won Super Bowl XLIII with Arians calling the plays, including those on the late, 78-yard winning drive.

Just so we're clear, this is on the defense. This is on that monstrous front seven and the steady hand of Dick LeBeau.

You know that we're big on numbers here at FTC, and we'll get to those shortly. In late 2008, the Steelers were gearing up for another playoff run that looked like it wouldn' t go far. Ben played terribly all season long. He looked visibly confused and unprepared the entire year. And as they were gearing up for that playoff run, I had a conversation with FTC Tweetster/Writer Emeritus Dan Richey, the gist of which was this:

Matt: Well, you have to figure the plus side of this is that they're going to have to get rid of Bruce Arians.
Dan: You'd think that's the case, right? 

Matt: Yeah, unless...
Dan: Unless what?

Matt: What if they win the Super Bowl? They can't fire him if they win the Super Bowl.

Dan: Don't be ridiculous. They're not going to win the Super Bowl.
Matt: You're probably right. But wouldn't that be tragic in a sense? They'd have to keep him.

Here are the Steelers' offensive rankings (by points scored) up against their defensive rankings (by points, yards allowed) during the Tomlin era.

2011: O - 21; D - 1, 1

2010: O - 12; D - 1, 2

2009: O - 12; D - t12, t-5

2008: O - 20; D - 1, 1

2007: O - 9; D - 1, 2

[stats courtesy of DanRichey.geocities.com]

The Steelers have ranked No. 1 in the NFL in either points, yards or both in four of the last five years. The one time they weren't, the offense was ranked 12th in points scored and the team went 9-7. That was the year the offense "carried" the team, but even then the Steelers still had the league's fifth-best defense by yards.
It's nice to think Rooney will realize he's making a mistake and change his mind before the official Arians retirement announcement is made.
There's no doubt Roethlisberger will fight for Arians again, if he hasn't done so already. Last year, he said of Arians: "He gets way, way too much blame and criticism. It's kind of unfortunate because he's so good. If you ask the players, we know." Only days before a playoff loss Jan. 8 in Denver, he said of Arians and the offense: "We've got something special here. We've got a lot of great young players. As long as they don't get crazy and change the offense -- that can really set you back -- the sky is the limit for this team."
That last part is actually correct -- this team has unbelievable talent. Imagine what it would look like if it was disciplined enough to do things like run timing patterns or learn more than two running plays. What if these guys, instead of playing backyard football, were run with the professionalism and complexity of a professional football organization? This team could be amazing. This team could blow Green Bay out of the fucking water. But that hasn't happened because practice is too much work, and it's not a part of the Arians offense. Of course the players love him -- he doesn't make them actually do anything. How's that worked style worked out for the similarly dumb Wade Phillips in his head coaching stints? Hint: terribly.
"If I tell him I hate a play, he won't call it," Roethlisberger said. "He doesn't have an ego that way. He doesn't ever say, 'We're going to do it my way.' It's the same way with the receivers...he has enough faith in his players to do that. He's a players' guy."

Does this strike anyone else as the worst kind of appeasement? Ben hated Bill Cowher because Cowher made him work hard. Tomlin's not going to do that because Tomlin delegates a great deal more authority than Cowher did. But so far, nobody's held Ben's feet to the fire or forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. Ben Roethlisberger does not deserve to have that kind of authority.
"He brings consistency," Batch said. "You don't want to change that right now when Ben is actually entering into the prime of his career. I don't see why you would want to change."
Really.
Why would you want to change?
There's a reason we've had a "fire bruce arians" tag in the lexicon for some years now, but just in case you need a quick refreshment:

The Bruce Arians Play-Caller 9000 just turned two years old. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of you have never watched a Steelers game with it on-hand. Well, we have, and it's disturbing how accurate it is. For that matter, Dan is just as good at telling you exactly what the Steelers are going to run in any given situation. 

Point is, we're a bunch of idiots with a blog in somebody's mom's basement, and we figured this out two years ago. Do you really think defensive coordinators don't recognize this stuff? It's a testament to the greatness of the talent that the Steelers have done as well as they have, but sweet Christ-on-a-stick, it's been frustrating to watch. Nobody can honestly tell me they want it to stay this way, or that the Steelers can't do better. Good riddance; can't believe it's taken this long.

Eulogy for JoePa

Dispelling rumors about the death of Joe Paterno

We'd just like to dispel what we feel will become a few rumors and sentiments about the death of Joe Paterno.

• The Penn State University Board of Trustees did not kill Joe Paterno.
• The Penn State University Board of Trustees did not give Joe Paterno lung cancer. 
• Joe Paterno died of a medical condition, lung cancer, that was not at all related to football or his firing.
• Joe Paterno did not die of a broken heart.
• Joe Paterno did not die because he was no longer coaching football.
• The Penn State University Board of Trustees did not kill Joe Paterno. This bears repeating.
• At the time of his death, Joe Paterno was undergoing treatment for said ailment that also was not related to football or his firing.
• Joe Paterno's medical condition and treatment for said condition would have led to his death, regardless of his standing with the university or its football program.
• Had he not been fired by Penn State a few months ago, Joe Paterno would not have coached next season. He would not have been alive enough to do so.
• Once more:  The Penn State University Board of Trustees did not kill Joe Paterno.

How this almost a headline