New Evidence in about Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky

[JasonEvans]

Just when we all thought this sordid affair was done and behind us... the smoking gun appears.

CNN has been given access to emails (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/justice/penn-state-emails/index.html) from leading Penn State officials that indicate the officials were all set to notify authorities about Sandusky after the "shower incident," but decided not to say anything after a conversation with Joe Paterno. It sounds a bit like JoePa convinced them to cover it up... or something like that.


(Former Athletic Director Tim) Curley indicates he no longer wants to contact child welfare authorities just yet. He refers to a conversation the day before with Paterno. It's not known what Paterno may have said to Curley.

Curley writes: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps."

The athletic director apparently preferred to keep the situation an internal affair and talk things over with Sandusky instead of notifying the state's child welfare agency to investigate Sandusky's suspicious activity.

The emails, if true, are all but a fatal blow to the Penn State officials who are facing jail time for lying to the grand jury investigating Sandusky. In the emails, the Penn State officials even make reference to the potential legal trouble they could get in if this all get out. Talk about being psychic!

What's more, the content of the emails certainly open Penn State up to massive lawsuits from alleged victims. This is probably the most damning evidence we've yet seen connecting Penn State with a coverup.

And, saddest of all, it would appear to indicate that Joe Peterno, despite repeatedly saying he did not know what was going on, was lying. If the emails are correct, there can now be little doubt that JoePa was quite aware that Sandusky was a child predator. What a sad, sad stain on his legacy.

-Jason "I am betting there will be lawsuits filed against the Pitino estate too" Evans

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

-Jason "I am betting there will be lawsuits filed against the Pitino estate too" Evans
You mean Paterno... that would be a far reaching scandal...

[JasonEvans]

You mean Paterno... that would be a far reaching scandal...

Ha! I got my "coaches involved in sex scandals" mixed up.

-Jason "If Pitino were to be sued, I am sure he would settle fast... he finishes everything really quickly (rim shot)" Evans

[Chicago 1995]

While it's damning, I don't think we should be surprised that Paterno knew more than he claimed before the grand jury and in the aftermath of the Sandusky charges. His denial was laughable and utterly incredible.

Penn State should get out of the business of football until it can get its moral house and priorities in order. It won't. Too much lost revenue and too integral to its identity. But they've got far bigger things to worry themselves with than football.


Just when we all thought this sordid affair was done and behind us... the smoking gun appears.

CNN has been given access to emails (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/justice/penn-state-emails/index.html) from leading Penn State officials that indicate the officials were all set to notify authorities about Sandusky after the "shower incident," but decided not to say anything after a conversation with Joe Paterno. It sounds a bit like JoePa convinced them to cover it up... or something like that.N



The emails, if true, are all but a fatal blow to the Penn State officials who are facing jail time for lying to the grand jury investigating Sandusky. In the emails, the Penn State officials even make reference to the potential legal trouble they could get in if this all get out. Talk about being psychic!

What's more, the content of the emails certainly open Penn State up to massive lawsuits from alleged victims. This is probably the most damning evidence we've yet seen connecting Penn State with a coverup.

And, saddest of all, it would appear to indicate that Joe Peterno, despite repeatedly saying he did not know what was going on, was lying. If the emails are correct, there can now be little doubt that JoePa was quite aware that Sandusky was a child predator. What a sad, sad stain on his legacy.

-Jason "I am betting there will be lawsuits filed against the Pitino estate too" Evans

[sagegrouse]

While it's damning, I don't think we should be surprised that Paterno knew more than he claimed before the grand jury and in the aftermath of the Sandusky charges. His denial was laughable and utterly incredible.

Penn State should get out of the business of football until it can get its moral house and priorities in order. It won't. Too much lost revenue and too integral to its identity. But they've got far bigger things to worry themselves with than football.

There are so many smoking guns in the Penn State-Sandusky affair that it looks like the sky here in Colorado.

For example: Sandusky, the leading assistant football coach in the entire country (Linebacker U.), was told he was not going to be the Penn State head coach. Then he retired suddenly. This was in 1997 and 1998, IIRC. Not related to the child abuse evidence and rumors? Huh!

I believe that anything at Penn State involving the football program was cleared with Paterno for several decades.

sagegrouse

[Kewlswim]

Hi,

If I knew someone who was involved in doing harmful things to kids (or animals)...and yes I think being a "tickle monster" in a shower to a naked kid counts as abuse... I would be on the phone to the police and in a New York minute to boot. I don't care if the guy was someone I knew for years or someone I happened upon. So, I guess the question is, "Who are these guys?" Seriously JoePa? The Athletic Director? The men who coached with Sandusky and saw anything should be ashamed of themselves, but more than anything--don't these people know right and wrong? Don't these people care about hurting kids? Are these men pedophiles themselves so they think it is ok? I never really liked Penn State or a few of the smug people I have met from there (it is a huge school so I am sure nice people are from there too), but now I will never be able to root for them and hope they lose at everything. I know that sounds harsh, it is my heart talking and I know how I feel.

GO DUKE!

[JasonEvans]

Wow!!

You all have got to read the article by Dan Wetzel (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--joe-paterno-role-jerry-sandusky-coverup-grows.html)on the new email evidence and what it says about Penn State and this scandal. It is a scathing indictment of the program and its leaders. Dan does a great job of summing up what the emails mean and pulls no punches in his assessment of the situation.

It is a lengthy article, full of good stuff. But the most significant part is the final paragraphs where Wetzel begins to explain why, possibly, these Penn State officials (including Paterno) chose to cover this evil mess up instead of taking proper action. He points out that back in 2001, Penn State was at a bit of a crossroads.


At the time, the story would've been about a recently retired defensive coordinator molesting kids in JoePa's locker room.

Paterno was 74 and coming off a 5-7 season. He didn't have much of a team for the foreseeable future, either. Rumblings were growing that it was time for him to retire, that the game had passed him by, that at his age he couldn't handle the responsibilities of a major college football program.

An act of child molestation in the locker room would have only fueled that. When word would have eventually leaked out that in 1998 Sandusky had been investigated for the same charge yet still maintained all-hour access to the facilities, it may have too much for Paterno to survive, let alone explain.

In the precise moment, each of the men must have feared being fired. Even Joe Paterno.

-Jason "Wetzel tries to come up with some defense for Paterno... but admits that he cannot" Evans

[Starter]

I hate to say it, but I'm not surprised at this at all. I think I'd have been surprised if it turned out Paterno DIDN'T know about any of the stuff Sandusky was doing.

And I hate to say it, but I have no faith in any big big big-time football program to have ditched their "us against the world" mentality long enough to do the right thing in a situation like this. Now, post-Paterno, yes. But before? I'm not saying there aren't school administrators and coaches that would have handled this differently. I'm just saying that I wonder how many of them would have handled it exactly the way Penn State does. You know there have to be plenty of cover-ups going on out there.

[DukeandMdFan]

Live everyone else, I am a big fan of Coach K. On the last day of a Duke basketball camp I attended in 1983, he told the campers that when they get home they need to go to whoever was responsible for enabling them to go to camp, look them in the eye, and sincerely thank them for the opportunity. For the youth teams I coach, I always make sure to have the players give their parents a hug/handshake and sincerely thank them. Through the season, I emphasize the "Next Play" approach and Fist. I recently purchased the artwork showing Coach K with the players with retired jerseys in the same huddle.

However, I was disappointed when Coach K has made several statements supportive of Paterno. Vitale agreed with Coach K's statements.

With the new information, Vitale has publicly revised his position.

Vitale tweeted, "@SportsbyBrooks just learned about report that proves Joe Pa knew more than I believed. I WAS WRONG-always felt he could have done more.#SAD"

I hope Coach K retracts some of his previous statements. A year ago, it seemed great that Coach K and Paterno were portrayed as being very similar leaders. With the new revelations, I'm hopeful that Coach K begins distancing himself from Paterno.

[gumbomoop]

I hope Coach K retracts some of his previous statements. A year ago, it seemed great that Coach K and Paterno were portrayed as being very similar leaders. With the new revelations, I'm hopeful that Coach K begins distancing himself from Paterno.

Because the Wetzel article [link in JasonEvans's post #7 above] is careful enough to provide a few scenarios that would limit Paterno's culpability, it might be understandable for K, and others who more vociferously than K defended Paterno, to cool it for a few days, just to make sure about how clear the evidence against Paterno actually is.

I, too, hope that much sooner rather than later K will speak publicly and forthrightly about these revelations. IMO, K needn't be overly contrite, and he will surely be saddened as much as outraged, but he must speak to these revelations. K is, in view of his own statements, in an awkward position, perhaps made more difficult because his attention by now must be concentrated on the national team. But awkward timing or no, it's no good to let this simply die down. It won't, and it shouldn't, at least not right away.

I think I understand K's earlier desire to make sure critics didn't go overboard until the facts became clearer. I think I understand K's hope and assumption that the Paterno he thought he knew was not protecting Sandusky. If, however, the mostly implausible scenarios set forth by Wetzel - bending over backwards style - prove in short order to be precisely that - implausible - then K must speak. And I think he will.

[subzero02]

The veiled language used in the emails makes me more suspicious of how much school officials knew abou the 01 incident. Their own implication was too strong a driving force in their actions when the future wellfare of children was also at stake.

[SMO]

I cannot access the full email transcripts. What specificallly do they say Paterno said? Did he literally order a cover-up?

[gumbomoop]

I cannot access the full email transcripts. What specificallly do they say Paterno said? Did he literally order a cover-up?

I think the following are accurate statements. Others feel free to correct, if either incomplete, inaccurate, or imprecise.

1. Several damning emails have been leaked to CNN.
2. The emails are not yet made public.
3. Wetzel's article [see post #7 above] provides some scenarios whereby Paterno himself is given the benefit of the doubt re participating in a cover-up.
4. But Wetzel does this as a matter of fairness, of covering all possible scenarios, not because he believes Paterno was out of the cover-up-loop.
5. Wetzel does not say Patrno ordered a cover-up.
6. If what has been reported is accurate, it's pretty hard to believe that Paterno has told the whole truth about his own role in discussions about what to do about Sandusky.

Shifting to K.....

7. Back in November, 2011, K commented, by way of what may fairly be described as defending Paterno, that "how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different, quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation.”
8. More recently, June 21, K commented at somewhat more length that Paterno deserved a more humane firing. -- http://heraldsun.com/view/full_story/19069060/article-Krzyzewski--Paterno-deserved-%E2%80%98opportunity%E2%80%99
9. [Trying to be precise here....] K's recent comments concerned not what Paterno did or did not know, nor what he did or did not do, but rather how his firing was handled. Essentially K saw Paterno's firing as a matter of failed leadership on the part of the Penn State administration. K said that of course leaders must sometimes step down, but that that process should be rational, and should include participation in the decision by the person leaving. “How you do that can help in settling the situation or clearing the situation up. He should have been afforded that opportunity."


IMO, if the emails exist [which I assume they do], unless they can be parsed in a credible way to make a reasonable case that Paterno did not fudge his role in discussions about what to do, then K should comment further, if necessarily briefly and humbly subdued, in this instance not about the leadership process of Paterno's dismissal from Penn State, but about Paterno's all too human, terribly flawed, and therefore quite other than great, behavior.

My opinion probably won't be shared by all on EK. And my opinion might be flawed, and is subject to change, if I've misunderstood the facts.

[moonpie23]

i was very disappointed when K came out a few weeks ago with his comments. I don't think it was PART support of Joe, MOSTLY criticism of PSU in the WAY they fired a living legend.

Now, with more information about WHAT PSU knew about the situation, i think it's entirely possible that K can legitimately back off and eventually say that NOW he understands that there was more to it than he was aware of....

regardless, it's a tough place for K to be in.......I'm saddened by that...


If these emails are true, i think some of the PSU guys need some prison time...

[cspan37421]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair

substitute "believe" for "understand" and I think that helps explain the actions of many in this terrible story.

[allenmurray]

I think the following are accurate statements. Others feel free to correct, if either incomplete, inaccurate, or imprecise.

1. Several damning emails have been leaked to CNN.
2. The emails are not yet made public.
3. Wetzel's article [see post #7 above] provides some scenarios whereby Paterno himself is given the benefit of the doubt re participating in a cover-up.
4. But Wetzel does this as a matter of fairness, of covering all possible scenarios, not because he believes Paterno was out of the cover-up-loop.
5. Wetzel does not say Patrno ordered a cover-up.
6. If what has been reported is accurate, it's pretty hard to believe that Paterno has told the whole truth about his own role in discussions about what to do about Sandusky.

Shifting to K.....

7. Back in November, 2011, K commented, by way of what may fairly be described as defending Paterno, that "how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different, quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation.”
8. More recently, June 21, K commented at somewhat more length that Paterno deserved a more humane firing. -- http://heraldsun.com/view/full_story/19069060/article-Krzyzewski--Paterno-deserved-%E2%80%98opportunity%E2%80%99
9. [Trying to be precise here....] K's recent comments concerned not what Paterno did or did not know, nor what he did or did not do, but rather how his firing was handled. Essentially K saw Paterno's firing as a matter of failed leadership on the part of the Penn State administration. K said that of course leaders must sometimes step down, but that that process should be rational, and should include participation in the decision by the person leaving. “How you do that can help in settling the situation or clearing the situation up. He should have been afforded that opportunity."


IMO, if the emails exist [which I assume they do], unless they can be parsed in a credible way to make a reasonable case that Paterno did not fudge his role in discussions about what to do, then K should comment further, if necessarily briefly and humbly subdued, in this instance not about the leadership process of Paterno's dismissal from Penn State, but about Paterno's all too human, terribly flawed, and therefore quite other than great, behavior.

My opinion probably won't be shared by all on EK. And my opinion might be flawed, and is subject to change, if I've misunderstood the facts.

Pretty clear to me Paterno deserved a less humane firing, and Coach K spoke way too soon. He has supported other coahces of questionable character in the past. The whole "coaching fraternity" thing can cloud one's vision.

[lotusland]

Hi,

If I knew someone who was involved in doing harmful things to kids (or animals)...and yes I think being a "tickle monster" in a shower to a naked kid counts as abuse... I would be on the phone to the police and in a New York minute to boot. I don't care if the guy was someone I knew for years or someone I happened upon. So, I guess the question is, "Who are these guys?" Seriously JoePa? The Athletic Director? The men who coached with Sandusky and saw anything should be ashamed of themselves, but more than anything--don't these people know right and wrong? Don't these people care about hurting kids? Are these men pedophiles themselves so they think it is ok? I never really liked Penn State or a few of the smug people I have met from there (it is a huge school so I am sure nice people are from there too), but now I will never be able to root for them and hope they lose at everything. I know that sounds harsh, it is my heart talking and I know how I feel.

GO DUKE!

I don't think anyone knows how they would immediately react to something like this. Assuming the shower incident was the first inkling Joe Pa had that Sandusky was a predator, I don't blame him for not calling the police the second that he heard the second-hand account. I know very little of the facts in this but I assume that Paterno thought of Sandusky a trusted friend as well as a long time associate. I don't think it is unreasonable to gather some facts and talk with Sandusky about it. In the end you must notify the authorities even if you not 100% certain of what happened but really the university should have taken it out of his hands completely. Imagine this happened with a basketball assistant at Duke? How hard would it be for Coach K to call the police on one of his guys knowing them and their families as he does? In the end you have to do the right thing and protect the kids but the university should take over and proceed with their established policy for a report about sexual abuse and not rely on the coach to handle it or decide the appropriate way to handle it.

[sagegrouse]

I don't think anyone knows how they would immediately react to something like this. Assuming the shower incident was the first inkling Joe Pa had that Sandusky was a predator, I don't blame him for not calling the police the second that he heard the second-hand account. I know very little of the facts in this but I assume that Paterno thought of Sandusky a trusted friend as well as a long time associate. I don't think it is unreasonable to gather some facts and talk with Sandusky about it. In the end you must notify the authorities even if you not 100% certain of what happened but really the university should have taken it out of his hands completely. Imagine this happened with a basketball assistant at Duke? How hard would it be for Coach K to call the police on one of his guys knowing them and their families as he does? In the end you have to do the right thing and protect the kids but the university should take over and proceed with their established policy for a report about sexual abuse and not rely on the coach to handle it or decide the appropriate way to handle it.

I believe that Capt. Michael W. Krzyzewski, USMA 1969, would do the right thing immediately.

sage

[walras]

"I believe that Capt. Michael W. Krzyzewski, USMA 1969, would do the right thing immediately.

sage"

I think you need to be careful here. There is no record of K ever commenting on the the abuse/cover-up findings about Catholic priests and bishops. K is both a fine catholic layperson and an athletic coach, and both institutions were and are hardly paragons of "doing the right thing". K is not an other-worldly figure of rectitude but is a man of strengths and weaknesses like all of us, and he, even he, has blind spots and vulnerabilities of sympathy and affection. He is a great coach, and a fine man, but let's not get carried away.

[BD80]

I don't think anyone knows how they would immediately react to something like this. ... I assume that Paterno thought of Sandusky a trusted friend as well as a long time associate. I don't think it is unreasonable to gather some facts and talk with Sandusky about it. ...

Q: "were you in the shower with a young boy?"

A: "Um, yes"

Sound of 2x4 hitting skull.

Talk over.

Little grey area. He admitted doing things the administration shouldn't have permitted to happen. Whether it was sexual misconduct is a legal issue - but irrelevant to the issue of whether PSU should have acted. Just BEING in the shower or hotel room or whatever with the kids is cause for the administration to take action.

[Kewlswim]

Q: "were you in the shower with a young boy?"

A: "Um, yes"

Sound of 2x4 hitting skull.

Talk over.

Little grey area. He admitted doing things the administration shouldn't have permitted to happen. Whether it was sexual misconduct is a legal issue - but irrelevant to the issue of whether PSU should have acted. Just BEING in the shower or hotel room or whatever with the kids is cause for the administration to take action.

Amen. Perhaps, if a frying pan is nearby that can be used in lieu of a 2x4. I have to say, I do know how I would act and am proud of it. I would call the police even if it was my best friend and he had let me down to the point of tears. I would also do what I could to stop the situation. I was mugged at an ATM and chased the perpetrator for many city blocks. There are fight and there flight type folks, I was told by the cops never to do it again (instinct took over). I am clearly a fight type and I believe Coach K is too.

GO DUKE!!

[oldnavy]

I believe the three hardest words to put together in the english language are "I was wrong".

It is always the cover up that becomes the story. Had Paterno or whowever just admitted to making a mistake and saying I was wrong, I was scared, etc.... most people can understand that .

We see so many faux apologies these days, "I am sorry if 'I offended you'" is NOT an apology. If you did nothing wrong, and someone is offended, then to me that is their problem. I cannot be responsible for everyones 'feelings'. Stick to you statement or actions. My favorite is, "this is such an "unfortunate situation".... PC gone wild.... Now if you screw up and truly offend someone with a dumb statement or action, say "I was wrong, and I am sorry, please forgive me".

Real men, and real women realize they make mistakes and take full responsibility for them. I can understand JoePa being afraid of losing his job, but that is no excuse. Take care of the business at hand, and let the chips fall where they may. So you lose a job, you maintain your dignity and respect... which is more important now that he is dead? Coaching another 20 years or so, or having you legacay flushed?

Another great lesson that people in leadership positions need to learn who they have in their organization. Keep you eyes and ears open, and TALK to people, ask questions, don't expect your subordinates to BRING you every problem. Walk around and take the pulse of the organaniztion on a regular basis..... Not only does it open up dialog that can improve your org, it shows your folks that you A. Care, B. Don't sit in your office all day, C. You value their opinions on things.

Lecture over, carry on!

[Saratoga2]

I don't think anyone knows how they would immediately react to something like this. Assuming the shower incident was the first inkling Joe Pa had that Sandusky was a predator, I don't blame him for not calling the police the second that he heard the second-hand account. I know very little of the facts in this but I assume that Paterno thought of Sandusky a trusted friend as well as a long time associate. I don't think it is unreasonable to gather some facts and talk with Sandusky about it. In the end you must notify the authorities even if you not 100% certain of what happened but really the university should have taken it out of his hands completely. Imagine this happened with a basketball assistant at Duke? How hard would it be for Coach K to call the police on one of his guys knowing them and their families as he does? In the end you have to do the right thing and protect the kids but the university should take over and proceed with their established policy for a report about sexual abuse and not rely on the coach to handle it or decide the appropriate way to handle it.

Of course the children need to be protected as a first priority. I don't think the right approach is to immediately call the police based on a second hand witness. Going to the administration, whose job it is to investigate and proceed was the right thing to do. How many instances are there in your own life have you been told things which proved to be totally false? I am talking about perceived crimes. We have seen what happened at Duke when the police and local DA followed up on a perceived crime and the media jumped aboard. Reputations were ruined, people were nearly bankrupted defending themselves.

Now, if Joe Pa did get involved in silencing the university investigation, it is quite a different story. I would even go slow on that one until the facts are out. How many e-mails and meeting minutes are there which are worrisome and how many others as well that are more positive about Joe Pas role? Did Joe Pa suggest being thorough about the investigation before going to the police or did he try to squash it? The two approaches are far different, although leaking part of one or two e-mails to justify ones point sound questionable.

Coach K coming out and saying that 60 years of decidated service should give the man the benefit of the doubt until that facts come out is a reasonable reaction. I am with him on that one. Coach K seeing the facts develop may make further statements. Vitale goes the way the winds blow.

[SeattleIrish]

Of course the children need to be protected as a first priority. I don't think the right approach is to immediately call the police based on a second hand witness. Going to the administration, whose job it is to investigate and proceed was the right thing to do. How many instances are there in your own life have you been told things which proved to be totally false? I am talking about perceived crimes. We have seen what happened at Duke when the police and local DA followed up on a perceived crime and the media jumped aboard. Reputations were ruined, people were nearly bankrupted defending themselves.

Now, if Joe Pa did get involved in silencing the university investigation, it is quite a different story. I would even go slow on that one until the facts are out. How many e-mails and meeting minutes are there which are worrisome and how many others as well that are more positive about Joe Pas role? Did Joe Pa suggest being thorough about the investigation before going to the police or did he try to squash it? The two approaches are far different, although leaking part of one or two e-mails to justify ones point sound questionable.

Coach K coming out and saying that 60 years of decidated service should give the man the benefit of the doubt until that facts come out is a reasonable reaction. I am with him on that one. Coach K seeing the facts develop may make further statements. Vitale goes the way the winds blow.

More damning, in my eyes, is that this incident in 2001 was at least the second known reported incident of pedophilia by Sandusky. The e-mails leaked also support that the administration knew about a previous incident in 1998. It is hard to imagine a scenario where Paterno was not informed of the 1998 incident. IIRC, 1998 was also the approximate timeline when Sandusky was removed from most responsibilities with the football program.

All this said, I do not think it inappropriate for K to state his regret that a "more humane" firing was warrented; regardless of Paterno's head-in-sand approach, he built that program and contributed positively to PSU for generations, and a face-to-face dismissal should have happened. The board has stated that as well.

It's all very sad. No one comes out looking good in this.

s.i.

[Channing]

so do they pull down the statue?

[lotusland]

I believe that Capt. Michael W. Krzyzewski, USMA 1969, would do the right thing immediately.

sage
Perhaps but what is the right thing to do? Hind sight is 20/20 so it doesn't take any courage at all to say what should have been done now that the truth about Sandusky is known. However we don't know what Paterno knew at the time he was first informed about the shower incident. If Coach K were informed by someone on his staff that his assistant coach, former player and member of the Duke family was witnessed behaving inappropriately in the shower with a young man would it be "wrong" for him to be biased in his thinking toward assistant coach and not believe it to be possible at first? In this case I think it would be bad form to name a particular assistant coach for this hypothetical situation but you can imagine how difficult this would be for coach K to handle. It's not "wrong" to trust and be loyal. What would your perception be if Coach immediately threw his assistant under the bus by calling the police and alerting the media only to find out the facts were different than he had initially been led to believe? Of course the Duke Lacrosse case comes to mind as an example of people rushing to judgment.

The truth is that not every reported rape is a rape, not every reported instance or domestic violence is as reported and not every reported sexual abuse is as reported yet people's lives and reputations are at stake. Discretion is the better part of valor as they say and there is nothing "right" about throwing away 30 years of friendship on the word of a staff member without getting all the facts. It was the University who should have acted instantly and taken it out of Paterno's hands. Paterno failed in the long term by allowing it to be pushed under the rug. PSU didn't act thereby allowing Joe Pa to take the easy way out.

It was a failure of leadership and huge blemish on his record and reputation. What he was probably guilty of was allowing himself to be blinded to truth because he didn't want to know or believe the worst about his friend. Trust and loyalty are good up to the point that it becomes blind trust or blind loyalty. I don't fault Paterno for not acting rashly but I do fault him for not acting at all.

[sporthenry]

It is just sad that in today's age you pretty much have a take a side on a story before all of the facts are out. I don't really think K did anything wrong by saying Joe Pa deserved better at the time especially when so little evidence was out. As mentioned, K never really addresses what Joe Pa did or didn't do but was reserving judgment until the facts were uncovered. Perhaps he gave Joe Pa the benefit of the doubt but in a society where you are guilty until proven innocent, it seems we have reversed that statement. One has to look no further than Duke Lacrosse, the Henry Louis Gates arrest, the Zimmerman/Martin case, and now with this case. In all of the cases, it appears people were quick to make assessments of what happened before facts came out just to make things into a bigger story. I actually credit K with showing reservations to truly picking a side although it appears not instantly condemning Joe Pa will be seen as defending him. You already had that reporter who criticized both Vitale and K for saying Joe Pa deserved better and now he will come off as being seen correct when I don't think Vitale or K did anything wrong assuming they acknowledge the University handled the situation correctly in light of recent findings.

[gus]

What's more, the content of the emails certainly open Penn State up to massive lawsuits from alleged victims.

Is this word really still needed?

[sagegrouse]

"I believe that Capt. Michael W. Krzyzewski, USMA 1969, would do the right thing immediately.

sage"

I think you need to be careful here. There is no record of K ever commenting on the the abuse/cover-up findings about Catholic priests and bishops. K is both a fine catholic layperson and an athletic coach, and both institutions were and are hardly paragons of "doing the right thing". K is not an other-worldly figure of rectitude but is a man of strengths and weaknesses like all of us, and he, even he, has blind spots and vulnerabilities of sympathy and affection. He is a great coach, and a fine man, but let's not get carried away.

The emphasis at West Point is all about "personal integrity," a necessary characteristic for gaining the trust and confidence of soldiers being led into battle.

If Sandusky were an assistant to K at Duke, I believe K would have gotten rid of him in a New York (er, Chicago) minute and told the authorities why. When did he ever sleep on a problem?

There were two problems at Penn State -- not just the 2001 account by McQueary, which left enough evidence to send people to jail, but the fact that Penn State, while getting rid of Sandusky a few years earlier to [my words] "protect the program," effectively covered up his behavior then. Thus, when Joe Pa is consulted in 2001, he would [I say] have been thinking about the long-term unravelling of years of invovlement with Sandusky. How about letting him start the Second Mile program for disadvantaged "boys" without uttering a peep of concern? Much harder to turn Sandusky over to the cops in 2001 than it would have been when the issues first arose.

K's comments on Paterno's firing or his lack of criticism of the Catholic Church or his relative silence during the LAX hoax aren't the same thing. None of those were his personal responsibility (someone else's command?). Sandusky on the basketball staff would have been.

sagegrouse

[flyingdutchdevil]

The emphasis at West Point is all about "personal integrity," a necessary characteristic for gaining the trust and confidence of soldiers being led into battle.

If Sandusky were an assistant to K at Duke, I believe K would have gotten rid of him in a New York (er, Chicago) minute and told the authorities why. When did he ever sleep on a problem?

There were two problems at Penn State -- not just the 2001 account by McQueary, which left enough evidence to send people to jail, but the fact that Penn State, while getting rid of Sandusky a few years earlier to [my words] "protect the program," effectively covered up his behavior then. Thus, when Joe Pa is consulted in 2001, he would [I say] have been thinking about the long-term unravelling of years of invovlement with Sandusky. How about letting him start the Second Mile program for disadvantaged "boys" without uttering a peep of concern? Much harder to turn Sandusky over to the cops in 2001 than it would have been when the issues first arose.

K's comments on Paterno's firing or his lack of criticism of the Catholic Church or his relative silence during the LAX hoax aren't the same thing. None of those were his personal responsibility (someone else's command?). Sandusky on the basketball staff would have been.

sagegrouse

Great post. Let's just pray that Coach K never has to run into a situation like this. And I'd like to think that this could never happen at Duke.

[lotusland]

The emphasis at West Point is all about "personal integrity," a necessary characteristic for gaining the trust and confidence of soldiers being led into battle.

If Sandusky were an assistant to K at Duke, I believe K would have gotten rid of him in a New York (er, Chicago) minute and told the authorities why. When did he ever sleep on a problem?



I hope he "sleeps" often on problems and difficult decisions. Otherwise he is likely to make poor decisions. I'm guessing Coach K consults with people he trusts and gives the matter serious thought in difficult situations. The phrase "due diligence" comes to mind. Even when the answers are black and white the questions tend to be gray.

[MCFinARL]

Is this word really still needed?

In this context, I think the answer is yes. I think it's safe to assume there were actual victims here. Whether or not every person who might choose to bring a lawsuit is an actual victim, however, is unfortunately not clear. Sadly, there are people who can see a way to make a quick buck in almost any situation, and it's imaginable, if perhaps not likely, that someone who may have been involved with Sandusky's charity but was not actually abused by Sandusky might see an opportunity to get a settlement from the university and pursue it.

[Pghdukie]

Great post. Let's just pray that Coach K never has to run into a situation like this. And I'd like to think that this could never happen at Duke.

As a PSU grad, its just a terrible episode in ANY school's history. The fact that PSU and JPa are involved is sad to me. Every one involved with cover-ups etc should pay the price. A heavy price. If there is a positive side to this- its the fact that people are now so very aware of this diplorable act, that awareness has spread thru-out schools from K-12. Its sad that this whole thing happened. PSU and the past admin will realize that the law suits,etc are just going to start bringing out more and more details. Could it have happened at any other univ-Yes. Will it happen now-I hope and pray that it doesn't.

[gumbomoop]

As a PSU grad, its just a terrible episode in ANY school's history. The fact that PSU and JPa are involved is sad to me. Every one involved with cover-ups etc should pay the price. A heavy price. If there is a positive side to this- its the fact that people are now so very aware of this diplorable act, that awareness has spread thru-out schools from K-12. Its sad that this whole thing happened. PSU and the past admin will realize that the law suits,etc are just going to start bringing out more and more details. Could it have happened at any other univ-Yes. Will it happen now-I hope and pray that it doesn't.

I very much appreciate and applaud this courageous post. I'm sure I'd be devastated if such events occurred at a school that claims my loyal support, and even more if such events involved people of whom I thought highly.

[sporthenry]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/us/pennsylvania-penn-state-paterno/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The attorney for the family is asking for all of the emails to be released, not just the one which condemned Joe Pa. While it certainly paints Joe Pa as someone who knew more than he at least originally seemed to let on, the recent portrayal as he being the guy to stop it from going to the authorities may not be correct. Only time will tell once these emails are released.

[MaxAMillion]

Perhaps but what is the right thing to do? Hind sight is 20/20 so it doesn't take any courage at all to say what should have been done now that the truth about Sandusky is known. However we don't know what Paterno knew at the time he was first informed about the shower incident. If Coach K were informed by someone on his staff that his assistant coach, former player and member of the Duke family was witnessed behaving inappropriately in the shower with a young man would it be "wrong" for him to be biased in his thinking toward assistant coach and not believe it to be possible at first? In this case I think it would be bad form to name a particular assistant coach for this hypothetical situation but you can imagine how difficult this would be for coach K to handle. It's not "wrong" to trust and be loyal. What would your perception be if Coach immediately threw his assistant under the bus by calling the police and alerting the media only to find out the facts were different than he had initially been led to believe? Of course the Duke Lacrosse case comes to mind as an example of people rushing to judgment.

The truth is that not every reported rape is a rape, not every reported instance or domestic violence is as reported and not every reported sexual abuse is as reported yet people's lives and reputations are at stake. Discretion is the better part of valor as they say and there is nothing "right" about throwing away 30 years of friendship on the word of a staff member without getting all the facts. It was the University who should have acted instantly and taken it out of Paterno's hands. Paterno failed in the long term by allowing it to be pushed under the rug. PSU didn't act thereby allowing Joe Pa to take the easy way out.

It was a failure of leadership and huge blemish on his record and reputation. What he was probably guilty of was allowing himself to be blinded to truth because he didn't want to know or believe the worst about his friend. Trust and loyalty are good up to the point that it becomes blind trust or blind loyalty. I don't fault Paterno for not acting rashly but I do fault him for not acting at all.

What if Coach K or Joe Pa received information that their grandchild was being molested? How do you think they would respond? That is the problem I have with the "measured" approach you describe. Those kids had family. They were someone's child. There should be no loyalty to anyone when you are talking about a child being molested. We all have a moral obligation to see that type of situation through to the end. You don't just tell the administration and leave it be for someone else.

I wish Coach K had kept quiet rather than feel the need to come to the defense of a fellow coach. Coaches are people...they should not be viewed as deities.

[sagegrouse]

What if Coach K or Joe Pa received information that their grandchild was being molested? How do you think they would respond? That is the problem I have with the "measured" approach you describe. Those kids had family. They were someone's child. There should be no loyalty to anyone when you are talking about a child being molested. We all have a moral obligation to see that type of situation through to the end. You don't just tell the administration and leave it be for someone else.

I wish Coach K had kept quiet rather than feel the need to come to the defense of a fellow coach. Coaches are people...they should not be viewed as deities.

Here's the issue in brief. Virtually any health professional, social worker, teacher, or school administrator has the LEGAL REQUIREMENT to report child abuse. Here is a summary of the Virginia statute:


Code of Virginia requires reporting of child abuse as follows:
§ 63.2-1509. ..... Physicians, nurses, teachers, etc., to report certain injuries to children; penalty for failure to report.
A. The following persons who, in their professional or official capacity, have reason to suspect that a child is an abused or neglected child, shall report the matter immediately to the local department of the county or city wherein the child resides or wherein the abuse or neglect is believed to have occurred or to the Department's toll-free child abuse and neglect hotline:
1. Any person licensed to practice medicine or any of the healing arts;
2. Any hospital resident or intern, and any person employed in the nursing profession;
3. Any person employed as a social worker;
4. Any probation officer;
5. Any teacher or other person employed in a public or private school, kindergarten or nursery school;
6. Any person providing full-time or part-time child care for pay on a regularly planned basis;
7. Any mental health professional;
8. Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer;
9. Any mediator eligible to receive court referrals pursuant to § 8.01-576.8

I am not an expert, but I believe these requirements or similar ones have been in place for at least 25 years.

Uhhh, .... there is a bright, bright line here that should have raised immediate concerns for all at Penn State. I mean, the guy that oversees the police at Penn State, didn't he get it? Penn State surely has day care and other activities involving children, including youth camps in the summer. Why wasn't the Unviersity counsel consulted; that office would have pounced (maybe that's why it wasn't consulted)? President Spanier? C'mon, guys, reporting the sexual abuse of a child on the Penn State campus is as easy as A-B-C. It is hard to believe that Joe Paterno was so out of touch, but apparently he was.

My confidence in K is due to the fact that this is a "by the book" case that legally, ethically and morally requires immediate action. I am afraid Penn State fails the most basic test of caring for children. Wow, it is embarrassing to conclude that, but I can't see any way around it.

sagegrouse

[tommy]

If Coach K were informed by someone on his staff that his assistant coach, former player and member of the Duke family was witnessed behaving inappropriately in the shower with a young man would it be "wrong" for him to be biased in his thinking toward assistant coach and not believe it to be possible at first? In this case I think it would be bad form to name a particular assistant coach for this hypothetical situation but you can imagine how difficult this would be for coach K to handle. It's not "wrong" to trust and be loyal. What would your perception be if Coach immediately threw his assistant under the bus by calling the police and alerting the media only to find out the facts were different than he had initially been led to believe? Of course the Duke Lacrosse case comes to mind as an example of people rushing to judgment.

The truth is that not every reported rape is a rape, not every reported instance or domestic violence is as reported and not every reported sexual abuse is as reported yet people's lives and reputations are at stake. Discretion is the better part of valor as they say and there is nothing "right" about throwing away 30 years of friendship on the word of a staff member without getting all the facts.

Sorry but I can't agree with this. It is simply not the coach's job, or even the administration's, to investigate potential crimes. It is the police's job. It is law enforcement that has the skills, experience, and appropriate resources to determine if a crime was committed and if so, who committed it. Not a coach or an athletic director or a university president. Paterno himself and the PSU administration as well should've known that the appropriate investigating authorities for this were the police, not themselves.

I think it would be very unwise to let the LAX experience, as awful as it was, to influence us to believe that all law enforcement and all prosecutors act as Mike Nifong did. They don't. The vast majority of them -- not all, but the vast majority -- are ethical, well-intentioned, and competent. In investigating potential criminal offenses, when we start to take the police out of the mix for fear of their using bad judgment or acting unethically, we revert to vigilante justice, where we make our own judgments about what is and is not legally permissible, we make our own judgments about who is and isn't guilty of crimes. That's not the way our government is supposed to work, and I just don't think any civilized society can, or should, work that way.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Sorry but I can't agree with this. It is simply not the coach's job, or even the administration's, to investigate potential crimes. It is the police's job. It is law enforcement that has the skills, experience, and appropriate resources to determine if a crime was committed and if so, who committed it. Not a coach or an athletic director or a university president. Paterno himself and the PSU administration as well should've known that the appropriate investigating authorities for this were the police, not themselves.

I think it would be very unwise to let the LAX experience, as awful as it was, to influence us to believe that all law enforcement and all prosecutors act as Mike Nifong did. They don't. The vast majority of them -- not all, but the vast majority -- are ethical, well-intentioned, and competent. In investigating potential criminal offenses, when we start to take the police out of the mix for fear of their using bad judgment or acting unethically, we revert to vigilante justice, where we make our own judgments about what is and is not legally permissible, we make our own judgments about who is and isn't guilty of crimes. That's not the way our government is supposed to work, and I just don't think any civilized society can, or should, work that way.
I think the point being made was not to exclude the police or never call them and revert to some form of vigilante justice. I think the point was that proper channels should be utilized... notify administration, conduct immediate investigation, notify police immediately as facts warrant, and so on. This does not imply it would take weeks or months to complete this process. You would like to think hours or days at most. It would seem then that the first major failure was on the part of administration when they did nothing. The second major failure was on JoePa for not standing up and pushing back when administration did nothing and allowed the whole thing to be swept under the rug. You have to blame JoePa - can;t imagine why he would remain silent and play along all those years. Horrible. But the even bigger shame is on the university and administration for allowing the cover up in the first place and putting JoePa in that position after he took the first step and reported it up the line. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. But, again, I don't read that there was any suggestion to avoid the police - just follow a procedure that would involve the police in an immediate but correct way.

[JasonEvans]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/us/pennsylvania-penn-state-paterno/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The attorney for the family is asking for all of the emails to be released, not just the one which condemned Joe Pa. While it certainly paints Joe Pa as someone who knew more than he at least originally seemed to let on, the recent portrayal as he being the guy to stop it from going to the authorities may not be correct. Only time will tell once these emails are released.

Louis Freeh is the guy compiling everything into a final report. I believe that report is due in days or weeks so I am sure we will get a more complete picture at that time.

But, we now know that JoePa was part of the discussion about the second shower incident. McQueary came to him and then JoePa took it to the administration and the administration consulted with JoePa about what to do next. That much is pretty much irrefutable. So, unless there is an email from the AD where he says, "I consulted with JoePa and he urged me to take this to the police... but I am going to just talk to Sandusky instead," then things look pretty bad for JoePa.

-Jason "the 'what if it was your grandchild' analogy is a great one!" Evans

[sporthenry]

Louis Freeh is the guy compiling everything into a final report. I believe that report is due in days or weeks so I am sure we will get a more complete picture at that time.

But, we now know that JoePa was part of the discussion about the second shower incident. McQueary came to him and then JoePa took it to the administration and the administration consulted with JoePa about what to do next. That much is pretty much irrefutable. So, unless there is an email from the AD where he says, "I consulted with JoePa and he urged me to take this to the police... but I am going to just talk to Sandusky instead," then things look pretty bad for JoePa.

-Jason "the 'what if it was your grandchild' analogy is a great one!" Evans

I agree and Joe Pa definitely loses a lot of credibility at this point as he most definitely seems to know more than what he seemed to lead on. But the media and leaking just this one email is painting the picture as Joe Pa was the one who said not to go to the police when one piece of an email albeit a seemingly very condemning sentence was given absolutely no context. It remains to be seen if Joe Pa said don't go to the cops or if he just vouched for his long time friend and was still in a state of disbelief. Either way, he was obviously guilty of something and the Penn State officials look to be in a lot more trouble.

[MulletMan]

Just to point out exactly how far people are willing to jump when a scandal is rolling...

Have any of you read the leaked emails? Even in the original CNN story they continually use the word "purportedly" and "allegedly" before quoting lines from the leaked emails... just wondering if anyone has actually seen or read these emails.

At a more base level, JasonEvans says that the email evidence is "irrefutable" and proves that JoePa knew what was going on. If we consider "reasonable doubt" for just one half second, is it remotely possible that the "Joe" referred to in the purportedly leaked email isn't Paterno? The quoted line doesn't say Paterno. Is it possible that "Joe" might be an attorney for PSU? Maybe not, but I do enjoy how people on this board, after having lived through the Duke Lacrosse scandal are willing to jump on anything and everything without waiting to see ALL the evidence.

And the posts are being written in the same thread where people are piling on K for taking Paterno's side before seeing all the evidence. Oh the irony.

[roywhite]

There are a number of statements in this thread that are misleading, or at best, a premature conclusion based on what is actually known.

1. Joe Paterno is dead and can no longer defend himself, yet seems to remain the subject of the most discussion in this scandal, while other Penn State administrators are either guilty of a cover-up or a huge failure in judgment in their handling of Sandusky reports. We have not heard from Athletic Director Tim Curley, administrator Gary Schultz, or University President Graham Spanier. We did hear this from Paterno (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/2011/1109/Hindsight-haunts-Joe-Paterno-in-Penn-State-scandal-I-wish-I-had-done-more) when he announced his retirement (just prior to the Board of Trustees firing him).

“This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."

Paterno told Sally Quinn of the Washington Post in his final interview that he had no knowledge of a previous report of Sandusky's misconduct in 1998, which did not result in charges being filed by the Centre County DA. Paterno also attempted to hold a news conference in November and was barred from doing so by the University administrators.

2. What did Paterno know?
As indicated above, he said he was not aware of the 1998 investigation; there has been no evidence to indicate that he was aware.
Paterno received a report from Mike McQueary, a graduate assistant at the time, in 2001. McQueary's description to Paterno was very likely much less graphic than the version that appeared in the Grand Jury presentment. It's notable that on the night of witnessing the incident, the first people that McQueary informed were his father and a long-time family friend and physician, Dr. Dranov; it is significant that neither of these people advised McQueary to take this story to the police, and instead concluded it should be reported to Paterno. Paterno informed his superiors of the incident.

3. Paterno and Coach K
As someone who has followed Penn State for over 45 years, and closely followed Coach K, I've always had the impression that the two were very much alike -- similar backgrounds, similar outlook on things, great records as coaches, and great reputations and devotion from former players. When Coach K talked about what he thought were failures in Penn State's handling of the affair, he talked of how they should have included Paterno in the discussion and arrived at a solution, which indeed could have involved Paterno stepping down. And now when I read of emails between Penn State administrators, Paterno seems to have recommended talking to Sandusky about all this before taking more action. Very similar IMO to what Coach K was saying, and not indicative of what might have been their ultimate course of action.

4. The NCAA and PSU football and other athletic programs.
Frankly, I think there is no precedent or justification for the NCAA getting involved here, while I've even seen suggestions that Penn State deserved a death penalty. Jerry Sandusky was not a football coach in 2001; he had retired earlier. This case did not involve violations of NCAA rules. It involves something more serious than NCAA violations---that is, criminal violations and huge civil liabilities. And that is the proper way to deal with it. Jerry Sandusky has been tried and convicted and faces life in prison. The victims of Sandusky's molestations are due very large financial settlements and will likely receive them. Penn State has taken a huge hit; they may end up spending as much as $50 million to $100 million on all this. But the idea that current football players and coaches should somehow be in line for penalties here?? no, can't buy it. My guess is that the NCAA wants to be on record for moral outrage, but it really is not their province.

5. What is the responsibility here?
As noted above, we haven't heard from Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Spanier, in addition to his postion as University President, also was a trained academic expertin family therapy and human behavior. How he failed to see red flags when hearing even a watered-down version of Sandusky's actions is a mystery. And the Penn State Board of Trustees was absolutely negligent in not heeding warnings about what was going on and being waaaay behind the curve in taking action, whcih ultimately was a messy firing of Paterno.

Phil Knight had a pretty strong take (http://deadspin.com/5879688/heres-video-and-a-transcript-of-nike-chairman-phil-knights-vehement-defense-of-joe-paterno)


in the year in question he gave full disclosure to his superiors up the chain to head of campus police and president of the school. the matter was in the hands of a world class university and by a president with an outstanding national reputation. whatever the details of the investigation are, this much is clear to me. there was a villain in this tragedy it lies in that investigation, not in joe paterno's response to it.

[ applause ]

and yet, for his actions, he was excoreated by the media and fired over the telephone by his university. yet in all his subsequent appearances in the press, on tv, interacting with students, conversing with hospital personnel, giving interviews, he never complained, he never lashed out

[Duvall]

If we consider "reasonable doubt" for just one half second, is it remotely possible that the "Joe" referred to in the purportedly leaked email isn't Paterno?

How does a reasonable doubt standard come into play? We are trying to reason our way into understanding what happened, not evaluating the sufficiency of a criminal case against Paterno. (There will never *be* a criminal case against Paterno, for obvious reasons.)

[gus]

Just to point out exactly how far people are willing to jump when a scandal is rolling...

Have any of you read the leaked emails? Even in the original CNN story they continually use the word "purportedly" and "allegedly" before quoting lines from the leaked emails... just wondering if anyone has actually seen or read these emails.

I'm willing to jump. After all, CNN doesn't get big stories wrong.

[sagegrouse]

Perhaps but what is the right thing to do? Hind sight is 20/20 so it doesn't take any courage at all to say what should have been done now that the truth about Sandusky is known. However we don't know what Paterno knew at the time he was first informed about the shower incident. If Coach K were informed by someone on his staff that his assistant coach, former player and member of the Duke family was witnessed behaving inappropriately in the shower with a young man would it be "wrong" for him to be biased in his thinking toward assistant coach and not believe it to be possible at first? In this case I think it would be bad form to name a particular assistant coach for this hypothetical situation but you can imagine how difficult this would be for coach K to handle. It's not "wrong" to trust and be loyal. What would your perception be if Coach immediately threw his assistant under the bus by calling the police and alerting the media only to find out the facts were different than he had initially been led to believe? Of course the Duke Lacrosse case comes to mind as an example of people rushing to judgment.

The truth is that not every reported rape is a rape, not every reported instance or domestic violence is as reported and not every reported sexual abuse is as reported yet people's lives and reputations are at stake. Discretion is the better part of valor as they say and there is nothing "right" about throwing away 30 years of friendship on the word of a staff member without getting all the facts. It was the University who should have acted instantly and taken it out of Paterno's hands. Paterno failed in the long term by allowing it to be pushed under the rug. PSU didn't act thereby allowing Joe Pa to take the easy way out.

It was a failure of leadership and huge blemish on his record and reputation. What he was probably guilty of was allowing himself to be blinded to truth because he didn't want to know or believe the worst about his friend. Trust and loyalty are good up to the point that it becomes blind trust or blind loyalty. I don't fault Paterno for not acting rashly but I do fault him for not acting at all.

I agree with Tommy's comments.

If you are an experienced manager and executive (K is one of the best in any field), this is as easy as I said above -- A-B-C. You IMMEDIATELY notify the appropriate authority. At Duke that would be the AD and the General Counsel; in the Army that would be the Provost Marshal or the JAG office or the CID (criminal investigators); in the corporate world the CEO or any other executive would immediately call the head of HR, who would know to call the police. This ain't hard, and Penn State, to use an Army metaphor, tripped all over its messkit, to its complete and eternal embarrassment.

What does K or anyone say to some subordinate so accused? "There is probably nothing to this, but we need to clear this up right away." Or, "Let me know if you need any help, but I had no choice but to report it." Or, nothing.

By the way it wasn't Joe P.'s position to "get all the facts before reporting it." It was his duty to report it, and let the facts fall where they may. And it is ten times more true when there was already suspicion, as in the case of Sandusky. And BTW, I don't think he cared very much for Sandusky (surely his patience had worn out); I think he was trying to protect the football program and himself.

sagegrouse
'By the way, has anyone pointed out today that the cover-up is always worse than the crime? Ask Lefty Driesell about that'

[roywhite]

I agree with Tommy's comments.

If you are an experienced manager and executive (K is one of the best in any field), this is as easy as I said above -- A-B-C. You IMMEDIATELY notify the appropriate authority. At Duke that would be the AD and the General Counsel; in the Army that would be the Provost Marshal or the JAG office or the CID (criminal investigators); in the corporate world the CEO or any other executive would immediately call the head of HR, who would know to call the police. This ain't hard, and Penn State, to use an Army metaphor, tripped all over its messkit, to its complete and eternal embarrassment.

What does K or anyone say to some subordinate so accused? "There is probably nothing to this, but we need to clear this up right away." Or, "Let me know if you need any help, but I had no choice but to report it." Or, nothing.

By the way it wasn't Joe P.'s position to "get all the facts before reporting it." It was his duty to report it, and let the facts fall where they may. And it is ten times more true when there was already suspicion, as in the case of Sandusky. And BTW, I don't think he cared very much for Sandusky (surely his patience had worn out); I think he was trying to protect the football program and himself.

sagegrouse
'By the way, has anyone pointed out today that the cover-up is always worse than the crime? Ask Lefty Driesell about that'

okay. sage, let's be pretty basic here:

Paterno DID promptly report this incident to the appropriate parties, which were Curley and Schultz.

Could he have called the State College, PA police? yes, he COULD have but:
1. he himself was not a witness
2. he followed the proper chain for his own institution
3. the knowledge he had of Sandusky's actions was much more limited than we have today
4. the version that McQueary told Paterno was likely pretty similar to what McQueary told his father and the long-time familyfriend, who was a respected physician in State College. They did not advise McQueary to call the police.

[roywhite]

I'm willing to jump. After all, CNN doesn't get big stories wrong.

Sorry if I missed sarcasm here, but Nancy Grace says hello.

[Starter]

The thing is, Sandusky kept doing this stuff for years and years afterward, and it wasn't like he was doing it under the radar, he was bringing kids to games and to the practice fields, using their workout facilities, etc. (At least as I understand that timeline, and feel free to let me know if I'm wrong, it happens often.) Let's say you throw out that Paterno, based on the information from the leaked e-mails, appeared to have had a pretty strong influence in the decision-making process regarding Sandusky. You still get stuck on... knowing that at least something was fishy about Sandusky, how do you watch him parade kids around for another decade or whatever? It's not like there was that one opportunity to take action, then it was gone.

Do I have all the information? Of course not, I'm on my couch in New Jersey. But I still think I have enough to pass judgment on Paterno's legacy being tarnished and damned because of this, at least in my eyes. And I'd like to think, due to respect for him and out of respect for my own sanity, that Krzyzewski would have handled such a situation differently if it were his own program.

[sagegrouse]

okay. sage, let's be pretty basic here:

Paterno DID promptly report this incident to the appropriate parties, which were Curley and Schultz.

Could he have called the State College, PA police? yes, he COULD have but:
1. he himself was not a witness
2. he followed the proper chain for his own institution
3. the knowledge he had of Sandusky's actions was much more limited than we have today
4. the version that McQueary told Paterno was likely pretty similar to what McQueary told his father and the long-time familyfriend, who was a respected physician in State College. They did not advise McQueary to call the police.

Agreed, but let's see what the e-mail and other shows. As you know, there are widespread reports that Joe Pa put the kibosh in communications with Penn State officials about going to the police with the evidence against Sandusky. If those turn out to be true, then the shoe is on the other foot.

In fact, my message was in response to Lotusland, who opined that it would be difficult for K or anyone to act if there were such charges against a long-time subordinate. I disagreed because a good manager or executive would know exactly what to do -- report it, and let someone else determine the facts. This is a different context from the McQueary visit to Paterno and its aftermath.

sagegrouse

[roywhite]

The thing is, Sandusky kept doing this stuff for years and years afterward, and it wasn't like he was doing it under the radar, he was bringing kids to games and to the practice fields, using their workout facilities, etc. (At least as I understand that timeline, and feel free to let me know if I'm wrong, it happens often.) Let's say you throw out that Paterno, based on the information from the leaked e-mails, appeared to have had a pretty strong influence in the decision-making process regarding Sandusky. You still get stuck on... knowing that at least something was fishy about Sandusky, how do you watch him parade kids around for another decade or whatever? It's not like there was that one opportunity to take action, then it was gone.

Do I have all the information? Of course not, I'm on my couch in New Jersey. But I still think I have enough to pass judgment on Paterno's legacy being tarnished and damned because of this, at least in my eyes. And I'd like to think, due to respect for him and out of respect for my own sanity, that Krzyzewski would have handled such a situation differently if it were his own program.

I've followed this case pretty closely; turns out the best reporting (at least IMO) has been done by the local Harrisburg Patriot or pennlive.com which is their website. Believe the young reporter Sara Ganim has already gotten a Pulitzer prize, or is up for one.

At any rate, here is a timeline of events from pennlive.com (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_case_a_timeline.html)
One note: it's kind of weird, but it was written for a long time that the events involving McQueary and his reports occurred in 2002 (this was based on McQueary's accounts); turns out they actually happened in 2001, so the year references are actually wrong in this account.

To your questions:

1. No, I don't think Sandusky continued his molesting on Penn State's campus after that; he used his connections with the Second Mile charity (which he helped start) to procure contacts and also became a volunteer asst. football coach at Central Mountain High School, about 30 miles away from State College; turns out that is where he finally got caught---the mother of one of his victims from the high school reported him. **edit to add from the linked timeline:

March 27, 2002 (approximate) — The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky’s locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in grand jury in December 2010.

2. Coach K's handling in a similar situation -- yes, almost certainly different IMO. Coach K made some remarks about Paterno's age and perspective being different on this sort of thing; did not have the same awareness or sensitivity to accounts of molesting children. I think one of Coach K's reactions was sadness that Paterno was on unfamiliar grounds here; not that he didn't take any action or tried to cover something up, but that he didn't know quite how serious it COULD have been just based on fragments of information and therefore handled it differently.

I believe Coach K had tremendous respect for Paterno and at least wants to make sure he is treated fairly in these matters.

[roywhite]

Agreed, but let's see what the e-mail and other shows. As you know, there are widespread reports that Joe Pa put the kibosh in communications with Penn State officials about going to the police with the evidence against Sandusky. If those turn out to be true, then the shoe is on the other foot.In fact, my message was in response to Lotusland, who opined that it would be difficult for K or anyone to act if there were such charges against a long-time subordinate. I disagreed because a good manager or executive would know exactly what to do -- report it, and let someone else determine the facts. This is a different context from the McQueary visit to Paterno and its aftermath.

sagegrouse

I am ALL for more complete information coming out here. Let's see all the Emails.
"widespread reports"? based on just a few emails? or something more?

Let's hear from Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.
Let's hear from the Penn State Board of Trustees.
Did the sitting governor of Pennsylvania, Corbett act honorably throughout this?

[Bluedog]

I'm willing to jump. After all, CNN doesn't get big stories wrong.


Sorry if I missed sarcasm here, but Nancy Grace says hello.

I'm pretty sure gus is referring to the fact that CNN just last week reported that the Supreme Court deemed the health care act unconstitutional, which was clearly wrong (Fox New also got it wrong initially). So, yeah, definitely sarcasm. It took CNN something like 10 minutes to realize their mistake. Note that I am NOT opening the health care act discussion or trying to divert this discussion; simply pointing out that CNN just recently reported a HUGE story with the opposite headline of the one they should have used.

[Duvall]

I am ALL for more complete information coming out here. Let's see all the Emails.
"widespread reports"? based on just a few emails? or something more?

Let's hear from Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.
Let's hear from the Penn State Board of Trustees.
Did the sitting governor of Pennsylvania, Corbett act honorably throughout this?

I'm sure we will hear from the Board of Trustees when the report they commissioned is released, and from Curley and Schultz (and possibly Spanier) when they mount their respective criminal defenses. I'm not sure how the governor's actions are relevant to this discussion.

[roywhite]

I'm sure we will hear from the Board of Trustees when the report they commissioned is released, and from Curley and Schultz (and possibly Spanier) when they mount their respective criminal defenses. I'm not sure how the govenor's actions are relevant to this discussion.

The current governor Tom Corbett was the PA Attorney General when the state investigation into Sandusky began in 2009.

Some think the investigation moved slowly considering the serious charges and Sandusky still operating (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/pennsylvania_lawmaker_seeks_fe.html)

In particular, reportedly only one investigator was assigned to the case for a long period of time, and Sandusky was not arrested until November, 2011.
In addition, there are reports of substantial contributions to Corbett's campaign from some who were closely associated with the Second Mile charity.

[Wander]

At a more base level, JasonEvans says that the email evidence is "irrefutable" and proves that JoePa knew what was going on. If we consider "reasonable doubt" for just one half second, is it remotely possible that the "Joe" referred to in the purportedly leaked email isn't Paterno? The quoted line doesn't say Paterno. Is it possible that "Joe" might be an attorney for PSU?

No, that's not reasonably possible. I understand the desire to be cautious in judgement, but this line of defense is ridiculously silly and has more in common than fake-moon-landing-type conspiracy theories than rational argument.

The e-mails will likely be released soon and it's fine to wait until then, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a realistic scenario where Paterno doesn't deserve a healthy portion of blame. Just how much remains to be seen.

This is the opposite of the LAX case - the more time and evidence that plays out, the more damning it is to those accused.

[Starter]

1. No, I don't think Sandusky continued his molesting on Penn State's campus after that; he used his connections with the Second Mile charity (which he helped start) to procure contacts and also became a volunteer asst. football coach at Central Mountain High School, about 30 miles away from State College; turns out that is where he finally got caught---the mother of one of his victims from the high school reported him. **edit to add from the linked timeline:

March 27, 2002 (approximate) — The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky’s locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in grand jury in December 2010.

2. Coach K's handling in a similar situation -- yes, almost certainly different IMO. Coach K made some remarks about Paterno's age and perspective being different on this sort of thing; did not have the same awareness or sensitivity to accounts of molesting children. I think one of Coach K's reactions was sadness that Paterno was on unfamiliar grounds here; not that he didn't take any action or tried to cover something up, but that he didn't know quite how serious it COULD have been just based on fragments of information and therefore handled it differently.

I believe Coach K had tremendous respect for Paterno and at least wants to make sure he is treated fairly in these matters.

Thanks for clearing me up on this. I did a little more research -- honestly, I haven't read nearly as much as I normally would because the details of this turn my stomach -- and the Penn State hierarchy probably shouldn't have let Sandusky run a summer camp on satellite campuses (http://articles.boston.com/2011-11-08/news/30374243_1_football-camps-summer-football-jerry-sandusky) either. It's like they figured, he wasn't looming at State College, so out of sight, out of mind.

I completely agree with your assessment of what Coach K would have done in a similar situation. (I also would very much like to think nobody involved with Duke would put him in such a position.)

[MulletMan]

No, that's not reasonably possible. I understand the desire to be cautious in judgement, but this line of defense is ridiculously silly and has more in common than fake-moon-landing-type conspiracy theories than rational argument.

The e-mails will likely be released soon and it's fine to wait until then, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a realistic scenario where Paterno doesn't deserve a healthy portion of blame. Just how much remains to be seen.

This is the opposite of the LAX case - the more time and evidence that plays out, the more damning it is to those accused.

You're right... Joe is such an uncommon name that it's no remotely possible that it could be anyone but Paterno. I understand that it likely refers to Paterno. For me, however, I'd like to see the alleged email in context before I start to call anything evidence.

[J.Blink]

I think everybody agrees there is no shortage of blame to go around on the PSU campus.

I almost have the most trouble understanding McQueary's actions, however. I know the line is "you never know what you're going to do in that situation" but I just have NO clue how you can witness a man raping a child and not call the police. I understand that McQueary told his boss--Paterno (who in turn told his boss)--and thus technically met a moral minimum obligation, but I still have a huge problem with the situation. It also seems as if McQueary changed his story to cast his actions in a better light?

What it really comes down to for me:

Can anybody here honestly say that if you went in to your place of work one day, walked into the bathroom and--without being observed--saw a colleague / former boss / respected higher-up / etc raping a kid, you would not call the police? Immediately?

I'm not claiming to be any paragon of virtue, but there's no doubt in my mind that I would call the police ASAP.

[oldnavy]

I think everybody agrees there is no shortage of blame to go around on the PSU campus.

I almost have the most trouble understanding McQueary's actions, however. I know the line is "you never know what you're going to do in that situation" but I just have NO clue how you can witness a man raping a child and not call the police. I understand that McQueary told his boss--Paterno (who in turn told his boss)--and thus technically met a moral minimum obligation, but I still have a huge problem with the situation. It also seems as if McQueary changed his story to cast his actions in a better light?

What it really comes down to for me:

Can anybody here honestly say that if you went in to your place of work one day, walked into the bathroom and--without being observed--saw a colleague / former boss / respected higher-up / etc raping a kid, you would not call the police? Immediately?

I'm not claiming to be any paragon of virtue, but there's no doubt in my mind that I would call the police ASAP.

I am not so sure that would be what I would do "immediately", but yes I would get around to calling the police and EMT's...

[roywhite]

Penn State officials suspected child abuse (http://deadspin.com/5923294/records-suggest-psu-officials-knew-in-2001-that-sandusky-shower-incident-involved-suspected-child-abuse-not-just-horsing-around)

There's evidence now that 3 Penn State officials, Athletic Director Curley, Administrator Schultz, and President Spanier met with lawyers to discuss their approach and handling of reports from McQueary in 2001.


Top Pennsylvania State University officials held a three-hour meeting to discuss Jerry Sandusky in 2001 over concerns about the former coach's behavior with a boy in the football showers. A law-firm billing record from that conversation describes a "report of suspected child abuse," according to a person with knowledge of an independent investigation into the matter.

[Chicago 1995]

I'm not sure it's completely accurate to say there's no evidence JoePa didn't know anything about Sandusky before 1998.

There was an Esquire piece in May that noted Paterno had a number of cancellations in his schedule in May of 98 at the exact time Sandusky was talking to tr police. Couple that with the out of no where "retirement" of Sandusky and there's something supporting the idea that Joe knew in 98. Enough to shift the burden to JoePa supporters to explain the "retirement" at least.

Never mind the fact that Sandusky had been doing this (as many suspected) since the mid-70s at least. It's hard to believe JoePa didn't have suspicions before then.

As for the idea that Curley, Schultz and Spanier went against JoePa's wishes and covered up when JoePa wanted to report him? Come on.

Is it possible? Sure. So is winning the lottery. I'd say they are about as equally likely.

People can bend over backwards to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt. K supported him. Both are grossly on the wrong side of this. He was part of an apparatus that harbored a pedophile since at least 1998. The folks at PSU aren't deserving of anything less than damnation.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm not sure it's completely accurate to say there's no evidence JoePa didn't know anything about Sandusky before 1998.

There was an Esquire piece in May that noted Paterno had a number of cancellations in his schedule in May of 98 at the exact time Sandusky was talking to tr police. Couple that with the out of no where "retirement" of Sandusky and there's something supporting the idea that Joe knew in 98. Enough to shift the burden to JoePa supporters to explain the "retirement" at least.

Never mind the fact that Sandusky had been doing this (as many suspected) since the mid-70s at least. It's hard to believe JoePa didn't have suspicions before then.

As for the idea that Curley, Schultz and Spanier went against JoePa's wishes and covered up when JoePa wanted to report him? Come on.

Is it possible? Sure. So is winning the lottery. I'd say they are about as equally likely.

People can bend over backwards to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt. K supported him. Both are grossly on the wrong side of this. He was part of an apparatus that harbored a pedophile since at least 1998. The folks at PSU aren't deserving of anything less than damnation.

I have to say I agree with this. I find it hard to believe that Joe Paterno did no tknow what was going on with his top assistant in 1998.

You have to understand Sandusky's status then. There were a lot of people who thought he was the top defensive assistant in the country and he was the handpicked successor to succeed the 68-year-old Paterno. When Duke coach Barry Wilson resigned in December of 1993 AD Tom Butters called Penn State to see if Sandusky was interested in talking about the Duke job. Sandusky wasn't interested -- he knew he was going to get the Penn State job -- and reasonably soon ... nobody thought Joe would coach into his 80s.

Then all off a sudden in 1998, he "retires" at age 54? Penn State officials know about the allegations and work out the deal. And Joe doesn't know what's going on? C-mon. This is classtic "deniability" -- like Butch Davis didn't "know" about John Blake's tie to agents or to the academic shennanigans surrounding his program. Like John Calipari -- two Final Fours vacated, but nothing was ever tied directly to him. Deniability.

We've talked about this in the Clemens thread. I know there are legal standards of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), but outsidea court of law, we are allowed to formulate opinions beased on the perponderance of the evidence. Legally, I can't prove Joe knew in 1998 ... and legally, he fulflled his responsibilities when he passed on McQueary's charges to his superiors in 2001.

But morally? The evidence I see, including the most recent e-mail, paints a damning picture of irresponsibility. I can understand holding out hope that further revelations will paint a different picture, but the view we have right now is an ugly portrait of a man I once admired.

[roywhite]

There was an Esquire piece in May that noted Paterno had a number of cancellations in his schedule in May of 98 at the exact time Sandusky was talking to tr police. Couple that with the out of no where "retirement" of Sandusky and there's something supporting the idea that Joe knew in 98. Enough to shift the burden to JoePa supporters to explain the "retirement" at least.

.

Fine, here's an explanation:
1. Jerry Sandusky had been told by Joe that Paterno was not stepping down anytime soon and that Sandusky would not be head coach at Penn State.
2. There was an incentive for state employees with 30 years service to retire at the time.

There is no indication that Joe Paterno knew of the 1998 incident involving Sandusky. Paterno himself said that.

If you find something solid, let me know.

There is plenty of real information in this whole case; you don't have to make assumptions that are not supported.

[Saratoga2]

I'm not sure it's completely accurate to say there's no evidence JoePa didn't know anything about Sandusky before 1998.

There was an Esquire piece in May that noted Paterno had a number of cancellations in his schedule in May of 98 at the exact time Sandusky was talking to tr police. Couple that with the out of no where "retirement" of Sandusky and there's something supporting the idea that Joe knew in 98. Enough to shift the burden to JoePa supporters to explain the "retirement" at least.

Never mind the fact that Sandusky had been doing this (as many suspected) since the mid-70s at least. It's hard to believe JoePa didn't have suspicions before then.

As for the idea that Curley, Schultz and Spanier went against JoePa's wishes and covered up when JoePa wanted to report him? Come on.

Is it possible? Sure. So is winning the lottery. I'd say they are about as equally likely.

People can bend over backwards to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt. K supported him. Both are grossly on the wrong side of this. He was part of an apparatus that harbored a pedophile since at least 1998. The folks at PSU aren't deserving of anything less than damnation.

You are willing to make strong accusations against Joe Pa before all of the facts have come out. I wouldn't want to have you on any jury, since you seem too eager to criticize a man who gave 60 years of devoted service prior to having a total look at the facts. The facts will eventually come out and then you can gloat about how right you were to those who suggest a cautious approach is a better one. Then again, you may be wrong oon this one.

[sagegrouse]

Fine, here's an explanation:
1. Jerry Sandusky had been told by Joe that Paterno was not stepping down anytime soon and that Sandusky would not be head coach at Penn State.
2. There was an incentive for state employees with 30 years service to retire at the time.

There is no indication that Joe Paterno knew of the 1998 incident involving Sandusky. Paterno himself said that.

If you find something solid, let me know.

There is plenty of real information in this whole case; you don't have to make assumptions that are not supported.


You are willing to make strong accusations against Joe Pa before all of the facts have come out. I wouldn't want to have you on any jury, since you seem too eager to criticize a man who gave 60 years of devoted service prior to having a total look at the facts. The facts will eventually come out and then you can gloat about how right you were to those who suggest a cautious approach is a better one. Then again, you may be wrong oon this one.

No question that some posters here are "leaning forward" on Paterno's theoretical guilt. I suppose I am one. But I don't see it as a problem as a discussion because (a) this is not a PSU site with heightened sensitivities and (b) he died and won't face criminal charges. Therefore, there will not be a criminal case against him, and idle speculation is realtively harmless.

FWIW Frank Deford's NPR commentary this AM was entitled, more or less, "You Know, There Can Be a Fate Worse than Dying," with respect to Paterno and his crumbling legacy. So, I think such comments may become common unless there is exculpatory (ooohhh!) evidence.

sagegrouse

[Des Esseintes]

I'm not sure it's completely accurate to say there's no evidence JoePa didn't know anything about Sandusky before 1998.

There was an Esquire piece in May that noted Paterno had a number of cancellations in his schedule in May of 98 at the exact time Sandusky was talking to tr police. Couple that with the out of no where "retirement" of Sandusky and there's something supporting the idea that Joe knew in 98. Enough to shift the burden to JoePa supporters to explain the "retirement" at least.

Never mind the fact that Sandusky had been doing this (as many suspected) since the mid-70s at least. It's hard to believe JoePa didn't have suspicions before then.

As for the idea that Curley, Schultz and Spanier went against JoePa's wishes and covered up when JoePa wanted to report him? Come on.

Is it possible? Sure. So is winning the lottery. I'd say they are about as equally likely.

People can bend over backwards to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt. K supported him. Both are grossly on the wrong side of this. He was part of an apparatus that harbored a pedophile since at least 1998. The folks at PSU aren't deserving of anything less than damnation.


You are willing to make strong accusations against Joe Pa before all of the facts have come out. I wouldn't want to have you on any jury, since you seem too eager to criticize a man who gave 60 years of devoted service prior to having a total look at the facts. The facts will eventually come out and then you can gloat about how right you were to those who suggest a cautious approach is a better one. Then again, you may be wrong oon this one.

Near as I can tell, Chicago1995 isn't making an accusation. What he is doing is talking about the case and asking pertinent questions. Why would Sandusky retire at 54? Sure, state employees with the necessary service time can retire at that time, but a famous defensive coordinator with the potential to make $1M+ every year for the next decade is not your typical state employee. Given Sandusky's long history of crime, the odd circumstances of the '98 retirement are a heavy counterbalance to Paterno's claim of knowing nothing. I think Penn State, its employees, and more than a decade of what at the very least could be termed institutional irresponsibility have "earned" that suspicion. Joe Paterno was the most celebrated and powerful of those employees, and his sixty years on the job do not exempt him from questions. Not now. Great power, great responsibility, and all that.

[roywhite]

Near as I can tell, Chicago1995 isn't making an accusation. What he is doing is talking about the case and asking pertinent questions. Why would Sandusky retire at 54? Sure, state employees with the necessary service time can retire at that time, but a famous defensive coordinator with the potential to make $1M+ every year for the next decade is not your typical state employee. Given Sandusky's long history of crime, the odd circumstances of the '98 retirement are a heavy counterbalance to Paterno's claim of knowing nothing. I think Penn State, its employees, and more than a decade of what at the very least could be termed institutional irresponsibility have "earned" that suspicion. Joe Paterno was the most celebrated and powerful of those employees, and his sixty years on the job do not exempt him from questions. Not now. Great power, great responsibility, and all that.


While it's damning, I don't think we should be surprised that Paterno knew more than he claimed before the grand jury and in the aftermath of the Sandusky charges. His denial was laughable and utterly incredible.

Penn State should get out of the business of football until it can get its moral house and priorities in order. It won't. Too much lost revenue and too integral to its identity. But they've got far bigger things to worry themselves with than football.

There are plenty of areas for questions here, but seems like there is a pretty clear agenda and point of view from Chicago1995.

[formerdukeathlete]

Near as I can tell, Chicago1995 isn't making an accusation. What he is doing is talking about the case and asking pertinent questions. Why would Sandusky retire at 54? Sure, state employees with the necessary service time can retire at that time, but a famous defensive coordinator with the potential to make $1M+ every year for the next decade is not your typical state employee. Given Sandusky's long history of crime, the odd circumstances of the '98 retirement are a heavy counterbalance to Paterno's claim of knowing nothing. I think Penn State, its employees, and more than a decade of what at the very least could be termed institutional irresponsibility have "earned" that suspicion. Joe Paterno was the most celebrated and powerful of those employees, and his sixty years on the job do not exempt him from questions. Not now. Great power, great responsibility, and all that.

Based on a number of accounts, in 1998 Sandusky was told substantially as follows, "You are not going to get the head coaching job. Your charity work is interfering with coaching. You need to retire." He was 54. Why did he not apply for other coaching positions? We know now that working somewhere else would have interrupted his pedophilia. But, also, given what I think had taken place - that Sandusky was forced to retire over reports of inappropriate behavior, Sandusky might have been concerned about what might have come out in the vetting process.

Testimony at the Sandusky trial outlined abuse dating back well before 1998, and you have the janitor / co-worker testimony of witnessing sexual assault in the Penn State locker room showers in 2000. With as many boys as Sandusky escourted in and out of the Penn State locker room and showers, I find it unbelievable that there were not other reports of inappropriate behavior leading up to 1998 and really unbelievable that such reports did not play a part in the decision to retire Sandusky.

As you have pointed out, 'Given Sandusky's long history of crime, the odd circumstances of the '98 retirement are a heavy counterbalance to Paterno's claim of knowing nothing.' We might also take note of Paterno's nearly immediate action when the scandal broke - he announced his retirement at the end of the 2011 football season. I think if his hands had been clean completely in this matter, his initial response might have been different, something like, "As your head coach, I am going to use all my power and influence to get to the bottom of this."

Based on many accounts, Joe was a thorough guy who did not do things precipitously. How often did he fire assistants? I believe Joe must have been quite involved in many of the details leading to the school's decision to retire Sandusky in 1998. Sandusky was a good DC. Why get rid of him? Ultimately this was Joe's decision.

My take is that as the civil suits progress, if they are not settled quickly, and if some go to trial, that more and more details will surface. How about emails in 1998? That would be very interesting.

[Chicago 1995]

There are plenty of areas for questions here, but seems like there is a pretty clear agenda and point of view from Chicago1995.

Agenda's such a loaded word.

Long before I was a boring corporate litigator, I worked in my home county's state's attorney's office, and when I did, I worked with sex abuse victims on some horrific sex abuse cases. I've seen what effect monsters like Jerry Sandusky have on their victims. I've heard those stories first hand. I've had victims of mothers cry on my shoulder. I've never ever seen anyone as scared as a 15 year old boy having to testify against his step-father who had been raping him for 10 years. What was done to those boys and girls was unspeakable.

So if we're going to use it, sure I've got an agenda. It's an agenda to make sure that serial pedophiles aren't harbored by institutions of higher learning. It's to make sure that child rape is taken as seriously as it needs to be, and it's to make sure that an example is made of everyone at Penn State who allowed Jerry Sandusky to continue raping children he'd taken under his wing in the name of charity. It's an agenda to make sure that evil like this isn't minimized in the name of anything -- let alone football.

What I don't get is why some feel the need to defend Paterno. Seriously. What's the stake there? At a minimum, he did nothing when told by McQuery that something untoward happened with Sandusky in 2001. Giving him every benefit of the doubt, he did the bare minimum. And again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, it's not like there weren't red flags if someone was paying attention. Sandusky was taking all these Second Mile kids on PSU Bowl Trips. Apparently showering in the nude with 8-14 year old boys who weren't Sandusky's kids was the norm at PSU. Maybe none of that sets off an alarm in JoePa's head before 2001, but once McQuery brings that incident to his attention -- even assuming what was communicated to JoePa was the most innocuous version of that tale? All he does is make one phone call and let it go?

And while I get you aren't going to buy into any of this, it's hard to look at the facts in a light most favorable to JoePa. First, there's the Curley/Schultz e-mails that have been released. Those e-mails make clear that there was a plan of escalation that was rejected after discussion with JoePa. So either JoePa agreed to not escalating the 2001 incident, or he disagreed when it wasn't escalated, but did nothing. The latter is difficult to accept given the power Paterno had at PSU and his alleged rigid and upstanding moral character. So that leaves him going along with -- at a minimum -- the idea of not escalating the 2001 event.

There's also the 1998 incident and Sandusky's retirement. Are we really supposed to believe that JoePa's DC was questioned twice by police and JoePa didn't know anything about it? That JoePa's second in command and at the time, his believed to be successor to the throne was questioned by local police and it didn't get back to JoePa? Really? Never mind that he wasn't questioned for a dispute with a neighbor or parking tickets or even DUI. He was questioned in association with an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor. And JoePa didn't know about that? Really? That wouldn't have set off red flags in 2001, would it? It's not credible to think he didn't know what was going on with Sandusky in 1998, and even if he didn't believe it then, and Sandusky retired voluntarily in '99, shouldn't think 1998 allegation have colored how JoePa responded in 2001?

That also assumes that Sandusky either started being a pedophile in 1998 (not likely and there are allegations that he'd been doing this from the 70s on) or that he'd just started to get sloppy in 1998, and in the preceding 20 years of being a serial predator, there weren't other incidents or red flags JoePa might have picked up on.

The defense of JoePa, to me, is most bizarre, because all you are defending is that he didn't harbor a sexual predator from 1998 on, but only from 2001 on. There are only 10 years of child rape JoePa's got to answer for, not 13. I don't think that's much of a defense, and it's no consolation for Jerry's victims.

[roywhite]

Chicago 95, I see your passion for the issue of child safety and I can appreciate it.

There are simply too many errors and false assumptions in your account to go through.
Doesn't look like there is much we'll agree on.

[comdytrd]

What if Coach K or Joe Pa received information that their grandchild was being molested? How do you think they would respond? That is the problem I have with the "measured" approach you describe. Those kids had family. They were someone's child. There should be no loyalty to anyone when you are talking about a child being molested. We all have a moral obligation to see that type of situation through to the end. You don't just tell the administration and leave it be for someone else.

I wish Coach K had kept quiet rather than feel the need to come to the defense of a fellow coach. Coaches are people...they should not be viewed as deities.

As one who knows whereof I speak, I can only say AMEN.

[Pghdukie]

Chicago 95, I see your passion for the issue of child safety and I can appreciate it.

There are simply too many errors and false assumptions in your account to go through.
Doesn't look like there is much we'll agree on.

In time'- when the Curley's' Spaniers' etc have to testify in Civil Court (if not earlier in Criminal Court) more and more facts will be exposed.

[Chicago 1995]

Chicago 95, I see your passion for the issue of child safety and I can appreciate it.

There are simply too many errors and false assumptions in your account to go through.
Doesn't look like there is much we'll agree on.

We're not going to agree.

That being said, that I look at this through a different lens than you do, and that I'm giving JoePa less a benefit of the doubt than you are, doesn't make my conclusions false. It just makes them different than the conclusions you choose to draw.

In 2001, JoePa (and this in the light most favorable to JoePa) did the bare minimum. He didn't follow up after he'd elevated McQuery's complaint. He didn't confont Sandusky. He didn't even move to keep Sandusky away from PSU. He passed the story along and did NOTHING else.

There are other facts that should raise even deeper questions about what JoePa knew, when he knew it and what he did or didn't do, between the recently relased e-mails where after consulting with "Joe," the administration chose not to elevate the McQuery report to authorities, the curious end of Sandusky's coaching career and the 1998 investigation. You choose to interpret all of that in way that assumes the best of JoePa and explains away a lot of curious circumstances. Considering how he acted in 2001, I'm not about to do that, and I don't think it's exactly reasonable to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

[oldnavy]

I will be consistent with this like other similar "leadership" threads. The buck stops with JoePa. When he got a whiff of something like this in his program, it was HIS responsibility to run it to ground. Yes, he should have informed his superiors, but that is not the end of it. HE has to find out exactly what happened and take decisive action. Leaders cannot hide from responsibility. You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility. Maybe if JoePa felt too close to this because of his relationship with Sandusky, he should have called in some impartial investigators. Police, Social Services, etc.... Yes it would have been messy and the presss would have eaten it up, but too bad....

It was his responsibility to find out everything that was know about this incident, and anyother like incidents, and take the right action. It was a disgusting situation and one that most folks would rather not deal with, but as the head man (or woman), you have to do your duty.

We are all going to be held accountable for our actions or inactions at some point. A Marine Col. friend of mine was found of saying "do the right thing, fear no man"..... I kind of like that attitude.

[turnandburn55]

There is no indication that Joe Paterno knew of the 1998 incident involving Sandusky. Paterno himself said that.

This fact alone should shock anyone who has been in a position of substantial leadership. Joe Paterno was paid a substantial dollar figure to run a multimillion dollar organization in Penn State football. He had been running that organization for decades. He was also trusted to look out for the development of a large number of young men.

Anyone who calls himself a leader-- in the community, in athletics, in business, in the military-- takes extreme pride in knowing his people and being well-apprised of any problems they are facing. If Paterno honestly did not know that his right-hand man was the subject of a criminal investigation, then we seriously have to question his competence.

[jimsumner]

Things could get worse for Penn State.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8136890/penn-state-abuse-report-expected-very-tough-joe-paterno-according-sources

[roywhite]

Things could get worse for Penn State.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8136890/penn-state-abuse-report-expected-very-tough-joe-paterno-according-sources

Interesting disclaimer of sorts at the end of the article:


A source who has reviewed all the early 2001 emails said the few that have been leaked "are definitely out of context. We think the one that was released was the worst one for everybody."

[sagegrouse]

Things could get worse for Penn State.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8136890/penn-state-abuse-report-expected-very-tough-joe-paterno-according-sources

This is the long-awaited report by Louis Freeh's consulting firm. Originally, a draft report was to go to the Trustees before release. Criticism apparently led Freeh to release the report simultaneously to the Trustees and the public. (Cynical me, with decades in consulting and positions in government, nothing prevents the Trustees from receiving an early draft surreptitiously (is that a word?).)

While I have little use for Louis Freeh, I expect he and his colleagues did a respectable job, and the report will be valuable information to illuminate our discussion. Not, of course, that our discussion needs illumination. :p

sagegrouse

[greybeard]

Penn State officials suspected child abuse (http://deadspin.com/5923294/records-suggest-psu-officials-knew-in-2001-that-sandusky-shower-incident-involved-suspected-child-abuse-not-just-horsing-around)

There's evidence now that 3 Penn State officials, Athletic Director Curley, Administrator Schultz, and President Spanier met with lawyers to discuss their approach and handling of reports from McQueary in 2001.

Anybody know what the lawyers were obligated to do if, after the three-hour consultation during which we have to presume that the question of whether going to the authorities was required and the lawyers told these Penn State officials, "only if you don't want to commit a crime," the lawyers knew that no such report was made. Now, maybe the lawyers did not and could not have known whether a crime was committed or not, but assuming that they did, where did their ethical and legal obligations lie. (talk about long sentences, wow!)

I wouldn't come close to knowing the answer. The possible factual permutations alone make my hair hurt (what little of it there is), the answers, you're kidding right.

By the way, suppose that as a consequence of the 1998 criminal investigation, Penn State negotiated a termination agreement with Sandusky that included some sort of condition, with a stiff financial penalty of a single word of the agreement or the criminal investigation was uttered by anyone associated with Penn State. Does that complicate anything? Again, not my field.

[anon]

Anybody know what the lawyers were obligated to do if, after the three-hour consultation during which we have to presume that the question of whether going to the authorities was required and the lawyers told these Penn State officials, "only if you don't want to commit a crime," the lawyers knew that no such report was made. Now, maybe the lawyers did not and could not have known whether a crime was committed or not, but assuming that they did, where did their ethical and legal obligations lie.

Though it might be the right thing to do as a human being, it would have been the wrong thing to do as a lawyer and would have effectively ended their careers. It's not their responsibility.


By the way, suppose that as a consequence of the 1998 criminal investigation, Penn State negotiated a termination agreement with Sandusky that included some sort of condition, with a stiff financial penalty if a single word of the agreement or the criminal investigation was uttered by anyone associated with Penn State. Would that complicate anything? Again, not my field.

Not really. Civil and criminal law are sort of orthogonal. And such a contract may be unenforceable under state law.

[greybeard]

Though it might be the right thing to do as a human being, it would have been the wrong thing to do as a lawyer and would have effectively ended their careers. It's not their responsibility.



Not really. Civil and criminal law are sort of orthogonal. And such a contract may be unenforceable under state law.

Thanks, a guy goes to a lawyer because he has killed someone, obviously can't disclose. Same guy also says that he is going to kill someone else, I believe that there is an obligation to tell the police. If, at the end of this three hour conversation, the president says we are not going to tell the police. I thought the lawyer would be obligated to report it to the police? One of the factual permutations which, as I said, "hurt my hair."

If in 1998 the local prosecutor decides not to prosecute Sandusky, Penn State knows about it, and, rather than terminate Sandusky for cause, they agree to a separation agreement with a confidentially clause with severe penalties for Penn State if it breaches, that is nonenforcible?

A couple of other things that might have a bearing on all this. Penn State officials in making this agreement, whether it contained a confentiality clause or not, should not have permitted Sandusky access to Penn State's property period. Tolerating the behaviors, locker room et al, is mind numbing. Unless these guys were completely crazy, they would have had to have consulted with the University's lawyers before permitting Sandusky access to Penn State property, much less not to have included a clause expressly forbidding Sandusky to bring kids on Campus, or to anything related to Penn State or the football program (I am not good at contract language. Something does not add up. I mean, everybody had to know that the kid's mother might have hired an attorney who was just waiting to pounce.

Er fo knoe that there was this three hour conversation with University lawyers proximate to McQuearey's report of this incident. Three hours? The attorney client privilege is waivable and, if this thing goes to trial, we might yet find out what was said and by whom.

DISCLAIMER: nothing written here was thought out; just stirring the pot, off the cuff.

[roywhite]

Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky, family says in statement today (http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/10/3257420/joe-paterno-did-not-cover-up-for.html)


STATE COLLEGE — Joe Paterno's family issued a statement this afternoon, saying they weren't given a chance to respond to the Louis Freeh investigation and the leaks related to the Jerry Sandusky scandal.In the strongly worded statement, the family says while Joe Paterno supported the hiring of the Freeh group to conduct an investigation, "recent events have raised questions about the fairness and confidentiality of the investigative process."The statement comes two days before the report Penn State commissioned former FBI Director Louis Freeh to do into the scandal will be released. It also comes as emails exchanged between university administrators in 2001 were leaked to the press....

[Newton_14]

Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky, family says in statement today (http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/10/3257420/joe-paterno-did-not-cover-up-for.html)

I am hoping against hope the statement is found to be accurate Roy, but I do worry it may not happen. I still want to see all of the evidence laid out before forming an opinion. I think any decent human being deserves to have the facts heard first. I want to see all of the emails, confirmation that "Joe" was definitely Joe Paterno, and then let the chips fall where they may.

We all want our Sports Hero's to be blameless in situations such as this, but if it turns out blame is warranted, their sports accomplishments become irrelevant, and they must be held accountable.

I am anxious to see the report. I suppose it comes out sometime this week?

[Duvall]

I am anxious to see the report. I suppose it comes out sometime this week?

Thursday morning, 9:00 AM ET.

[oldnavy]

I am hoping against hope the statement is found to be accurate Roy, but I do worry it may not happen. I still want to see all of the evidence laid out before forming an opinion. I think any decent human being deserves to have the facts heard first. I want to see all of the emails, confirmation that "Joe" was definitely Joe Paterno, and then let the chips fall where they may.

We all want our Sports Hero's to be blameless in situations such as this, but if it turns out blame is warranted, their sports accomplishments become irrelevant, and they must be held accountable.

I am anxious to see the report. I suppose it comes out sometime this week?

Joe Paterno is responsible for what happened. The bottom line, he was in charge, this happened under his watch, so he cannot escape the responsibility of his position. As I said in the Butch Davis conversation, leaders have to create environments where they have a feel for what is happening in their organization. If JoePa had gotten himself so far removed that something of this magnitude, known by so many was unknown to him, then he failed.

As to the question "did he cover up for Sandusky", well it important to know before the final judgments are made against JoePa, but he either knew what was going on and did not stop it, or he did not create an organization that would ensure this type of info was taken straight to the top. Either way it is not a good thing for JoePa.

I am not saying that JoePa was a bad person at all, he on the whole was probably a wonderful man who did MANY, MANY good things, but this will not be a flattering chapter in his final story.

[Wander]

Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky, family says in statement today (http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/10/3257420/joe-paterno-did-not-cover-up-for.html)

I don't understand why the Paterno family feels they have a right to "have a reasonable time to review [the Freeh's report's] findings" before it's released.

We should know a lot more tomorrow in regards to whether the leaked e-mails were unfair to Paterno.

[roywhite]

I don't understand why the Paterno family feels they have a right to "have a reasonable time to review [the Freeh's report's] findings" before it's released.

We should know a lot more tomorrow in regards to whether the leaked e-mails were unfair to Paterno.

The leaks so far, and the approach of the "Freeh birds" (reportedly 400+ interviewed, but did NOT talk to former A.D. Curley, Administrator Schultz, key witness Mike McQueary, or any Paterno family members including long-time asst. coach Jay Paterno) have given the Paterno family some basis for concern of the fairness of the report.

There was another Joe Paterno letter released today by the Paterno family (http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1201534.html#.T_2q7kd47lI.facebook).


Yet, over and over again, I have heard Penn State officials decrying the influence of football and have heard such ignorant comments like Penn State will no longer be a “football factory” and we are going to “start” focusing on integrity in athletics. These statements are simply unsupported by the five decades of evidence to the contrary - and succeed only in unfairly besmirching both a great University and the players and alumni of the football program who have given of themselves to help make it great.

[weezie]

...have given the Paterno family some basis for concern of the fairness of the report.
[/URL].

Just asking, would Freeh's investigation not have been able to interview all the above mentioned active role players since there was an ongoing court case? Might he be able to question them later?

[roywhite]

Just asking, would Freeh's investigation not have been able to interview all the above mentioned active role players since there was an ongoing court case? Might he be able to question them later?

Don't know what the response would be if the authors of this report are asked....I hope they are asked.

Makes one wonder:
Is there a reason to release the report now if you haven't been able to talk to key figures?

And, of all, why not talk to key witness Mike McQueary?

Source: Freeh Didn't Interview McQueary tml (http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1201545.html)


Former FBI director Louis Freeh led an eight-month independent investigation into the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal at Penn State, an inquiry that was said to include interviews with hundreds of past and present university employees.
With the results of the probe due to be released Thursday morning, FightOnState.com has learned that Mike McQueary — the former Nittany Lions assistant coach who served as a key prosecution witness in the criminal case in which Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of abuse — has not been interviewed by Freeh's investigators.

A source close to McQueary's family, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said McQueary made multiple offers to speak to the Freeh investigators but they did not

[Chicago 1995]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/justice/pennsylvania-penn-state-paterno/index.html

Can't imagine why the terms "Football Factory" might get thrown around at PSU. It's clear that Spanier himself was at least complicit in forcing out an administrator who wasn't on board with the idea that the football team got to play by their own set of JoePa created rules.

Shifting gears, not that I expect it to change anything, but I find it impossible to believe that JoePa didn't know of Sandusky being questioned in 1998. I'm not saying he should have accepted the credibility of those allegations. But that his DC and his presumed successor (at the time at least) got questioned twice by police and JoePa never heard about it? State College isn't that big a town and PSU football is kind of a big deal. Other PSU administrators knew about the questioning. But somehow JoePa didn't? I can't be the only one that finds that laughable.

I still don't get what's in it for the folks like roywhite who seem intent on defending JoePa with full force, and seem so unwilling to consider what seems to be a very plausible scenario: JoePa and the PSU admin forced Sandusky out in 99, and did nothing in 2001 because they'd have had to explained their actions after the 1998 incident. As I said earlier, best case, JoePa failed miserably in 2001, and did the bare minimum required by law. That coupled with the full light being exposed to things such as how other discipline for the football program at PSU was handled just go to show that JoePa wasn't the paragon of virtue he'd been built up as. He was just another guy, focused on an image and winning football games at the expense of most other things. Makes him pretty common in the world of coaching big time collegiate athletics.

[oldnavy]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/justice/pennsylvania-penn-state-paterno/index.html

Can't imagine why the terms "Football Factory" might get thrown around at PSU. It's clear that Spanier himself was at least complicit in forcing out an administrator who wasn't on board with the idea that the football team got to play by their own set of JoePa created rules.

Shifting gears, not that I expect it to change anything, but I find it impossible to believe that JoePa didn't know of Sandusky being questioned in 1998. I'm not saying he should have accepted the credibility of those allegations. But that his DC and his presumed successor (at the time at least) got questioned twice by police and JoePa never heard about it? State College isn't that big a town and PSU football is kind of a big deal. Other PSU administrators knew about the questioning. But somehow JoePa didn't? I can't be the only one that finds that laughable.

I still don't get what's in it for the folks like roywhite who seem intent on defending JoePa with full force, and seem so unwilling to consider what seems to be a very plausible scenario: JoePa and the PSU admin forced Sandusky out in 99, and did nothing in 2001 because they'd have had to explained their actions after the 1998 incident. As I said earlier, best case, JoePa failed miserably in 2001, and did the bare minimum required by law. That coupled with the full light being exposed to things such as how other discipline for the football program at PSU was handled just go to show that JoePa wasn't the paragon of virtue he'd been built up as. He was just another guy, focused on an image and winning football games at the expense of most other things. Makes him pretty common in the world of coaching big time collegiate athletics.

You're not. Joe Paterno at the end of all of this was just a man. He like all of us had flaws and made mistakes. I cannot imagine it possible that Joe Pa didn't know about what was going on. Given that position, I also do not think he acted strongly enough given the seriousness of the issue and his position. But what can be done about that now?

[Jderf]

I still don't get what's in it for the folks like roywhite who seem intent on defending JoePa with full force (...)

Hmm, I don't know if there's anything "in it" for anybody here. We're just jabbering about some terrible current events on an internet message board.

Also, in reading this thread mostly as an observer, it doesn't seem like anybody is really defending Paterno with "full force." There seems to be two camps: one saying we should be quick to condemn, the other saying we aren't sure what happened yet. Both sides have made very subtle and nuanced arguments. But neither side seems to be saying anything remotely close to "Joe was completely innocent and is being dragged through the mud for no reason," which is what I would call defending with "full force." That just isn't being claimed.

Personally -- might as well toss in my two pennies at this point -- I'm with oldnavy on this one. Either he knew about it all along and is truly guilty of a horrible moral failure, or he somehow didn't know about it and is guilty of a horrible failure of leadership.

I guess we'll see what happens tomorrow.

[weezie]

"A source close to McQueary's family, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said McQueary made multiple offers to speak to the Freeh investigators but they did not"

So if there are lawyers reading here now, would they have allowed McQueary to talk to Freeh's investigators if they represented McQueary while Sandusky is awaiting sentencing?
It's getting convoluted, no? Tell me all attentive attorneys.

[oldnavy]

"A source close to McQueary's family, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said McQueary made multiple offers to speak to the Freeh investigators but they did not"

So if there are lawyers reading here now, would they have allowed McQueary to talk to Freeh's investigators if they represented McQueary while Sandusky is awaiting sentencing?
It's getting convoluted, no? Tell me all attentive attorneys.

They will just as soon as they can figure out how to bill for it!! :D Just kidding lawyer friends....

[gumbomoop]

In reading this thread mostly as an observer, it doesn't seem like anybody is really defending Paterno with "full force." There seems to be two camps: [1]one saying we should be quick to condemn, the other saying we aren't sure what happened yet. [2]Both sides have made very subtle and nuanced arguments. But neither side seems to be saying anything remotely close to "Joe was completely innocent and is being dragged through the mud for no reason," which is what I would call defending with "full force." That just isn't being claimed.

It strikes me that your above point [2] casts doubt on the accuracy of the phrasing of your point [1], so I wonder whether you'd accept a friendly amendment to [1]. Something like: "... one saying there seems to be evidence that Paterno didn't do nearly enough......

This is obviously a very controversial issue, and to take either side up to this point will likely offend people on the other side. Although those who fall into the "we aren't sure what happened yet" may insist that the other camp is too "quick to condemn," that's a loaded phrase - especially that word "should" - and seems incompatible with "subtle and nuanced arguments."

Here's an interesting update from overnight, as we await release of the Freeh report.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8157705/penn-state-nittany-lions-joe-paterno-defends-football-program-pre-death-letter

[Duvall]

Report of the Special Investigative Counsel. (http://i.usatoday.net/news/nation/2012-07-12-penn-state-freeh-report.pdf)

[moonpie23]

this seriously looks like the hammer has come down for PSU and everyone involved....

[COYS]

this seriously looks like the hammer has come down for PSU and everyone involved....

It also seems to close the book on whether or not Paterno knew something about the incident in 1998, as the report gathers from Clurley's own private notes that he had "touched base" with Paterno about the investigation into Sandusky. Supposedly, Paterno was "anxious" to know where the investigation stood. Who knows how much Curley actually told Paterno in 1998 when they "touched base" about the investigation, but it does seem that Paterno HAD to have learned enough that he would have been immediately alarmed when the 2001 incident occurred, knowing that it represented a long-standing pattern with Sandusky that went back at least three years and probably longer. Even if JoePa gave the benefit of the doubt to his longtime friend and former player when no criminal charges were filed the first time, it does not look good for Paterno to have done it again . . . and this time when the event was reported directly to him.

Incidentally, the report backs up K's comments that the JoePa firing was handled very "poorly" by the school.

[Chicago 1995]

"The facts are the facts. He was an integral part of the act to conceal."

"The evidence clearly shows . . . an active agreement to conceal."

[MulletMan]

The account of the investigation into the 1998 incident is sad to read. Apparently a PSU psychologist and others thought there were signs of abuse, but local and state investigators differed on the amount of evidence and what could be drawn from it. Police who hid in the boys home and had his mother confront Sandusky were not properly trained in child abuse cases, and missed chances to interrogate him... thus no charges were eventually filed.

[lmb]

This is very sad for all of us in Pennsylvania who have looked up to Paterno for decades, much in the same way many of us regard Coach K. This is a great lesson for our kids to be careful of idolizing anyone. Everyone is human and makes mistakes. There is also a lesson in this that I have come to learn in the last several years through some other circumstances - the world isn't black and white. People are not either only good or only bad. Really great, moral people can make really horrible, sinful mistakes. That doesn't mean that every good thing they've done in their lives is now tainted or insincere.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Incidentally, the report backs up K's comments that the JoePa firing was handled very "poorly" by the school.

I think you're taking this a little bit out of context. Coach K also said this to Piers Morgan:


“You had somebody who’d given six decades of service to the university and done such an incredible job,” Krzyzewski said of Paterno. “Somehow, you have to let – something has to play out and respect the fact that you’ve gone through all these experiences for six decades. And it doesn’t just go out the window, right at the end.”

I don't care if Paterno is the greatest football coach. I don't care if he won over 400 games and 24 bowls. His firing was, IMO, just and appropriate. His status at the university and service he provided doesn't justify a fair firing, when he was partially responsible for Sandusky's continued atrocities. If anything like this happened at Duke (and I have more than enough faith that the school and leaders wouldn't let that happen), I would hope they let Coach K go right away and I would never look back. No coach's wins, trophies, or accolades should ever be taken into consideration in such a disgusting cover-up.

I hope that Coach K retracts what he said after now knowing the facts. I was upset he said those things in the first place, but now he needs to address them again.

This post may be an unpopular sentiment on this board, but athletics should never, ever trump the safety of the innocent, especially young boys (most - if not all - of who's lives have been changed forever due to the lack of accountability of so-called Penn State "leaders").

[Starter]

I see no more need to hear about all the good things Joe Paterno did.

From the ESPN summary of the report:


Sexual abuse might have been prevented if university officials had banned him from bringing children onto campus after a 1998 inquiry, the report said. Despite their knowledge of the police probe into Sandusky showering with a boy in a football locker room, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz took no action to limit his access to campus, the report said.

I mean...

[COYS]

I think you're taking this a little bit out of context. Coach K also said this to Piers Morgan:



I don't care if Paterno is the greatest football coach. I don't care if he won over 400 games and 24 bowls. His firing was, IMO, just and appropriate. His status at the university and service he provided doesn't justify a fair firing, when he was partially responsible for Sandusky's continued atrocities. If anything like this happened at Duke (and I have more than enough faith that the school and leaders wouldn't let that happen), I would hope they let Coach K go right away and I would never look back. No coach's wins, trophies, or accolades should ever be taken into consideration in such a disgusting cover-up.

I hope that Coach K retracts what he said after now knowing the facts. I was upset he said those things in the first place, but now he needs to address them again.

This post may be an unpopular sentiment on this board, but athletics should never, ever trump the safety of the innocent, especially young boys (most - if not all - of who's lives have been changed forever due to the lack of accountability of so-called Penn State "leaders").

I agree with everything you say. I, too, hope K either retracts his statement OR at the very least refuses to defend Paterno any further, but I would prefer the former. Still, I did think it was interesting that the report thought the University even bungled the firing of JoePa when they finally got around to it, as it seems to have been more of a clumsy move to save face or something, and was not conducted in a way that addressed any of the significant facts or issues. I did not mean my comment to imply that Coach K's comments were somehow now completely legitimized by the report. However, I do think Coach K was right to identify that the University was more or less trying to throw Paterno under the bus in the hopes that the issue would go away. Now, had he expressed his feelings while also acknowledging the seriousness of the situation (even if he didn't go as far as to condemn Paterno), then that would be more defensible.

[miramar]

From the NYT:

“Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims,” said Louis J. Freeh, the former federal judge and director of the F.B.I. who oversaw the investigation. “The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.”

Freeh’s investigation — which took seven months and involved more than 400 interviews and the review of more than 3.5 million documents — accuses Paterno, the university’s former president and others of deliberately hiding facts about Sandusky's sexually predatory behavior over the years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/sports/ncaafootball/13pennstate.html?hp

[CDu]

From the NYT:

“Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims,” said Louis J. Freeh, the former federal judge and director of the F.B.I. who oversaw the investigation. “The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.”

Freeh’s investigation — which took seven months and involved more than 400 interviews and the review of more than 3.5 million documents — accuses Paterno, the university’s former president and others of deliberately hiding facts about Sandusky's sexually predatory behavior over the years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/sports/ncaafootball/13pennstate.html?hp

Also in the statement was a reference to the effect of "those 4 most powerful men at Penn State stated their concern for treating Sandusky humanely, but the same concern was never overtly given to the children he abused."

Ouch.

Just a sad, sad mess.

[MulletMan]

Anybody actually read it?

The people who come off the worst are, by far, Spanier, Curley and Schultz. There is literally nothing new in the report about Paterno that hasn't already been leaked except for the fact that he had notified Sandusky that he would not be the head coach at PSU before the 1998 incident in the shower was reported.

Sadly, to me, this report provides no further clarity about what Paterno did or didn't know or when he knew it. We knew that he knew of the two incidents, and we knew that Curley consulted with him. Thus far, Paterno's the only person who admitted that they wished they'd done more.

A lot of the report is about the institutional failings of PSU outside of the football program. This would be the portion that EVERY INSTITUTION THAT DEALS WITH YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE READING. Unfortunately, no one will pay attention, because the media needs to tear down or defend or at least discuss ad nauseum the legacy of Joseph Vincent Paterno.

[COYS]

Anybody actually read it?


Sadly, to me, this report provides no further clarity about what Paterno did or didn't know or when he knew it. We knew that he knew of the two incidents, and we knew that Curley consulted with him. Thus far, Paterno's the only person who admitted that they wished they'd done more.



I have not finished the whole thing, and don't believe I will. I did read the entire summary of the findings and the timeline. I also flipped ahead for a few more details on specific sections. While I agree that it doesn't add too much new to the discussion when it comes to what Paterno knew specifically, there can be no argument now that he didn't know about the incident in '98. He knew enough to be "anxious" while waiting for news while the investigation was ongoing. As has been stated for a while, it seems that the sad truth is that, as you stated, everyone at Penn State looks bad, including Paterno. The whole mess is sad for everyone: for Paterno and his legacy, for PSU and its community, for college football, and, most of all, for the victims and their families.

[Duvall]

Anybody actually read it?

The people who come off the worst are, by far, Spanier, Curley and Schultz. There is literally nothing new in the report about Paterno that hasn't already been leaked except for the fact that he had notified Sandusky that he would not be the head coach at PSU before the 1998 incident in the shower was reported.

Sadly, to me, this report provides no further clarity about what Paterno did or didn't know or when he knew it. We knew that he knew of the two incidents, and we knew that Curley consulted with him.

Did we know that Paterno had been apprised of the 1998 incident? It certainly seemed likely that Paterno would have known given his prominence, but I don't think that the report's identification of contemporaneous email correspondence that indicated that Curley was actively keeping Paterno briefed on the 1998 investigation was known. That not only suggests that Paterno gave inaccurate information to the grand jury and to the press in 2011, but it makes it difficult to interpret his actions in 2001 as anything other than unconscionable. (As could be said for Spanier, Schultz and Curley, of course.)


Thus far, Paterno's the only person who admitted that they wished they'd done more.

Would have been nice if he had actually acted upon that wish before indictments were handed down, when it would have done some actual good.

[Chicago 1995]

Anybody actually read it?

The people who come off the worst are, by far, Spanier, Curley and Schultz. There is literally nothing new in the report about Paterno that hasn't already been leaked except for the fact that he had notified Sandusky that he would not be the head coach at PSU before the 1998 incident in the shower was reported.

Sadly, to me, this report provides no further clarity about what Paterno did or didn't know or when he knew it. We knew that he knew of the two incidents, and we knew that Curley consulted with him. Thus far, Paterno's the only person who admitted that they wished they'd done more.

A lot of the report is about the institutional failings of PSU outside of the football program. This would be the portion that EVERY INSTITUTION THAT DEALS WITH YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE READING. Unfortunately, no one will pay attention, because the media needs to tear down or defend or at least discuss ad nauseum the legacy of Joseph Vincent Paterno.

While I think most assumed that JoePa knew of the 1998 investigation, this is actual evidence he did. That evidence also means he wasn't completely truthful with the Grand Jury. Whether it rises to the level of perjury or not, I don't know.

[Bluedog]

I hope that Coach K retracts what he said after now knowing the facts. I was upset he said those things in the first place, but now he needs to address them again.

This post may be an unpopular sentiment on this board, but athletics should never, ever trump the safety of the innocent, especially young boys (most - if not all - of who's lives have been changed forever due to the lack of accountability of so-called Penn State "leaders").


I agree with everything you say. I, too, hope K either retracts his statement OR at the very least refuses to defend Paterno any further, but I would prefer the former.

It is my impression that Coach K was NOT suggesting that the firing of JoePa was necessarily unwarranted, but rather HOW he was fired and the general handling by the administration. That is, JoePa was told of his firing third person over the phone like it was nothing, rather than having a face-to-face discussion about his dismissal and the need for the university to move on. However, Coach K was vague with what specifically was handled poorly by the administration, so we are left guessing. I came to the above conclusion because in the same interview, Coach K stated that he understands leaders need to be held accountable for what occurs under their watch and that they can (and should) be dismissed when stuff goes terribly wrong. It was my impression that Coach K was basically saying that the administration should have shown him the respect to fire him in person and give him the general benefit of the doubt based on his six decades of service to the university, but explain the severity of the situation necessitates a change in leadership without making judgment as to his culpability in the case at that juncture in time until all the facts are known. But again, Coach K's statement was a bit vague so we're all interpreting it differently. Perhaps a clearer statement as to what specifically he was referring to would be nice.

[flyingdutchdevil]

It is my impression that Coach K was NOT suggesting that the firing of JoePa was necessarily unwarranted, but rather HOW he was fired and the general handling by the administration. That is, JoePa was told of his firing third person over the phone like it was nothing, rather than having a face-to-face discussion about his dismissal and the need for the university to move on. However, Coach K was vague with what specifically was handled poorly by the administration, so we are left guessing. I came to the above conclusion because in the same interview, Coach K stated that he understands leaders need to be held accountable for what occurs under their watch and that they can (and should) be dismissed when stuff goes terribly wrong. It was my impression that Coach K was basically saying that the administration should have shown him the respect to fire him in person and give him the general benefit of the doubt based on his six decades of service to the university, but explain the severity of the situation necessitates a change in leadership without making judgment as to his culpability in the case at that juncture in time until all the facts are known. But again, Coach K's statement was a bit vague so we're all interpreting it differently. Perhaps a clearer statement as to what specifically he was referring to would be nice.

You may be right, and I completely respect your opinion. Two things still bother me, however. 1) Like all of us, Coach K didn't know the facts and made conclusions based on limited information (he didn't know how involved Paterno was). I was incredibly surprised by Coach K's comments because he stayed quiet during the first 6 months of the Duke lacrosse scandal (which I thought was a brilliant choice and showed off his leadership skills). 2) And more importantly, why bring up the whole "six decades of service" comment? In most cases, I would say that the level of service should reflect the way you handle a situation. But certainly not in this case, where a dozen (and probably more) kids had their lives changed. I think the number of years of service is irrelevant. I feel that no one should be backing up the way that Paterno was let go. Forgot Paterno and focus on the children. Forgot football and focus on rebuilding your school.

[killerleft]

While I think most assumed that JoePa knew of the 1998 investigation, this is actual evidence he did. That evidence also means he wasn't completely truthful with the Grand Jury. Whether it rises to the level of perjury or not, I don't know.

I believe that you are correct about the evidence. We now know that JoePa was not being honest. And the lack of concern (by Spanier, Curley, Paterno, and Schultz) for the victims is just plain immoral.

[blazindw]

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't think that Coach K is required to say a thing, nor should he. To be honest, this is about the scandal itself, not the many people who went to bat for JoePa back when he was fired having to eat some kind of crow (and K wasn't the only one--plenty of former PSU players, admin, students, other important people did the same). It wasn't like he called a press conference to defend JoePa; he did so in response to a question posed by the media. Nowadays, it seems like everything bad needs to be publicly refuted by someone if they originally thought it good. I don't think Coach K needs to personalize it and say he was wrong for thinking what he thought anymore than the former players have been forced to do so all day on ESPN. The focus should be on the scandal, the victims and, perhaps, what the future of Penn State football will be and how the program's legacy has been permanently affected.

[Jderf]

It strikes me that your above point [2] casts doubt on the accuracy of the phrasing of your point [1], so I wonder whether you'd accept a friendly amendment to [1]. Something like: "... one saying there seems to be evidence that Paterno didn't do nearly enough......

This is obviously a very controversial issue, and to take either side up to this point will likely offend people on the other side. Although those who fall into the "we aren't sure what happened yet" may insist that the other camp is too "quick to condemn," that's a loaded phrase - especially that word "should" - and seems incompatible with "subtle and nuanced arguments."

Here's an interesting update from overnight, as we await release of the Freeh report.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8157705/penn-state-nittany-lions-joe-paterno-defends-football-program-pre-death-letter

Amendment accepted. My wording there was less than artful. Though I feel that my post will and probably should get buried by all this new material anyway.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The most powerful article I've read about the case thus far. Incredibly sad, devastating to everyone involved, and it makes you think about what the word "leader" really means.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8160430/college-football-joe-paterno-enabled-jerry-sandusky-lying-remaining-silent

[Des Esseintes]

A lot of the report is about the institutional failings of PSU outside of the football program. This would be the portion that EVERY INSTITUTION THAT DEALS WITH YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE READING. Unfortunately, no one will pay attention, because the media needs to tear down or defend or at least discuss ad nauseum the legacy of Joseph Vincent Paterno.

First of all, there is little doubt the Penn State debacle will become a classic case study in institutional management. And a primary conclusion drawn from that case study will be this: do not jeopardize the establishment to protect the football program and its demigod coach. Another one: do not let one very successful employee become so overwhelmingly powerful that his interests are inextricable from those of the institution. The focus on Paterno is entirely appropriate. It's not as though people are absolving the other three men, or even defending them. I've heard no one say Paterno is solely to blame. But none of those men were well-known figures before this scandal exploded. Certainly none of them were viewed as paragons of virtue (and virtu). Paterno was, and... he wasn't who we thought he was. Sandusky was able, for years upon years, to hide a monstrous pathology beneath the imprimatur of "success with honor." It is impossible for me to believe the irreproachable reputation Paterno enjoyed did not make Sandusky's crimes easier to commit. And now we know for certain those crimes occurred, not through Paterno's reprehensible negligence but instead Paterno's jaw-dropping acquiescence. Those institutions you're so worried about could learn quite a bit just paying close attention to the Paterno parts.

[SMO]

While I think most assumed that JoePa knew of the 1998 investigation, this is actual evidence he did. That evidence also means he wasn't completely truthful with the Grand Jury. Whether it rises to the level of perjury or not, I don't know.

Do you think he'll be charged with a crime?

[blazindw]

Do you think he'll be charged with a crime?

He cannot be charged with a crime posthumously. The other three are well in line to get charged if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decides to pursue it.

[SMO]

He cannot be charged with a crime posthumously. The other three are well in line to get charged if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decides to pursue it.

So we have no recourse but to continue to virtually urinate on his grave anonymously while largely ignoring the others at fault? What were there names again?

What a shame.

[Des Esseintes]

So we have no recourse but to continue to virtually urinate on his grave anonymously while largely ignoring the others at fault? What were there names again?

What a shame.

I think the court system knows their names quite well. As do various plaintiffs' lawyers. But thank you for drawing our attention to the real victim in this case: Joe Paterno. I can't think of anything much worse than someone who is unable to defend himself lacking an advocate in an affair so serious.

[SoCalDukeFan]

First of all, there is little doubt the Penn State debacle will become a classic case study in institutional management. And a primary conclusion drawn from that case study will be this: do not jeopardize the establishment to protect the football program and its demigod coach. Another one: do not let one very successful employee become so overwhelmingly powerful that his interests are inextricable from those of the institution. The focus on Paterno is entirely appropriate. It's not as though people are absolving the other three men, or even defending them. I've heard no one say Paterno is solely to blame. But none of those men were well-known figures before this scandal exploded. Certainly none of them were viewed as paragons of virtue (and virtu). Paterno was, and... he wasn't who we thought he was. Sandusky was able, for years upon years, to hide a monstrous pathology beneath the imprimatur of "success with honor." It is impossible for me to believe the irreproachable reputation Paterno enjoyed did not make Sandusky's crimes easier to commit. And now we know for certain those crimes occurred, not through Paterno's reprehensible negligence but instead Paterno's jaw-dropping acquiescence. Those institutions you're so worried about could learn quite a bit just paying close attention to the Paterno parts.

I think is to do the right thing. Surely Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno knew that they were allowing a child molester to molest more children. And they knew it was wrong to do so. I really can not fathom what they were thinking.

I had given Paterno the benefit of the doubt before, but I now put him in the camp of the guilty.

SoCal

[CameronBornAndBred]

So will they paint over Joe Pa on their mural too? Or just whitewash the whole thing? It seems the whitewashing would be pretty fitting, they've been at it for a while.

[SMO]

I think the court system knows their names quite well. As do various plaintiffs' lawyers. But thank you for drawing our attention to the real victim in this case: Joe Paterno. I can't think of anything much worse than someone who is unable to defend himself lacking an advocate in an affair so serious.

You've completely misinterpreted my post. Real victim? I said nothing of the sort.

[Duvall]

So we have no recourse but to continue to virtually urinate on his grave anonymously while largely ignoring the others at fault? What were there names again?

What a shame.

There's no need to be petulant. This is an important story in college athletics - maybe one of the most important ever - and it should not be surprising that we would discuss the developments in the matter on this board. Talking about the meaning of the new evidence regarding Joe Paterno's involvement in the Penn State coverup should not be equated to "virtually urinating on his grave."

As for the other principals in this matter, their actions have been discussed at length in this thread and others. But none of those other individuals were national figures in the way Paterno was, and it is neither surprising nor troubling that Paterno's actions are being discussed at greater length here and elsewhere.

[Newton_14]

There's no need to be petulant. This is an important story in college athletics - maybe one of the most important ever - and it should not be surprising that we would discuss the developments in the matter on this board. Talking about the meaning of the new evidence regarding Joe Paterno's involvement in the Penn State coverup should not be equated to "virtually urinating on his grave."

As for the other principals in this matter, their actions have been discussed at length in this thread and others. But none of those other individuals were national figures in the way Paterno was, and it is neither surprising nor troubling that Paterno's actions are being discussed at greater length here and elsewhere.

Well said. I personally withheld judgment with regards to Paterno until I could see the report. I read much of it at lunch today including the critical time line that details much of the key items. I am saddened by the report. Especially the parts that show all 4 leaders knew the full details of 1998, and 1999, and those same leaders made a collective decision in 2001 to do the wrong thing. I am super saddened that during the 2001 collaboration of the 4 leaders, the original decision was to do the right thing (Report it to Child Services, 2nd Mile, and authorities), but then the most powerful leader (Paterno) vetoed that decision. That is a killer for me. I just can't come to terms with those decisions, given the stakes. It appears the 4 leaders thought of the school's rep, the impact to Sandusky's life, but they gave little to no thought to the past, present, and future victims. All of whom were innocent, helpless children. Their final decision in 2001 was to just insure the child molesting was taken off campus. Four grown men, all well educated, all holding positions of great power and responsibility, and none of the four had a conscience. With great power comes great responsibility. One of our biggest responsibilities as adults is to protect children. Those 4 men, along with the DA in 1998, and countless others, failed those children miserably.

[Pghdukie]

Well said. I personally withheld judgment with regards to Paterno until I could see the report. I read much of it at lunch today including the critical time line that details much of the key items. I am saddened by the report. Especially the parts that show all 4 leaders knew the full details of 1998, and 1999, and those same leaders made a collective decision in 2001 to do the wrong thing. I am super saddened that during the 2001 collaboration of the 4 leaders, the original decision was to do the right thing (Report it to Child Services, 2nd Mile, and authorities), but then the most powerful leader (Paterno) vetoed that decision. That is a killer for me. I just can't come to terms with those decisions, given the stakes. It appears the 4 leaders thought of the school's rep, the impact to Sandusky's life, but they gave little to no thought to the past, present, and future victims. All of whom were innocent, helpless children. Their final decision in 2001 was to just insure the child molesting was taken off campus. Four grown men, all well educated, all holding positions of great power and responsibility, and none of the four had a conscience. With great power comes great responsibility. One of our biggest responsibilities as adults is to protect children. Those 4 men, along with the DA in 1998, and countless others, failed those children miserably.

I totally agree with your coment. Again, as a PSU alum, there was not a more powerful figure in Happy Valley than Joe. Responsibility lies on the upper management team, i.e. Pres, AD, Joe. If the ceo of my employer came to my house to fire me--I'm fired. Didn't happen at PSU. Joe said I'll retire when I want to. As for the next step - Civil Suits. Criminal Suits are only just beginning. This whole episode is going to cost PSU Hundreds of millions of dollars.The money is not the issue here (unless you are a lawyer). The issue is wether PSU higher Heirarchy sold out for the good of the Univ. As was earlier posted Duke approached Sandusky about the job, so did Virginia or Va Tech (my memory slips). Most important- when you put your kids to sleep tonight- kiss them and tell them you love them. THEN when you get into your own bed--promise youself you'll never let anything like this happen to your most valuable asset.

[SMO]

There's no need to be petulant. This is an important story in college athletics - maybe one of the most important ever - and it should not be surprising that we would discuss the developments in the matter on this board. Talking about the meaning of the new evidence regarding Joe Paterno's involvement in the Penn State coverup should not be equated to "virtually urinating on his grave."

As for the other principals in this matter, their actions have been discussed at length in this thread and others. But none of those other individuals were national figures in the way Paterno was, and it is neither surprising nor troubling that Paterno's actions are being discussed at greater length here and elsewhere.

Petulant? Strange accusation.

You don't find it troubling that Paterno's actions are discussed at greater length than a convicted serial pedophile? Interesting.

[JasonEvans]

Petulant? Strange accusation.

You don't find it troubling that Paterno's actions are discussed at greater length than a convicted serial pedophile? Interesting.

Well, seeing as the case against Sandusky is concluded and his punishment has been given out, there is not all that much more to discuss. We know what he did. We all agree he was a monster.

However, until now we did not know nearly the extent to which his monstrous acts were assisted and protected by people in power at Penn State, especially the school's legendary football coach. Today's report was all about the Penn State institution and how it and its leaders handled various aspects of Sandusky's criminal spree. Why shouldn't we be discussing that?

I see no reason for us to talk extensively about Sandusky and what he did. There is no real debate, not much mystery or uncertainty about what happens going forward. It is a certainty that he will spend the rest of his life in prison, that his family is bankrupted by lawsuits, and that he will die behind bars (either in brutal a act of revenge against a child molester or of natural causes).

Your shock at us wanting to discuss the aspects of the story that are still open to debate and about which there were (and may still be) some unanswered questions is confusing and seems almost intentionally combative. I think petulant was a quite appropriate way to describe your comments.

-Jason "if you think the discussion is so misguided and worthless, you are not required to participate" Evans

[SMO]

Today's report was all about the Penn State institution and how it and its leaders handled various aspects of Sandusky's criminal spree. Why shouldn't we be discussing that?

Your shock at us wanting to discuss the aspects of the story that are still open to debate and about which there were (and may still be) some unanswered questions is confusing and seems almost intentionally combative. I think petulant was a quite appropriate way to describe your comments.

-Jason "if you think the discussion is so misguided and worthless, you are not required to participate" Evans

I see no reason not to discuss the case and I don't think I suggested anyone avoid discussing it. The focus is interesting.

It's interesting that, if you read the report, there are much more damning findings regarding Spanier than anyone else given his background, position, and responsibilities. Yet here we and the media sit focusing largely on Paterno.

I do not know where you get the idea I'm "shocked" at this. I do find it curious.

[JasonEvans]

In what I imagine will be just one of many columns across the country just ripping Joe Paterno, Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post pulls no punches. She titles her column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paterno-at-the-end-showed-more-interest-in-his-legacy-than-sanduskys-victims/2012/07/12/gJQAMUX9fW_story.html?hpid=z1), "Joe Paterno, at the end, showed more interest in his legacy than Sandusky’s victims." That's a pretty damning indictment. She backs it up be recalling an interview he gave to the Wash Post just days before his death.


Joe Paterno was a liar, there’s no doubt about that now. He was also a cover-up artist. If the Freeh report is correct in its summary of the Penn State child molestation scandal, the public Paterno of the last few years was a work of fiction. In his place is a hubristic, indictable hypocrite.

-Jason "it gets worse from there... wow" Evans

[Cameron]

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't think that Coach K is required to say a thing, nor should he. To be honest, this is about the scandal itself, not the many people who went to bat for JoePa back when he was fired having to eat some kind of crow (and K wasn't the only one--plenty of former PSU players, admin, students, other important people did the same). It wasn't like he called a press conference to defend JoePa; he did so in response to a question posed by the media. Nowadays, it seems like everything bad needs to be publicly refuted by someone if they originally thought it good. I don't think Coach K needs to personalize it and say he was wrong for thinking what he thought anymore than the former players have been forced to do so all day on ESPN. The focus should be on the scandal, the victims and, perhaps, what the future of Penn State football will be and how the program's legacy has been permanently affected.

I don't think you're in the minority at all. Or at least you shouldn't be. Coach K is a major public figure, and public figures are often asked -- and seemingly expected -- to comment on the significant stories of the day, especially when those stories concern another major public figure in their profession. Coach K, at the time, was simply sharing his personal thoughts and feelings about somebody who K obviously considered to be a good friend and respected icon in the coaching fraternity. As great a man as he is, Coach K is not a prophet. He could only observe that which he knew.

Coach K owes nobody nothing.

As for the downfall of Penn State and Joe Paterno, I think Paterno himself summed it up fittingly when he said, candidly, "It's one of the great sorrows of my life." It's without question the most inglorious ending to an otherwise glorious career in the history of North American sport.

[JasonEvans]

I see no reason not to discuss the case and I don't think I suggested anyone avoid discussing it. The focus is interesting.

It's interesting that, if you read the report, there are much more damning findings regarding Spanier than anyone else given his background, position, and responsibilities. Yet here we and the media sit focusing largely on Paterno.

I do not know where you get the idea I'm "shocked" at this. I do find it curious.

And if you had merely made your point like that, clearly and without any snark, then I bet you would have gotten more polite responses.

I absolutely think an interesting discussion can be had of the degree to which Spanier and other higher ups not named Paterno failed and perhaps committed criminal misconduct. But, for you to find it even mildly "interesting" that we are focused more on the most famous person involved in this, well, I don't get that. That is human nature and plays itself out in virtually every scandal. Personally, I find that utterly unsurprising and not all that interesting.

-Jason "thanks for re-stating your point and making it more clear. I genuinely did not understand where you were going prior to the above post" Evans

[cato]

I see no reason not to discuss the case and I don't think I suggested anyone avoid discussing it. The focus is interesting.

It's interesting that, if you read the report, there are much more damning findings regarding Spanier than anyone else given his background, position, and responsibilities. Yet here we and the media sit focusing largely on Paterno.

I do not know where you get the idea I'm "shocked" at this. I do find it curious.

If you want to discuss the role of other people, go for it. No one is stopping you. Instead, you just want to . . . what exactly? Stop people from discussing the actions of the most powerful person in this fiasco?

[JasonEvans]

It's without a question the most inglorious ending to an otherwise glorious career in the history of North American sport.

I think I agree, but for the sake of argument...

Shoeless Joe Jackson
Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and perhaps Barry Bonds
Lance Armstrong (depending on how that mess works itself out)
Pete Rose

I am not saying their "crimes" rise to the level of child rape or the coverup of same, but there is little question that these hallowed sports figures left the game with one reputation and then saw that reputation dramatically change shortly thereafter.

-Jason "other nominees?" Evans

[SMO]

If you want to discuss the role of other people, go for it. No one is stopping you. Instead, you just want to . . . what exactly? Stop people from discussing the actions of the most powerful person in this fiasco?

'Most powerful person' is highly debatable. Roles and responsibilities are also debatable. Rather than debate those issues, this discussion was deteriorating into rage against Paterno, which seems either misplaced or disproportionate.

The fact that a MAJOR university president has been accused of covering up for a serial child molester is remarkable, and remarkably absent from much of this conversation.

[Cameron]

I think I agree, but for the sake of argument...

Shoeless Joe Jackson
Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and perhaps Barry Bonds
Lance Armstrong (depending on how that mess works itself out)
Pete Rose

I am not saying their "crimes" rise to the level of child rape or the coverup of same, but there is little question that these hallowed sports figures left the game with one reputation and then saw that reputation dramatically change shortly thereafter.

-Jason "other nominees?" Evans

Those are prime examples as well. I might also throw Danny Almonte's birth certificate into the mix. Talk about a reputation dramatically reversing. He went from Cy Young to Craig Kilborn punchline overnight. (Although, obviously due to Danny being in T-ball at the time, his fall from grace is paltry compared to the others you list.)

But as you allude to, the fact that the "Penn State football child sexual abuse scandal" even has to be mentioned in the story of Joe Paterno, pretty much says it all.

[Newton_14]

I think I agree, but for the sake of argument...

Shoeless Joe Jackson
Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and perhaps Barry Bonds
Lance Armstrong (depending on how that mess works itself out)
Pete Rose

I am not saying their "crimes" rise to the level of child rape or the coverup of same, but there is little question that these hallowed sports figures left the game with one reputation and then saw that reputation dramatically change shortly thereafter.

-Jason "other nominees?" Evans

A friend of mine at work today commented that it is the worst college scandal ever due to the nature of the crime. Kind of hard to argue that point. It is just a sad day. There are no winners in this deal, and a ton of losers.

[Dukefan1.0]

I think I agree, but for the sake of argument...

Shoeless Joe Jackson
Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and perhaps Barry Bonds
Lance Armstrong (depending on how that mess works itself out)
Pete Rose

I am not saying their "crimes" rise to the level of child rape or the coverup of same, but there is little question that these hallowed sports figures left the game with one reputation and then saw that reputation dramatically change shortly thereafter.

-Jason "other nominees?" Evans

How about Buck Weaver who was banned with Shoeless Joe and the other Black Socks. He's so innocent it's sad, he was banned for violating an unwritten rule.

[Reilly]

Inglorious ending to glorious career: OJ

Other bad college sports scandal: Baylor murder and DBliss cover-up

[Cameron]

Inglorious ending to glorious career: OJ

Other bad college sports scandal: Baylor murder and DBliss cover-up

Damn. O.J. Good call. Not sure how that was missed.

I still think due to the magnitude of those two words -- child rape -- Paterno, no matter the fact that he wasn't the perpetrator of the actual crime, faced the rapidest and most ruinous fall ever. He was JoePa, basically a puppy dog in cleats. The night before he was fired, he was arguably the most respected coach in the history of sport. Period. That's quite a drop.

It is just so sad all around.

[Dukefan1.0]

Tim Donaghy, don't know if you would consider the career of an official glorious, which has probably created more scrutiny(as if there wasn't enough) about the NBA fixing games for the benefit of the league money wise

[greybeard]

In what I imagine will be just one of many columns across the country just ripping Joe Paterno, Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post pulls no punches. She titles her column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paterno-at-the-end-showed-more-interest-in-his-legacy-than-sanduskys-victims/2012/07/12/gJQAMUX9fW_story.html?hpid=z1), "Joe Paterno, at the end, showed more interest in his legacy than Sandusky’s victims." That's a pretty damning indictment. She backs it up be recalling an interview he gave to the Wash Post just days before his death.



-Jason "it gets worse from there... wow" Evans

Sally? Look back at some of the things she had to say about the Duke III, the culture of privilege. Offensive in the extrreme. Vile. It sold Sally and newspapers, made her a star. Never heard a word of apology, not a hint of one. You'll forgive me if I pass on anything Sally has to say about controversy's like this.

I look forward to reading the report. Everytime one of these big wigs gets appointed to investigate one of these important matters I cringe. I'd prefer to have someone who has been down in the trenches, a former career AUSA who headed major investigations and tried them himself and decided whether to seek indictments only when there was hard evidence. I especially never like it when the big guys come in to investigate on the behest of an organization that faces ruin. With a report finding great culpability by the guys they had already kicked out, the financial hit that they were going to take anyway gets resolved more quicly and perhaps even more cheaply. More importantly, damage control gets minimized and that is what the cache of the big name can and does deliver.

I'd prefer that such investigations be handled by a long term former AUSA who has lead investigations and prosecutions of major and complicated crimes, who had to convince his or her US Attorney and probably many at Justice that the case was a go one before it could be pressed. Those guys get to know what is good evidence and what is not, where things, seemingly little things don't add up, where parts, key parts of a story by a key witness requires further thought, further tangling with. And, in the end, no one produces a 250o page report, at least I don't think so.

There are probably thousands of such former AUSAs who have done the deed in this manner who I would much prefer to head up such an investigation in a hands-on fashion.

This investigation, like the Warren Report, for example, had to put the matter under investigation to rest quickly; quickly was for the public good. In this case, it is for the University's.

I look forward to reading the report, and will, as always, look for the holes. It's what I used to do for a living. I was pretty good at finding them. Not saying the job that was done here and the way it is being portrayed will not convince, just that I look at these things with a skeptic's eye. I focus on what disturbs me aout "the story" and then the hunt begins. That is the way I handled my own work. I would write a brief and say to myself, "where does what I have said fall short (too bad I don't do that in my posts here, huh). I'll probably quite way before I'm half way through the read. In the LAX case it was easy, you read about the ridiculous manner in which the photo line up was conducted, the bank photos produced by one of the guys (why bring up names again, and you are on the far side of suspicious. You hear about the DNA evidence and the prosecution is still going, game over. It took a year before the media conceded, after having milked it for all its worth. I'm kind of rusty and worn out now. Swore when I retired I would never engage no more. Now we'll see.

Grey "was there really only one shooter, Mr. Chief Justice Warren" beard

[Atlanta Duke]

I'd prefer that such investigations be handled by a long term former AUSA who has lead investigations and prosecutions of major and complicated crimes, who had to convince his or her US Attorney and probably many at Justice that the case was a go one before it could be pressed. Those guys get to know what is good evidence and what is not, where things, seemingly little things don't add up, where parts, key parts of a story by a key witness requires further thought, further tangling with. And, in the end, no one produces a 250o page report, at least I don't think so.

FWIW Louis Freeh got his start as a special agent with the FBI, made his name in the 1980s as an AUSA in the SD NY prosecuting the "Pizza Connection" mob case and was selected following a DOJ bake off to handle the prosecution of a nut job named Walter Leroy Moody who sent a mail bomb that murdered U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert Vance before Mr. Freeh was nominated as Director of the FBI in the 1990s

Some background on Mr. Freeh here

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-inquiry-adds-to-louis-j-freehs-extensive-resume.html

I think Mr. Freeh knows how to build a case.

[cato]

'Most powerful person' is highly debatable. Roles and responsibilities are also debatable. Rather than debate those issues, this discussion was deteriorating into rage against Paterno, which seems either misplaced or disproportionate.

The fact that a MAJOR university president has been accused of covering up for a serial child molester is remarkable, and remarkably absent from much of this conversation.

Debate away, although I think you're on the losing side of the debate if you suggest someone other than Paterno was the most powerful man in State College.

If you think discussion of the president is lacking, discuss it.

But I don't see you doing that. Instead, you are dealing in innuendo, accusing other posters of . . . something . . . and acting like poor old Paterno is the aggreived party.

[BD80]

Inglorious ending to glorious career: OJ ...


Wait, wasn't he innocent? Errr, found not guilty? Of murder at least. All the other convictions really didn't bring his career to an inglorious end. Maybe the Police Squad movies did.

[Des Esseintes]

Wait, wasn't he innocent? Errr, found not guilty? Of murder at least. All the other convictions really didn't bring his career to an inglorious end. Maybe the Police Squad movies did.

It's a good point that Juice was long since retired from football by the time he double-murdered Nicole Simpson and her boyfriend. The only job of his that the murders ended was that of Hertz pitch-man. So I think he is disqualified from Most Inglorious End to an Athletic Career.

My candidate? Rae Carruth, who edges Paterno by the slimmest of margins in a riveting title fight for the ages. As Wellington said, "a damned near-run thing."

[greybeard]

FWIW Louis Freeh got his start as a special agent with the FBI, made his name in the 1980s as an AUSA in the SD NY prosecuting the "Pizza Connection" mob case and was selected following a DOJ bake off to handle the prosecution of a nut job named Walter Leroy Moody who sent a mail bomb that murdered U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert Vance before Mr. Freeh was nominated as Director of the FBI in the 1990s

Some background on Mr. Freeh here

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-inquiry-adds-to-louis-j-freehs-extensive-resume.html

I think Mr. Freeh knows how to build a case.

So far, I see this experienced prosecutor, the one sho became a star when became AG, playing fast and loose. He speaks about the 1998 and 2001 incidents of a piece and lumps all three administrators and Paterno as having covered the incidents up and poorly investing. You need to read the report's own version of the facts of how the 1998 investigation was handled--absolutely perfect. Campus Police reported it to Child services and then the DA; the DA conducted an investigation and found no evidence of sex offense. Yet Freeh concludes Paterno someohow did wrong here. HOW. He never says. Lumped with 2001, more about that later.

Free says PS and P did wrong by letting S. go without making it clear that he was a susspected sex offender. What nonsense. The only way that that could possibly have helped anything, more about that later, is if PS and P went public with that explanation. But, nthe DA dismissed having interviewed everyone that there was no evidence of sexual misconduct--the DA had interviewed the mother and the kid, neither of whom said there was. Their complaint was that S. had picked the kid up in the shower from behind and held him against his chest. DA saw this as not a sexual offense, not as there being insufficient evidence of a sexual offense.

I don't know how PS could justifiably gone forward with such a pronouncement in light of that.

2001, F says that P did wrong by not insisting that the University investigate to try to find out who the 2001 victim was. Apart from the fact that F does not say how such an investigation would have taken place, much less as how it would not have constituted inappropriate intrusion into a police matter.

Curley, I think, said that he had a conversation with S aboiut the 2001 allegation and S offered to provide the name of the kid, but C said it would be unnecessary.

F discusses the janitor "incident" but does not say, as the grand jury minutes did, that Janitor A who reported the incident was known by his coworkers to have frequent hallucinations and to make up stories, and that nobdy lent any credence to him. As for being afraid to report it because feared reprisal from P, I'm sorry, this was 2001, and Penn state was way above the curve on racial matters, P was regarded as above reproach and a man of integrity throughout happy valley, and no one ever says to the guy, why were you afraid of reprisals. i mean the entire free world, at least in thios country, is shoked beyond words, well maybe that ain't true, that P would have done anything wrong about even a matter of little consequence and this here was anything but.

So, now we have janitors who have the report of a crazy coworker whom they do not believe a matter that they find out is being investigated years later and they come forward and say that they were afraid after admitting the crazy stuff and the F report mentions nothing about the crazy stuff even though the summary of the grand jury evidence does.

We can all agree that PS would have been much better off barring S from the University property when he retired, but F does not say that his retirement was forced because of this dismissed allegation on undisputed facts that no sex offense had taken place.

Of we stop here and anyone tears down Paterno's statutes I shouldn't know why.

I should add, just as I expected, the report begins with a long list of things, accusations, now "facts", that the Board of Tees did not know about, obsolving them of all responsibility. Nobody told them of the investigation, what was going on. They would have told Paterno? Why? Is that normal prosecutorial procedure? Heck, F is now saying that P et al were hell bent on covering this thing up, making it go away, and the police and the DA are goiong to keep JoePa in the loop? Yet, F says JPa asked to be kept abrest of developments. That ws a crime. If S was indicted, or people at the U were being called before a Grand Jury and it was OUT there, JPa was a criminal because he asked to be kept informed?

So, here's where we are now, short form. There is an allegation to the Campus Police, the matter is referred to child services in a different jurisdiction because of a conflict of interest (Second Mile), the Regular police are informed as is the DA and on evidence that is not in dispute the DA concludes that no crime. A hallkulinatory janitor reports a matter to a coworker or cowrkers who know that the guy is nuts, don't repot iot to the authorities and years later say that the guy was a nut but they would have reported it to JoePa but were araid that he would fire them. Yeah, fire them for not having reported it in the first place.

I would take no issue with the report, except for the obligatory white wash of the Board of Trustees who are footing the bill, if F had reported all the FACTS and did so in an unslanted way, without unfounded commentary. He didn't and has as I can see so far has painted a distorted picture. Then he says that PS should have let S leave but should have told the world that he was a suspected child molester.

I think that experienced prosecutors should be made of sterner stuff.

I'll read more. As Mark Anthony said, "the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones.' Of course, Mark was only starting off slow because Cacious allowed him to speak to the masses on condition that he didn't inflame them against Cacius and his fellow conspirators. Anthony reneged n the deal big time, in the solliloquy we all know (look it up).

The solliloquy I like most is the one that Anthony made to the Gods before he took the platform to speak to Rome. "O pardon me though bleeding piece of earth that I am meek and gente with these butchers. Thou art the ruins of the noblest man that has ever walked in the tides of times."

I'm not here to exonerate JoePa, or to enoble him. It wouldn't matter any how. I'm just gonna mess with Freeh some. I already see that he deserves it.

[greybeard]

There are some government big wigs who are highly skilled and would do it right if they were asked, but they'd probably refuse because they'd know the game was rigged, the goals had been set before the investigation began. But, if somebody really wanted to get to the bottom of a scandal, Glenn Fine, the former Inspector Genral at DOJ would fit fine. He'd also be impossible for anyone in the ACC to stay in front of and probably would start for many big time programs of today. Oh, yeah, Glenn went to Harvard, Rhodes scholar, a blurr on the court, terrific basketball smarts, who could shoot, pentrate, dish and of course finish. Couldn't help myself.

[SMO]

Debate away, although I think you're on the losing side of the debate if you suggest someone other than Paterno was the most powerful man in State College.

If you think discussion of the president is lacking, discuss it.

But I don't see you doing that. Instead, you are dealing in innuendo, accusing other posters of . . . something . . . and acting like poor old Paterno is the aggreived party.

Nowhere am I acting like Paterno is aggrieved. If you think a coach outranks a university president please recall Bobby Knight v. Miles Brand. How did that end?

[moonpie23]

It's without question the most inglorious ending to an otherwise glorious career in the history of North American sport.

you should prolly throw Woody Hayes in there.......he went from legend to ....?? what? in about 1 second.....


how long did it take OSU to deal THAT punishment? 1 day...

[KenTankerous]

The firestorm of Civil suits and settlements to come should make it seem like the Catholic Church got off lighter than it did. That is given. I am curious if the NCAA can or will pursue any penalties against the PSU football program.

I am not suggesting that the program is more important than the crimes. Quite the contrary. I believe the program, it's "legacy" and the protectors of all that created the envionment that allowed, no, promoted, these life-altering abuses of power. Like it or not this doesn't happen with the Warhawks at Louisiana-Monroe. The success of the Nittany Lions, and preserving what that means to PSU and the community seems to be the motivation for the admins horrid lack of conscience in these matters.

Should the program loose bowl priviledge? Scholarships? Be shut down until it can be scrubbed clean in all it's possible dark corners?

[Chicago 1995]

'Most powerful person' is highly debatable. Roles and responsibilities are also debatable. Rather than debate those issues, this discussion was deteriorating into rage against Paterno, which seems either misplaced or disproportionate.

The fact that a MAJOR university president has been accused of covering up for a serial child molester is remarkable, and remarkably absent from much of this conversation.

Maybe I'm misreading this, and it's an incredibly awkward attempt to transition this discussion to a discussion of the over-importance of big time atheltics at colleges and universities across the country. If it is, I apologize.

Given the tenor and tone, I don't think it is. Whether intentional or not, it comes across as defensive of JoePa, and rather confrontational.

Why are we discussing JoePa and not Spanier?


How many buildings on the Nike Campus were named after Spanier? How many statues of Spanier are there at Penn State? How many buildings have been named after Spanier at PSU? Joe Paterno (whether a coach ever should be or not is a different issue) was the face of Penn State. His profile was much larger and much, much more public than Spanier's ever would be.

If on September 15, 2011 you had polled 100 people in Times Square or at Disneyland or Grant Park, how many do you think knew who JoePa was? Could identify his picture? 80? More? If you asked those same people on that same day who Graham Spanier was how many knew? 10? Less. Do you think more than one or two could identify his picture?

JoePa's not going to be tried. Curley and Schultz (both no less anonymous than Spanier) have already been indicted. Spanier is the subject of an ongoing investigation and I think most expect him to be indicted. The public is going to have a chance to fully grasp what they knew and when in a way they won't have for JoePa.

Spanier didn't build his career and his image on the "Grand Experiment" melding athetics and academics. Spanier didn't cultivate an image of being a coach who did things in the right way and kept things in the proper perspective. While certainly all of this is an all on assault on Spanier, it's a direct counter to the image that JoePa had worked to build for himself and his program.

While you can deny it, or at least refuse to acknowledge it, JoePa was the most powerful person at Penn State. Spanier was certainly number 2, and with regard to matters other than football, he was the most powerful man at Penn State. But this was a football matter. There's ample evidence of this with the conflict between Vicky Triponey and the football program with regard to matters of discipline and also evidence in the Freeh report, given the role JoePa played in taking a more "humane" approach for Sandusky in 2001. Any one of Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno could have picked up the phone in 2001 and stopped this, but JoePa had the least to fear in terms of repercussions. They all should have done the right thing, fear of retribution or not, but JoePa had less to fear than any of the administrators acting against his wishes.

People aren't in denial about Spanier. To me, the folks who engage in a knee-jerk defense of JoePa, are minimizing what happened here. They are people who, consciously or otherwise, seem to make football and winning football games much, much to important, and don't show that they fully grasp the horror to which Sandusky subjected his victims and the effect that has on those victims or how much horror JoePa (and Schultz, Curley and Spanier) allowed to happen by not taking a stand in 2001 -- which, in light of their knowledge of the 1998 investigation, is even more unthinkable. There are too many people clutching to a false image of Paterno and in so doing, refusing to accept what happened at Penn State. As long as that's going on, I think people are going to continue to discuss JoePa's role in this monstrosity.

Eight weeks from tomorrow, PSU's 2012 football season is set to kick off, and I find that very unsettling, whether there's a statue of JoePa outside that stadium or not. If only for 3.5 hours against Ohio, things will be back to what PSU believed to be normal, despite the fact that the respite will come from the exact program whose image was more important than stopping a serial pedophile. I can't fathom being there. I can't fathom wanting to be there. I can't fathom thinking it's a good idea. Many do, and whether there should be a football season at Penn State this fall or not, there will be. But there are enough of us who are at least unsure whether that season should happen (if not convinced it shouldn't) that discussion about this -- and about JoePa -- will continue. You cannot untangle football from this problem, and we're going to be staring PSU football in the face before much longer.


Spanier's role in all of this is unthinkable too. Spanier banned an agent for campus for life in 1998 when that agent was caught giving PSU football players $400 in clothes, saying the agent had "fooled around with the integrity of the University" and that he "wouldn't stand for that." Contrasting that with his role in the 2001 cover up and his allowing the University to continue to embrace Sandusky so much that a week before Sandusky's indictment, he was at a PSU football game IN THE PRESIDENT'S SUITE, despite the fact that much of the atheltic administration had testified before the grand jury, and the administration had been warned that Sandusky was about to be indicted. It's unthinkable that no one at PSU seemed to take this seriously even then, and it makes me question how seriously PSU still takes this. Spanier's day is coming. Eventually, so is Penn State's. I hope. But I'm not convinced.

[Starter]

Nowhere am I acting like Paterno is aggrieved. If you think a coach outranks a university president please recall Bobby Knight v. Miles Brand. How did that end?

Is there any question that Krzyzewski outranks whoever the president of Duke is now? (I kid, I know who Brodhead is, but I admit to having to check whether it's STILL him.) Seriously though, Krzyzewski is hands-down the most important and influential person at Duke University. It's been that way for probably about 15 years, at least.

[MaxAMillion]

I wonder how the leadership group at PSU would have handled things if it had been their family members who were being molested? I wonder if JoePa would have acted differently if someone told him his grandkids were being molested by Sandusky.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The 1998 charge was investigated and dropped by the police. While in my opinion an 11 year cover up is as bad a 14year cover up, anyone who reports a 14 year cover up is overstating the case.

I am no expert on child molesters but have an understanding that they repeat the crime. Surely Spanier and others had to know in 2001 that Sandusky was not going to stop. So by covering it up in 2001 they were merely delaying when the world would know. And they had to know that. Or maybe they hoped Sandusky would die or something and it would never come out. Kind of strange that in trying to protect Penn State and PSU football they may have ruined both. Of course by covering up in 2001 they also allowed Sandusky to rape more little boys and stopping that should have been their primary concern.

The more I read about this the sicker I get.

SoCal

[Des Esseintes]

Nowhere am I acting like Paterno is aggrieved. If you think a coach outranks a university president please recall Bobby Knight v. Miles Brand. How did that end?


Is there any question that Krzyzewski outranks whoever the president of Duke is now? (I kid, I know who Brodhead is, but I admit to having to check whether it's STILL him.) Seriously though, Krzyzewski is hands-down the most important and influential person at Duke University. It's been that way for probably about 15 years, at least.

Please recall Joe Paterno v. Graham Spanier and Tim Curley (http://deadspin.com/5857629/joe-paternos-annual-compensation-is-200000-higher-than-the-psu-presidents-and-other-grotesqueries) in 2004. How did that end? The idea that Paterno wasn't the prime mover in Happy Valley is L*U*D*I*C*R*O*U*S.

[SMO]

Please recall Joe Paterno v. Graham Spanier and Tim Curley (http://deadspin.com/5857629/joe-paternos-annual-compensation-is-200000-higher-than-the-psu-presidents-and-other-grotesqueries) in 2004. How did that end? The idea that Paterno wasn't the prime mover in Happy Valley is L*U*D*I*C*R*O*U*S.

Paterno was only as powerful as they allowed him to be. They could have used this issue to force him to retire. Instead, they seem to have allowed him to influence in an area where he admittedly had no expertise. That's what is ludicrous. There are precedents for university presidents overriding iconic coaches. It takes fortitude, but has been done.

Anyone still think I'm defending Paterno?

[Chicago 1995]

Paterno was only as powerful as they allowed him to be. They could have used this issue to force him to retire. Instead, they seem to have allowed him to influence in an area where he admittedly had no expertise. That's what is ludicrous. There are precedents for university presidents overriding iconic coaches. It takes fortitude, but has been done.

Anyone still think I'm defending Paterno?

If trying to minimize the level of his influence and control at Penn State isn't done to minimize JoePa's role in all this, I'm not sure why its done at all.

[Des Esseintes]

Paterno was only as powerful as they allowed him to be. They could have used this issue to force him to retire. Instead, they seem to have allowed him to influence in an area where he admittedly had no expertise. That's what is ludicrous. There are precedents for university presidents overriding iconic coaches. It takes fortitude, but has been done.

Anyone still think I'm defending Paterno?

Truthfully, I have no idea what you're doing. You dislike this thread for reasons that are beyond me.

Regarding 2004, what? The President and the AD with the backing of the Trustees went to Paterno's house TWICE to tell him to retire, and he said no. And you're saying they could have done it if they'd, I don't know, wanted it a little bit more? Forcing out beloved JoePa against his wishes would have unleashed Ragnarok in Happy Valley, and they knew it better than anyone. They had to have his agreement for it to happen.

Finally, let's consider that it is as you say. Let's chloroform logic and context and imagine that Paterno's superiors could have pushed him out in 2004 with greater intestinal fortitude. It still would have required their united effort plus the majority support of the Board of Trustees to do it. This after a 4-7 season and several years of mediocrity. You know what we're describing? The most powerful man at that college. If everyone in the room must gang up on one dude to knock him down, it is safe to say that dude is the strongest guy in the room.

[formerdukeathlete]

The 1998 charge was investigated and dropped by the police. While in my opinion an 11 year cover up is as bad a 14year cover up, anyone who reports a 14 year cover up is overstating the case.

I am no expert on child molesters but have an understanding that they repeat the crime. Surely Spanier and others had to know in 2001 that Sandusky was not going to stop. So by covering it up in 2001 they were merely delaying when the world would know. And they had to know that. Or maybe they hoped Sandusky would die or something and it would never come out. Kind of strange that in trying to protect Penn State and PSU football they may have ruined both. Of course by covering up in 2001 they also allowed Sandusky to rape more little boys and stopping that should have been their primary concern.

The more I read about this the sicker I get.

SoCal

The 1998 incident occurred after Sandusky had been told that he would not be head coach at Penn State, after Penn State had initiated the process of getting him off the coaching staff.

One of the victims who did not testify at the trial but who provided grand jury testimony said that he had been molested over a hundred times by Sandusky, including while being taken to the 95 Rose Bowl game versus Oregon. I attended that game in Pasadena and to think this was going on then is sickening.

I think, lets apply some common sense, we should consider what was likely. I think Paterno had heard complaints from players about Sandusky's behavior around children and around the players in the locker room. I think Paterno heard such complaints before 98. I think they occurred in sufficient number that Paterno determined that Sandusky could not be his eventual successor. I think Paterno had a sense that Sandusky was a pedophile before 98, and that ultimately it was his sense that something was off which lead Paterno to getting rid of him.

At the same time as Penn State wanted to get rid of Sandusky, they may have been concerned about what Sandusky might say about his time there. So, to keep him friendly, they granted him severance, emeritus status, access to Football, the Nittany Lion Club, tickets, etc. The Freeh report could not establish a link between the 1998 incident and the granting of these benefits, but I think it makes sense that they were related in this fashion. The terrible irony is that in being so nice to Sandusky with the hope that he would have too much to lose in letting the cat out of the bag about his goings on at Penn State, the school permitted him to continue to use these Penn State benefits to treat other individuals horribly.

[oldnavy]

If trying to minimize the level of his influence and control at Penn State isn't done to minimize JoePa's role in all this, I'm not sure why its done at all.

Universities with successful major sports programs are run by the alumni because they have the money. Coach K is the most influential person at Duke University, plain and simple. And it is not because of his good looks. It is because he brings MILLIONS of dollars into the University via alumni and the success of the program (TV contracts, etc...) of the basketball program.

You cannot go out and find another Coach K. University Presidents and administrators in comparison are a dime a dozen. Not to say that being a good president or is easy or meaningless, just a bigger pool to pick from. Alumni recognize this. We are lucky that our most powerful staff member is a man of unquestionable honor and integrity. No way this would have happen at Duke under K. I would bet my LIFE on it. If he had been told by the Unv. President to cover it up, he would have probably chewed the man or woman out and proceeded to do the right thing. Who knows, he may have demanded that the Pres resign or he would mention the suggested cover up in the press conference.

Heck, they suspended the whole Lacrosse season over an accusation from a.... umm... well, questionable character.

Joe Pa had that same standing at PSU as K has at Duke. He failed to do the right thing...

[Atlanta Duke]

I think, lets apply some common sense, we should consider what was likely. I think Paterno had heard complaints from players about Sandusky's behavior around children and around the players in the locker room. I think Paterno heard such complaints before 98. I think they occurred in sufficient number that Paterno determined that Sandusky could not be his eventual successor. I think Paterno had a sense that Sandusky was a pedophile before 98, and that ultimately it was his sense that something was off which lead Paterno to getting rid of him.
.

Maybe so, but according to the timeline at pages 20 and 21 of the Freeh report Sandusky was brought back, after JoePa knew of the 1998 allegations and Sandusky was set to retire, for one more season as defensive coordinator for the 1999 season (that team with Lavar Arrington was ranked preseason #1 - JoePa's moral qualms about having Sandusky on his staff apparently did not extend to jeopardizing a chance for another national championship)

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201207/120712.01.pdf

The school that dodged a bullet was UVA - Sandusky allegedly was offered the Cavaliers head coach job for the 2000 season (after what presumably was a glowing recomendation from JoePa) but contract negotiations supposedly bogged down (or someone got wind of what was going on in Happy Valley) and the job went to Al Groh.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-10/sports/30381413_1_joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky-coaching

[gumbomoop]

I wonder how the leadership group at PSU would have handled things if it had been their family members who were being molested? I wonder if JoePa would have acted differently if someone told him his grandkids were being molested by Sandusky.

It's hard for me to imagine a satisfactory counterpoint to this essential point. We know that MaxAMillion is correct that the several people who might have done more would have done more, had the kids being molested been their own family members.

It's this essential point that brings me back to K, and whether he will speak further, knowing more than he did in November, 2011, when he commented - here I deliberately use a neutral word, I hope, "commented" - that "how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different, quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation.” This is a separate, and IMO a more important, issue than K's later [June 21, 2012] criticism of the manner of Paterno's firing.

Although I wouldn't claim that K "owes" the world an explanation, I continue to be uneasy about that November, 2011, statement. IIRC, this was but a brief comment in an interview, not a point K went out of his way to make as a forceful defense of Paterno. By sheer coincidence, I guess, he had gotten to know Paterno somewhat over the last year or so, and thought Paterno a model leader. Neither he nor, I assume, anyone else in public life had any reason to imagine the awful revelations to come.

But they have come. Although the debate continues on EK even about the evidence uncovered by Freeh, I doubt that many here would find satisfactory, much less compelling, K's "generational factor" reference.

Back on July 1 [posts # 10 & 13] I expressed the opinion that K would and should speak further, depending on what the evidence revealed. At that point, I was confident that he would do so. Now, I'm not sure --- meaning, I have no idea one way or the other whether he will comment further. I don't know whether the Olympics spotlight, brightening just as the Freeh report is released, will lead some reporter to raise the issue. Nor have I any idea whether, independently, K will choose to make a further statement just now. His plate is pretty full for the next few weeks.



We are lucky that our most powerful staff member is a man of unquestionable honor and integrity. No way this would have happen at Duke under K. I would bet my LIFE on it. If he had been told by the Unv. President to cover it up, he would have probably chewed the man or woman out and proceeded to do the right thing. Who knows, he may have demanded that the Pres resign....

I don't think K's comment will be buried forever. And I don't think MaxAMillion's point can be "answered," period. Because I agree with oldnavy, I will still hope, and prefer, that sometime in the next month - after the Olympics would be understandable - K will say more, briefly, sadly, humbly, clearly.

[SMO]

If trying to minimize the level of his influence and control at Penn State isn't done to minimize JoePa's role in all this, I'm not sure why its done at all.

I think your emotional connection to this case makes it difficult to see degrees of fault. I believe they exist here and while it may be hard to admit that the most recognizeable figure may not hold most of the blame, there's ample evidence in the Freeh report that it's true.

[SMO]

Truthfully, I have no idea what you're doing. You dislike this thread for reasons that are beyond me.

Regarding 2004, what? The President and the AD with the backing of the Trustees went to Paterno's house TWICE to tell him to retire, and he said no. And you're saying they could have done it if they'd, I don't know, wanted it a little bit more?

everyone in the room must gang up on one dude to knock him down, it is safe to say that dude is the strongest guy in the room.

They surely wanted Paterno gone prior to 2004. Even if they didn't, threatening to expose him as the mastermind of a cover-up could have motivated him to retire. If we assume Paterno's conversation is what swayed them to not report Sandusky they should have never agreed to follow his guidance and threatened to expose him as protecting a serial predator. No one recovers from that.

BTW, has anyone yet explained how Bob Knight got fired by his president despite holding a similar stature? No one is untouchable.

[oldnavy]

It's hard for me to imagine a satisfactory counterpoint to this essential point. We know that MaxAMillion is correct that the several people who might have done more would have done more, had the kids being molested been their own family members.

It's this essential point that brings me back to K, and whether he will speak further, knowing more than he did in November, 2011, when he commented - here I deliberately use a neutral word, I hope, "commented" - that "how social issues are handled in those generations are quite different, quite different. And I think that has something to do with the situation.” This is a separate, and IMO a more important, issue than K's later [June 21, 2012] criticism of the manner of Paterno's firing.

Although I wouldn't claim that K "owes" the world an explanation, I continue to be uneasy about that November, 2011, statement. IIRC, this was but a brief comment in an interview, not a point K went out of his way to make as a forceful defense of Paterno. By sheer coincidence, I guess, he had gotten to know Paterno somewhat over the last year or so, and thought Paterno a model leader. Neither he nor, I assume, anyone else in public life had any reason to imagine the awful revelations to come.

But they have come. Although the debate continues on EK even about the evidence uncovered by Freeh, I doubt that many here would find satisfactory, much less compelling, K's "generational factor" reference.

Back on July 1 [posts # 10 & 13] I expressed the opinion that K would and should speak further, depending on what the evidence revealed. At that point, I was confident that he would do so. Now, I'm not sure --- meaning, I have no idea one way or the other whether he will comment further. I don't know whether the Olympics spotlight, brightening just as the Freeh report is released, will lead some reporter to raise the issue. Nor have I any idea whether, independently, K will choose to make a further statement just now. His plate is pretty full for the next few weeks.



I don't think K's comment will be buried forever. And I don't think MaxAMillion's point can be "answered," period. Because I agree with oldnavy, I will still hope, and prefer, that sometime in the next month - after the Olympics would be understandable - K will say more, briefly, sadly, humbly, clearly.

I need to go back to see what K said about the firing. I seem to remember that he didn't like the way it was handled. Well, it looks like everything PSU did was mishandled, so I am not sure he needs to clarify a comment about that.

I think he will probably just let it go, unless he is cornered and has to reply. Then, I would bet that he will stick by his original statement, it was mishandled. I don't think he ever said they should have kept JoePa.... only that firing him after so many years through a proxy was low class. At the time, there was little know about JoePa's knowledge or involvement in the case, he has nothing to apologize for. PSU mishandled the firing and this is consistent with the whole situation as we are finding out.... anyone who wants to find fault with K on this is LOOKING to find fault.

[freshmanjs]

They surely wanted Paterno gone prior to 2004. Even if they didn't, threatening to expose him as the mastermind of a cover-up could have motivated him to retire. If we assume Paterno's conversation is what swayed them to not report Sandusky they should have never agreed to follow his guidance and threatened to expose him as protecting a serial predator. No one recovers from that.

BTW, has anyone yet explained how Bob Knight got fired by his president despite holding a similar stature? No one is untouchable.

You can be the most powerful / influential person at an institution and still not be untouchable. Countless examples exist. Richard Nixon is probably the most obvious.

[Des Esseintes]

They surely wanted Paterno gone prior to 2004. Even if they didn't, threatening to expose him as the mastermind of a cover-up could have motivated him to retire. If we assume Paterno's conversation is what swayed them to not report Sandusky they should have never agreed to follow his guidance and threatened to expose him as protecting a serial predator. No one recovers from that.

BTW, has anyone yet explained how Bob Knight got fired by his president despite holding a similar stature? No one is untouchable.

Explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Knight#Criticisms_and_controversies) Further explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Knight#Head_coaching_record) (notice the absence of colored bars during his last seven seasons in Bloomington).

As to your first point, if the President and A.D. had wanted to threaten Paterno with revealing a conspiracy that would have lost all of them their jobs, made sure they never would have been hired for anything ever again, and put all of them behind bars, then yes! That would surely have worked! I suppose they could have also bred a doppelganger of Paterno in a tank, murdered Paterno, replaced him with the doppelganger, and had the doppelganger announce retirement. That would be just about as logical and likely to happen as your suggestion.

[freshmanjs]

I need to go back to see what K said about the firing. I seem to remember that he didn't like the way it was handled. Well, it looks like everything PSU did was mishandled, so I am not sure he needs to clarify a comment about that.

I think he will probably just let it go, unless he is cornered and has to reply. Then, I would bet that he will stick by his original statement, it was mishandled. I don't think he ever said they should have kept JoePa.... only that firing him after so many years through a proxy was low class. At the time, there was little know about JoePa's knowledge or involvement in the case, he has nothing to apologize for. PSU mishandled the firing and this is consistent with the whole situation as we are finding out.... anyone who wants to find fault with K on this is LOOKING to find fault.

I agree with the poster before you, though, that the comments on the firing are not the most important ones. The comments that social issues were handed different back in the day are the more troubling ones and should be addressed. I'm certainly not LOOKING to find fault, but I found Coach K's comments on that matter surprising and I do wish he'd clarify.

[Chicago 1995]

I think your emotional connection to this case makes it difficult to see degrees of fault. I believe they exist here and while it may be hard to admit that the most recognizeable figure may not hold most of the blame, there's ample evidence in the Freeh report that it's true.

I'm in the camp that thinks it is ludicrous to deny that JoePa was the most powerful man at Penn State, and say what you will, I don't think there's an iota of evidence in the Freeh Report to suggest otherwise. Couple that with the 2004 incident or the Triponey disputes about discipline of the FB team, and I don't know how it can be argued that Paterno wasn't the most powerful man at PSU.

Maybe that's only because of the cowardice of Spanier, Curley, Schultz and the generations of administrators before them who allowed JoePa and his football program to grow unchecked. You may well be right about that -- especially given what we know now about how Spanier, Curley and Schultz act when it truly matters, but it doesn't make JoePa any less powerful at Penn State.

I'd also posit that this is essentially an admission of your defense of JoePa. Degrees of fault don't matter. Any of them could have stopped it, and none did. Also, as I posted above, there are a ton of reasons to talk about JoePa and not Spanier, Curley or Schultz. That's went without a response, I'd note. Even if Spanier is somehow more culpable (I disagree that's he's more or less culpable) it doesn't effect JoePa's role in all this cr*p. If you're looking for others to take greater blame, that is also working to lessen JoePa's role in what happened. That's not the side of history I'd line up on, but to each his own.

[Starter]

They surely wanted Paterno gone prior to 2004. Even if they didn't, threatening to expose him as the mastermind of a cover-up could have motivated him to retire. If we assume Paterno's conversation is what swayed them to not report Sandusky they should have never agreed to follow his guidance and threatened to expose him as protecting a serial predator. No one recovers from that.

BTW, has anyone yet explained how Bob Knight got fired by his president despite holding a similar stature? No one is untouchable.

I agree that nobody is untouchable. If you harbor a child rapist, you're probably done.

That said, I don't think Knight had nearly the status at Indiana that Paterno did at Penn State. Celebrity status, sure, and status within the sport. But they were probably already close to the end of their rope with him before this due to his various blow-ups and bouts with temporary insanity with the chair-throwing and everything. He even had critics on campus offering constant criticism; Murray Sperber comes to mind. The offense he was fired for, I mean, seems like nothing today. What'd he do? Grab a kid's arm who was disrespecting him and yell at him. But with all the other incidents, I guess they couldn't deal with the negative press anymore. Compared to Knight, of course, Paterno was a deity. Did Bob Knight have a statue, his name on buildings, whatever? Having traveled through Happy Valley last summer, man, there was nothing going on there but Paterno. That corner of the country belonged to him. Very different situation, IMO, from Knight. (Obviously, as always, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I'd imagine we have people on the board with connections to either PSU or IU that I don't have.)

I think it'd be far more reasonable to parallel Paterno to Krzyzewski in terms of importance and influence over a school and particular region, though that region seemed mostly limited to the areas around Duke's campus. Don't get me wrong, there are Duke fans all over North Carolina and Virginia, but I got the sense that most of Chapel Hill, Raleigh and even Durham, then extending out from there, prefer UNC or NC State, unless they had specific ties to Duke. Western Pennsylvania belonged to JoePa.

[oldnavy]

You can be the most powerful / influential person at an institution and still not be untouchable. Countless examples exist. Richard Nixon is probably the most obvious.



Bob Knight pushed it way too far. I honestly think that Bob Knight wanted to get fired and wanted to see how far he could go to get Miles Brand to do it.

He had become and embarrassment to the University, he tipped the scale from asset to liability.

[gumbomoop]

I need to go back to see what K said about the firing. I seem to remember that he didn't like the way it was handled. Well, it looks like everything PSU did was mishandled, so I am not sure he needs to clarify a comment about that.

I think he will probably just let it go, unless he is cornered and has to reply. Then, I would bet that he will stick by his original statement, it was mishandled. I don't think he ever said they should have kept JoePa.... only that firing him after so many years through a proxy was low class. At the time, there was little know about JoePa's knowledge or involvement in the case, he has nothing to apologize for. PSU mishandled the firing and this is consistent with the whole situation as we are finding out.... anyone who wants to find fault with K on this is LOOKING to find fault.

My post wasn't about K's comment about how Paterno's firing was mishandled. I specifically distinguished the "mishandled firing" issue - which I did not discuss - from the "generational" issue, which my post was about.

Thus, I wasn't looking to "find fault" with K on the issue of the manner of Paterno's firing. Whether I "want to find fault with K" on the issue you didn't refer to, naturally I disagree, but I guess it's possible. I think I admire K a lot, but maybe I don't know my own mind.

[Atlanta Duke]

I think it'd be far more reasonable to parallel Paterno to Krzyzewski in terms of importance and influence over a school and particular region, though that region seemed mostly limited to the areas around Duke's campus. Don't get me wrong, there are Duke fans all over North Carolina and Virginia, but I got the sense that most of Chapel Hill, Raleigh and even Durham, then extending out from there, prefer UNC or NC State, unless they had specific ties to Duke. Western Pennsylvania belonged to JoePa.

I think a better equivalent to Paterno would be Dean Smith - a legendary coach for decades for the flagship public university in the state who had never been tainted by scandal and was widely revered as being about more than just the sport he coached. In terms of an equivalent act, it wouild be as if Dean Smith was advised that his life long assistant Bill Guthridge had been accused of such deviant conduct.

One difference between JoePa and virtually any other coach is the physical isolation of Happy Valley, which is in the middle of nowhere in central PA, away from the major cities of Philadelphia in eastern PA and Pittsburgh in western PA. There is no countervailing proximate source of power to balance the role of Penn State in that area and JoePa had no peers once he reached the status of being able to tell the president of Penn State to go away when JoePa was requested to resign.

[ricks68]

Well said. I personally withheld judgment with regards to Paterno until I could see the report. I read much of it at lunch today including the critical time line that details much of the key items. I am saddened by the report. Especially the parts that show all 4 leaders knew the full details of 1998, and 1999, and those same leaders made a collective decision in 2001 to do the wrong thing. I am super saddened that during the 2001 collaboration of the 4 leaders, the original decision was to do the right thing (Report it to Child Services, 2nd Mile, and authorities), but then the most powerful leader (Paterno) vetoed that decision. That is a killer for me. I just can't come to terms with those decisions, given the stakes. It appears the 4 leaders thought of the school's rep, the impact to Sandusky's life, but they gave little to no thought to the past, present, and future victims. All of whom were innocent, helpless children. Their final decision in 2001 was to just insure the child molesting was taken off campus. Four grown men, all well educated, all holding positions of great power and responsibility, and none of the four had a conscience. With great power comes great responsibility. One of our biggest responsibilities as adults is to protect children. Those 4 men, along with the DA in 1998, and countless others, failed those children miserably.

Very powerful post. Right to the heart of the matter. All the rest is commentary. Well done.

ricks

[Jarhead]

Having been out of the country since late May until earlier this month the Penn State problems were mostly out of my mind. In the last week or so I have observed that they are still a front page story. Now there seems to be a demand for certain people to make some kind of apology for their off the cuff utterances made when the Sandusky case first hit the media. That's a pretty big heap of apologies that are now due in the minds of some. That's unreasonable.

Back when K was first asked for his reaction by a media person he said the first thing that came to his mind. Having something of a relationship with Paterno he made a defensive statement in the type that I may have made, "Oh no, not Joe!" When Sandusky's alleged crime first came to light a lot of people were shocked to hear it. Disbelief was what most of us were feeling, including me, and we voiced it. I'll apologize if any body asks, but nobody has a right to demand an apology from me, or from Coach Krzyzewski. By the way, the victims in this case are the only ones who deserve any consideration at all starting with sincere apologies.

Apologies are due from a lot of folks, and that includes a lot of people at Penn State. As they say, the situation is still under investigation. It all rose above the fold again with the release of the Freeh Report. That's what the current hullabaloo is all about. The man has been convicted and will no doubt spend the rest of his life in jail. On the other hand, the enablers are still awaiting for the hammer to fall. Individual folks have been singled out and have suffered some discomfort, but what about the Penn State institution. I heard on the radio a little while ago that the NCAA is at least paying attention. They're waiting for Penn State before they take any action. It seemed that they will take action, so perhaps there will be a another demonstration of the same thing thing that struck down SMU for a lesser crime (cheating, wasn't it?) with the so called death penalty.

So now we are waiting for the NCAA on two big issues, Penn State, and UNC. I don't want to rush the NCAA, but pretty damn soon would be good. The institutions should have some time to enter their pleas. Not much, though.

[SMO]

As to your first point, if the President and A.D. had wanted to threaten Paterno with revealing a conspiracy that would have lost all of them their jobs, made sure they never would have been hired for anything ever again, and put all of them behind bars, then yes! That would surely have worked! I suppose they could have also bred a doppelganger of Paterno in a tank, murdered Paterno, replaced him with the doppelganger, and had the doppelganger announce retirement. That would be just about as logical and likely to happen as your suggestion.

But real leaders would not have waited until 2004, would they? If the most powerful person at PSU proposed a cover-up then wouldn't those leaders have had the leverage to:

1. Cite the law and do the right thing
2. Bully Paterno back by threatening to expose the mere suggestion of covering Sandusky

Upon hearing Paterno suggest a cover-up they must have realized the evil with which they were faced, right? These men had a duty to confront that evil and failed.

[formerdukeathlete]

Maybe so, but according to the timeline at pages 20 and 21 of the Freeh report Sandusky was brought back, after JoePa knew of the 1998 allegations and Sandusky was set to retire, for one more season as defensive coordinator for the 1999 season (that team with Lavar Arrington was ranked preseason #1 - JoePa's moral qualms about having Sandusky on his staff apparently did not extend to jeopardizing a chance for another national championship)

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201207/120712.01.pdf

The school that dodged a bullet was UVA - Sandusky allegedly was offered the Cavaliers head coach job for the 2000 season (after what presumably was a glowing recomendation from JoePa) but contract negotiations supposedly bogged down (or someone got wind of what was going on in Happy Valley) and the job went to Al Groh.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-10/sports/30381413_1_joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky-coaching

I think someone got wind. Folks will speak off the record more freely.

With the well being of the University at risk, former players who may have complained of Sandusky's behavior well before the 98 incident may have been reluctant to offer testimony to a grand jury. On the other hand, players and employees within the Athletic Department may have spoken freely to a friend or colleague in the UVa Athletic Department.

On the matter of Sandusky being brought back for 90 or so days for the '99 season, I think this speaks more to that whomever Curley and Joe were negotiating with to be DC did not work out, as well as to Joe's and the Athletics Department's ability to tolerate a pedophile on staff, which they had tolerated (as set forth by rumors, complaints, innuendo) for years before then.

[greybeard]

Is there any question that Krzyzewski outranks whoever the president of Duke is now? (I kid, I know who Brodhead is, but I admit to having to check whether it's STILL him.) Seriously though, Krzyzewski is hands-down the most important and influential person at Duke University. It's been that way for probably about 15 years, at least.

I remember quite distinctly K's having been openly on the side of wait and see and speaking against the premature reaction against the LAX program. He at least seemed to be taking at, I can't help myself, Broadhurst's having been okay with, in fact endorsing, the cancellation of the LAX season, the radical professsors calling for a lynching not just of the Duke III but every Duke LAX player. They also held up the accuser as a victim of a vicious rape after she had picked three guys out of a rigged lineup and even after a wholesale DNA test of all LAX players who were at the stripper show, none of whose seamen was among the various different semens found upon an examination of the accuser.

Did any of this impact Broadhurst. Read a bit and you will see. K was ignored, and Broadurst's reaction to complaints by LAX players to having been mistreated by professors, many in the Black Studies Program, was to ignore the too. Rather, he announced that the Black Studies Program, was being made into a Department with the leader of the on-slaught against the LAX players, by faculty and a large number of students, being appointed the Department's Head. Of course, Broadhurst stood silent as Nifong more and more stood as the emperor with no cloths and continued onwith his persecuition of the Duke III even as the evidence mounted that their continued prosecution was an abomination.

So much for the powerful coach of the iconic sports program that defined Duke to most of the world at large having had the power to shape events at his University.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I remember quite distinctly K's having been openly on the side of wait and see and speaking against the premature reaction against the LAX program. He at least seemed to be taking at, I can't help myself, Broadhurst's having been okay with, in fact endorsing, the cancellation of the LAX season, the radical professsors calling for a lynching not just of the Duke III but every Duke LAX player. They also held up the accuser as a victim of a vicious rape after she had picked three guys out of a rigged lineup and even after a wholesale DNA test of all LAX players who were at the stripper show, none of whose seamen was among the various different semens found upon an examination of the accuser.

Did any of this impact Broadhurst. Read a bit and you will see. K was ignored, and Broadurst's reaction to complaints by LAX players to having been mistreated by professors, many in the Black Studies Program was to ignore the toom. Rather, he announced that the Black Studies Program was being made into a Department with the leader of the on-slaught against the LAX players, by faculty and a large number of students, being appointed the Department's Head. Of course, Broadhurst stood silent as Nifong more and more stood as the emperor with no cloths and continued on in the face of more and more evidence that his continued prosecution of the Duke III was a shame.

So much for the powerful coach of the iconic sports program that defined Duke to most of the world at large havingas having had power to shape events at his University.

I'm not sure that's right: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2493218

Coach K's best political move was to not do anything regarding Duke lax. Just because you are the most powerful man on campus does not give you the right to interfere with an issue that isn't in your jurisdiction. Coach K absolutely made the right choice. Brodhead absolutely did NOT make the right choices. I do not recall Coach K speaking about the Duke lacrosse scandal before the summer.

[Des Esseintes]

I remember quite distinctly K's having been openly on the side of wait and see and speaking against the premature reaction against the LAX program. He at least seemed to be taking at, I can't help myself, Broadhurst's having been okay with, in fact endorsing, the cancellation of the LAX season, the radical professsors calling for a lynching not just of the Duke III but every Duke LAX player. They also held up the accuser as a victim of a vicious rape after she had picked three guys out of a rigged lineup and even after a wholesale DNA test of all LAX players who were at the stripper show, none of whose seamen was among the various different semens found upon an examination of the accuser.

Did any of this impact Broadhurst. Read a bit and you will see. K was ignored, and Broadurst's reaction to complaints by LAX players to having been mistreated by professors, many in the Black Studies Program, was to ignore the too. Rather, he announced that the Black Studies Program, was being made into a Department with the leader of the on-slaught against the LAX players, by faculty and a large number of students, being appointed the Department's Head. Of course, Broadhurst stood silent as Nifong more and more stood as the emperor with no cloths and continued onwith his persecuition of the Duke III even as the evidence mounted that their continued prosecution was an abomination.

So much for the powerful coach of the iconic sports program that defined Duke to most of the world at large having had the power to shape events at his University.

This Broadhurst sounds like a pretty sinister fellow. I wonder why I've never heard of him before.

[-jk]

Let's not revisit the lax hoax please.

-jk

[oldnavy]

What about Mike McQueary in all this? I understand he was the witness and reported the abuse. Then what? Is this just something you can say "hey, I told the boss" and walk away from knowing the creep that was doing whatever he was doing was still hanging around? Did he go to the press once it was obvious that PSU was going to do nothing?

How can SO many folks look the other way on this. The heck with a Job!! Or a prgram, or whatever.... this was sick and had to be stopped regardless of the cost to an individual, institution or stupid football program.

Whatever happened to doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may.

I would rather pick up trash from the medium of HWY 95 for the next 40 years and live in poverty than have to live with the fact that this went on for years after I witnessed it.

I honestly believe I would have physically confronted Sandusky and probably ended up in court had I witnessed this.... The assault charge against me would have gotten the truth out!

Makes me think that everyone at PSU is spineless....

[greybeard]

Having read the complete report in the light of day, everything I said about this matter is utter and complete nonsense. I'm not saddened for Paterno or his legacy one bit. His good acts through the bulk of his career matter not. They should fall along with his legacy. Salley, as have many others on this Board, nailed it regarding the entire bunch of them, Paterno especially.

[Turk]

I wonder how the leadership group at PSU would have handled things if it had been their family members who were being molested? I wonder if JoePa would have acted differently if someone told him his grandkids were being molested by Sandusky.

Irrelevant question. The leadership group at PSU handled things exactly as they did because one of their family members was doing the molesting. I do not wonder if JoePa ever allowed his grandkids to stay overnight at Sandusky's house. "Ahhh, we're kinda busy. We'll go see Uncle Jerry some other time, maybe next Christmas."

[Dukeface88]

What about Mike McQueary in all this? I understand he was the witness and reported the abuse. Then what? Is this just something you can say "hey, I told the boss" and walk away from knowing the creep that was doing whatever he was doing was still hanging around? Did he go to the press once it was obvious that PSU was going to do nothing?

How can SO many folks look the other way on this. The heck with a Job!! Or a prgram, or whatever.... this was sick and had to be stopped regardless of the cost to an individual, institution or stupid football program.

Whatever happened to doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may.

I would rather pick up trash from the medium of HWY 95 for the next 40 years and live in poverty than have to live with the fact that this went on for years after I witnessed it.

I honestly believe I would have physically confronted Sandusky and probably ended up in court had I witnessed this.... The assault charge against me would have gotten the truth out!

Makes me think that everyone at PSU is spineless....

In fairness to McQueary, he told more than the boss - he also told the president and (more importantly IMO) the person in charge of of campus police. While phisycally confronting Sandusky would have been better, reporting it to the police, or someone he thought represented the police, is probably the next best option. And McQueary's testimony did, utimately, bring the abuse to light while any other witnesses who might know of what happened have stayed silent. I have a difficult time condemming the only person who was, and is, willing to do something (if not necessarily the best thing), when no one else would or has gone that far.

[Cameron]

Back when K was first asked for his reaction by a media person he said the first thing that came to his mind. Having something of a relationship with Paterno he made a defensive statement in the type that I may have made, "Oh no, not Joe!" When Sandusky's alleged crime first came to light a lot of people were shocked to hear it. Disbelief was what most of us were feeling, including me, and we voiced it. I'll apologize if any body asks, but nobody has a right to demand an apology from me, or from Coach Krzyzewski. By the way, the victims in this case are the only ones who deserve any consideration at all starting with sincere apologies.

You have perfectly summarized my feelings about much of this thread. I personally hope Coach K just leaves it be, if for no other reason than the simple fact that he is in debt to no one regarding this matter. The comments K made with respect to Paterno were purely earnest observations about his friend, somebody K deeply respected and, from having gotten to know very well over the past several years, obviously profoundly believed in. At the time of those comments, all of the so-called facts of the case were not yet known, and K was entitled to those observations, just like anyone else was entitled to theirs. If you go back and read through and watch what K had to say, it is clear, at least to me, that he was simply trying to make sense of an incredibly difficult to comprehend situation.

I don't know, though, perhaps if Penn State decides to take down JoePa's statute, ESPN can arrange for a follow-up to "Difference Makers: Life Lessons with Paterno and Krzyzewski" where K concludes the series by kicking the statue over, similar to how the Iraqi people toppled Saddam Hussein's.

[oldnavy]

In fairness to McQueary, he told more than the boss - he also told the president and (more importantly IMO) the person in charge of of campus police. While phisycally confronting Sandusky would have been better, reporting it to the police, or someone he thought represented the police, is probably the next best option. And McQueary's testimony did, utimately, bring the abuse to light while any other witnesses who might know of what happened have stayed silent. I have a difficult time condemming the only person who was, and is, willing to do something (if not necessarily the best thing), when no one else would or has gone that far.

OK, very fair points. But didn't he stay at PSU even after he realized nothing was going to happen, like isn't he still there?

Was there ever any attempt on his part to notify the press and get it out there where it won't be burried. I am sure if he had called any number of sports writters or papers, the story would have broken immediately and it would have been picked up and went viral across the county.

I actually feel bad for him, he was put in an terrible situation, I know this would have cost him tremendously, but I just cannot see myself remaining at a place where you know this type of thing is being allowed to occur for years after you witnessed it yourself.

He did do some of the right things, but this is a stituation where, you don't stop until you see justice done. I mean how do you rationalize this in your mind.... "hey I told my superiors, but if they think it's cool then, I've done my part let's play some ball!"..... NO, NO, NO!! this isn't a ticket scandal, it is the safety of children, some of whom I am sure will be broken from this for life!! And again I ask what for? To protect a job? Your future in coaching??? REALLY? sounds like selling your soul to me....

I have been in situations where I reported minor type stuff going on, and my superior didn't act on it and I let it go. Not everything is worth risking it all, but to stop kids from being raped is. You don't stop when told thanks for letting us know, we'll take care of this... and stand by for 10 years while it still goes on....

He may have done the most of that sick group at PSU football and athletics, but he still didn't do enough in my opinion. Even if you did all the right things, how do you continue to work for this group of people? How do you look them in the eye each day? How do you walk by Sandusky and not just beat the *$&T out of him? I really cannot see how you stay at a place that enables this to happen for year after year.... McQueary is no hero, he did what was in his best interest, he shut up when he was told to to keep a job at his beloved school and allowed a sex predator to rape young boys for years. So far there I have not heard of one rightous person at PSU related to this scandle, they all are a group of miscreants IMO.

[SMO]

What about Mike McQueary in all this? I understand he was the witness and reported the abuse. Then what? Is this just something you can say "hey, I told the boss" and walk away from knowing the creep that was doing whatever he was doing was still hanging around? Did he go to the press once it was obvious that PSU was going to do nothing?

How can SO many folks look the other way on this. The heck with a Job!! Or a prgram, or whatever.... this was sick and had to be stopped regardless of the cost to an individual, institution or stupid football program.

Whatever happened to doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may.

I would rather pick up trash from the medium of HWY 95 for the next 40 years and live in poverty than have to live with the fact that this went on for years after I witnessed it.

I honestly believe I would have physically confronted Sandusky and probably ended up in court had I witnessed this.... The assault charge against me would have gotten the truth out!

Makes me think that everyone at PSU is spineless....

Careful. Suggesting anyone other than Paterno bears any responsibility for this mess apparently minimizes his role.

[freshmanjs]

Careful. Suggesting anyone other than Paterno bears any responsibility for this mess apparently minimizes his role.

Nope, nothing in that post minimizes Paterno's role. some of your posts, on the other hand.....

[Atlanta Duke]

Careful. Suggesting anyone other than Paterno bears any responsibility for this mess apparently minimizes his role.

I do not believe anyone is contending JoePa is solely responsible for the malfeasance at Penn State.

However, anyone who still contends JoePa was not a major player in covering up Sandusky's crimes is delusional. And when he saw the cover-up was unraveling it appears from this article in today's New York Times that he renegotiated his contract in 2011 to sweeten the terms of an exit that he presumably saw was coming

Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/joe-paterno-got-richer-contract-amid-jerry-sandusky-inquiry.html?hp

Having grown up in western Pennsylvania I can tell you that there was always an element of sanctimony surrounding JoePa and his mission of saving college football from "the Barry Switzers and Jackie Sherrills (former Pitt coach) of the world." Turns out it was Joe Pa from whom college football needed to be saved.

[sagegrouse]

Is there any question that Krzyzewski outranks whoever the president of Duke is now? (I kid, I know who Brodhead is, but I admit to having to check whether it's STILL him.) Seriously though, Krzyzewski is hands-down the most important and influential person at Duke University. It's been that way for probably about 15 years, at least.

Frank Broyles, the long-time football coach and AD at Arkansas, referred to college athletics as the "front porch of the university." At Duke, while sports are more than a front stoop, athletics are less important than at Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and many other schools.

K is the best-known person at Duke to the general public and is one of the most highly regarded leaders in American sports. Coach K has also built effective bridges to other parts of Duke, including the Office of the President and the Fuqua School, and he pretty much gets what he wants for the basketball program. That said, Mike Krzyzewski is only peripherally involved with any of the central missions of Duke University, such as teaching, research, heathcare and a myriad of programs that help fulfill these missions.

To be fair, if there were a crisis affecting Duke, the powers-that-be would have to be crazy not to involve K as a public advocate for Duke. But that is not the same thing as running or leading Duke.

For example, drawing two subthreats together, one mistake made in the LAX hoax was to muzzle the athletic department, including Coach K. A normal legal strategy to protect a client is to have only one source of information, but this was far from a normal situation. If Gov. Terry Sanford had been in charge, IMHO (where the H is typically silent) he would have seen the value of a bifurcated strategy that let the weeping and wailing continue unabated in certain academic quarters but allow or even encourage the athletic department to defend the players. Then, as the obvious hoax was revealed (I mean, in retrospect the allegations were totally nuts), the scale would have tipped in favor of the athletes. Duke could have taken credit because a segment of the community had supported the athletes all along. Instead, Duke got the worst of both worlds -- smeared with allegations of crime and privilege and jocks running amok but also getting clobbered by the alumni and others for not standing up for its own students.

Anyway, K is not "the most important and influential person at Duke University." He has no role in teaching, reasearch, or health care. He is the best-known person at Duke and a valuable resource to the institution.

This is my two cents, which I have tried to puff up to look like six bits.

sagegrouse

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Anyway, K is not "the most important and influential person at Duke University." He has no role in teaching, reasearch, or health care. He is the best-known person at Duke and a valuable resource to the institution.

sagegrouse
Well, I think it's rather fair to say that Coach plays a pretty substantial role in teaching (his team, people associated with the team, Fuqua, Emily K center, etc.) research and healthcare (Duke children's hospital, children's miracle network, Jimmy V foundation, etc., etc.)... http://coachk.com/meet-coach-k/in-the-community/

Just because he may not be the one actually teaching in a classroom everyday or conducting research in a lab does not make his role as a leader, fundraiser or advisor any less important. Many I'm sure would argue that these efforts would not be the same without his substantial involvement.

[greybeard]

Frank Broyles, the long-time football coach and AD at Arkansas, referred to college athletics as the "front porch of the university." At Duke, while sports are more than a front stoop, athletics are less important than at Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and many other schools.

K is the best-known person at Duke to the general public and is one of the most highly regarded leaders in American sports. Coach K has also built effective bridges to other parts of Duke, including the Office of the President and the Fuqua School, and he pretty much gets what he wants for the basketball program. That said, Mike Krzyzewski is only peripherally involved with any of the central missions of Duke University, such as teaching, research, heathcare and a myriad of programs that help fulfill these missions.

To be fair, if there were a crisis affecting Duke, the powers-that-be would have to be crazy not to involve K as a public advocate for Duke. But that is not the same thing as running or leading Duke.

For example, drawing two subthreats together, one mistake made in the LAX hoax was to muzzle the athletic department, including Coach K. A normal legal strategy to protect a client is to have only one source of information, but this was far from a normal situation. If Gov. Terry Sanford had been in charge, IMHO (where the H is typically silent) he would have seen the value of a bifurcated strategy that let the weeping and wailing continue unabated in certain academic quarters but allow or even encourage the athletic department to defend the players. Then, as the obvious hoax was revealed (I mean, in retrospect the allegations were totally nuts), the scale would have tipped in favor of the athletes. Duke could have taken credit because a segment of the community had supported the athletes all along. Instead, Duke got the worst of both worlds -- smeared with allegations of crime and privilege and jocks running amok but also getting clobbered by the alumni and others for not standing up for its own students.

Anyway, K is not "the most important and influential person at Duke University." He has no role in teaching, reasearch, or health care. He is the best-known person at Duke and a valuable resource to the institution.

This is my two cents, which I have tried to puff up to look like six bits.

sagegrouse

They say two cents used to be worth an awful lot. History repeats. Hat's off and thanks.

[JasonEvans]

Couple things to note-- first of all, John Feinstein has a pretty good column in the Wash Post about the perils of placing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-feinstein-no-pedestals-for-coaches/2012/07/13/gJQARKDoiW_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200)too much faith in any one individual.


But this tragedy should do something else, too: remind everyone involved in college athletics that no coach, regardless of how many games he wins, how many players he graduates or how much money he raises for the university should be allowed to have the absolute power that Paterno wielded. Absolute power doesn’t always corrupt absolutely, but it absolutely can corrupt.

He gets into the legacy of Dean Smith. He brings up Coach K's position at Duke. And, I especially enjoyed the part where he called Kentucky on the carpet for their deification of Calipari.


John Calipari has built his national championship program around players who turn pro after one year in college. He’s not the only coach who recruits such “one-and-dones”; he just does it better than anyone. Calipari is easily the most powerful man in Kentucky. Very few people who follow Kentucky basketball care whether any of Calipari’s players graduate. That will be the case as long as his teams continue to contend regularly for the national championship.

That shouldn’t be true anywhere, but it is true almost everywhere, especially those places where a coach has won for many years.

Anyway, read the column. Pretty good points.

On another totally different note, I wanted to chime in about Sandusky being interviewed for the head coaching job at UVA. Someone opined that Virginia really dodged a bullet and that Sandusky probably had a good recommendation from Paterno. Others felt that someone at Penn St probably told UVA to stay away.

Allow me to float a different scenario. I would not be at all surprised if it was Paterno himself who warned Virginia off of Sandusky. After all, so long as Sandusky was doing his dirty deeds in and around Happy Valley, Joe and the other powerful men who had covered up his crimes could keep it under wraps -- hopefully until Sandusky died or his libido just went south and the problem went away. After all, many of his depraved acts were done on the Penn St campus, the ultimate area of control for Paterno. However, if Sandusky took a job with another program that moved him away from Happy Valley, then the odds that his child molestation activities would come to light were likely to skyrocket. And, you can bet, the moment Sandusky was discovered at UVA, someone would come back to Happy Valley and start asking questions.

So, it was in Joe's best interest to keep Sandusky from getting the UVA job or any other. Joe wanted to keep Sandusky as close as possible. That was the only way to hope to cover this up for eternity.

But, we will never know, I suspect.

-Jason "I may be prescribing really sinister motives to Joe. I may be wrong. But it strikes me as convenient that Sandusky never got very far in attempts to find other jobs given his remarkable qualifications and reputation" Evans

[Chicago 1995]

Careful. Suggesting anyone other than Paterno bears any responsibility for this mess apparently minimizes his role.

Snark, rather than a substantive response. Not surprising.

[formerdukeathlete]

Couple things to note-- first of all, John Feinstein has a pretty good column in the Wash Post about the perils of placing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-feinstein-no-pedestals-for-coaches/2012/07/13/gJQARKDoiW_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200)too much faith in any one individual.



He gets into the legacy of Dean Smith. He brings up Coach K's position at Duke. And, I especially enjoyed the part where he called Kentucky on the carpet for their deification of Calipari.



Anyway, read the column. Pretty good points.

On another totally different note, I wanted to chime in about Sandusky being interviewed for the head coaching job at UVA. Someone opined that Virginia really dodged a bullet and that Sandusky probably had a good recommendation from Paterno. Others felt that someone at Penn St probably told UVA to stay away.

Allow me to float a different scenario. I would not be at all surprised if it was Paterno himself who warned Virginia off of Sandusky. After all, so long as Sandusky was doing his dirty deeds in and around Happy Valley, Joe and the other powerful men who had covered up his crimes could keep it under wraps -- hopefully until Sandusky died or his libido just went south and the problem went away. After all, many of his depraved acts were done on the Penn St campus, the ultimate area of control for Paterno. However, if Sandusky took a job with another program that moved him away from Happy Valley, then the odds that his child molestation activities would come to light were likely to skyrocket. And, you can bet, the moment Sandusky was discovered at UVA, someone would come back to Happy Valley and start asking questions.

So, it was in Joe's best interest to keep Sandusky from getting the UVA job or any other. Joe wanted to keep Sandusky as close as possible. That was the only way to hope to cover this up for eternity.

But, we will never know, I suspect.

-Jason "I may be prescribing really sinister motives to Joe. I may be wrong. But it strikes me as convenient that Sandusky never got very far in attempts to find other jobs given his remarkable qualifications and reputation" Evans

Based on some personal contact with Curley (not about this issue, but on other issues), I think it is possible that Curley might have given the word to UVa. Penn State and UVa were on each other's schedules. Curley had been in fairly frequent contact with UVa athletic department officials. They played in 2001, 2002. Games are scheduled some years in advance. They will play again in 2012, 2013. Penn State recruits in Virginia and Virginia recruits in Pennsylvania, etc., etc.

As you said, Paterno might have warned UVa away. But, I think that the UVa search committe at that time, or AD, might have called Curley first.

[Starter]

Frank Broyles, the long-time football coach and AD at Arkansas, referred to college athletics as the "front porch of the university." At Duke, while sports are more than a front stoop, athletics are less important than at Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and many other schools.

K is the best-known person at Duke to the general public and is one of the most highly regarded leaders in American sports. Coach K has also built effective bridges to other parts of Duke, including the Office of the President and the Fuqua School, and he pretty much gets what he wants for the basketball program. That said, Mike Krzyzewski is only peripherally involved with any of the central missions of Duke University, such as teaching, research, heathcare and a myriad of programs that help fulfill these missions.

To be fair, if there were a crisis affecting Duke, the powers-that-be would have to be crazy not to involve K as a public advocate for Duke. But that is not the same thing as running or leading Duke.

For example, drawing two subthreats together, one mistake made in the LAX hoax was to muzzle the athletic department, including Coach K. A normal legal strategy to protect a client is to have only one source of information, but this was far from a normal situation. If Gov. Terry Sanford had been in charge, IMHO (where the H is typically silent) he would have seen the value of a bifurcated strategy that let the weeping and wailing continue unabated in certain academic quarters but allow or even encourage the athletic department to defend the players. Then, as the obvious hoax was revealed (I mean, in retrospect the allegations were totally nuts), the scale would have tipped in favor of the athletes. Duke could have taken credit because a segment of the community had supported the athletes all along. Instead, Duke got the worst of both worlds -- smeared with allegations of crime and privilege and jocks running amok but also getting clobbered by the alumni and others for not standing up for its own students.

Anyway, K is not "the most important and influential person at Duke University." He has no role in teaching, reasearch, or health care. He is the best-known person at Duke and a valuable resource to the institution.

This is my two cents, which I have tried to puff up to look like six bits.

sagegrouse

LOL, "false starter." That's good stuff. I like to think it's actually shorthand for this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmin5WkOuPw), though.

Nah man, thanks for the history lesson, but I'm still not convinced what Krzyzewski says doesn't go, or that anything they want to do wouldn't have to go directly through him if it might affect him in any way. I mean, don't get me wrong, Krzyzewski has literally nothing to do with teaching (http://cole.fuqua.duke.edu/about/team/scholars.html), research (http://klab.surgery.duke.edu/modules/klab_people/index.php?id=1) or health care (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/dukenow/coach-k-to-receive-humanitarian-award)... (To be fair, you alluded to some of those, but even if he really is just "on the periphery," he seems almost omnipresent with all the stuff he's involved with, including the Emily K Center in the community.) I mean, the guy actually has the title of "Special Assistant to President Brodhead" in his contract. Does this really strike you as someone who is only a basketball coach with no potential say in policies? When I was still there, Krzyzewski snapped his fingers and got a massive tower built for his offices and museum and stuff. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve that, mind you -- he does -- but I doubt there was much red tape he had to go through to approve that.

Besides all that, I tend to disagree in that Duke basketball is just as intrinsic a part of the identity of the school as the athletics programs of any of the other schools you mentioned, except maybe Notre Dame with football. If anything, it's more so with Duke, given football failing to produce winning teams and lacrosse being a relative niche sport, and the basketball team being the most recognizable program in the country, transcending the sport. I think the majority of people associate Duke first with basketball, second with everything else, if they even associate it with anything else. I've never had the sense the school is shy about pushing the basketball team either, it's a cash cow. (Obviously these are just my opinions/observations, but I still tend to think they're valid in spite of their being my opinions/observations.)

With lacrosse, I thought his silence was his decision and not part of some university mandate? I could very, very easily be wrong on that, but I recall he wasn't shy in making his opinions known within the university infrastructure while the case was going on, even while he was silent publicly. I'd be hard-pressed to believe that if the university wanted him to shut up about this and he very much wanted to get his opinion out, that he wouldn't have simply done whatever he personally thought was right with no fear of repercussions. I'd also tend to think the sheer volume of people calling for him to comment on the case is indication that even if he didn't see it his place to speak for whatever reason, others certainly did.

I don't know man, I sense I touched a nerve, but certainly didn't mean to. I just got the sense when I was at Duke a decade ago that Krzyzewski was hands-down the most powerful entity at the school, and nothing I've seen has changed that. I mean, Dick Brodhead certainly isn't the Duke employee being hired for $50K a pop to give motivational speeches to Fortune 500 companies. If anything, I sense he got even more influence when he briefly flirted, or whatever, with the Lakers a few years back. In the words of Jay-Z, just my thoughts.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I personally don't think that the NCAA should do anything. While this may have been all about football, it my judgement from here on out it is primarily a legal matter and best handled by the criminal and civil courts. Lastly the NCAA seems top punish the innocent. Banning football to a year forces kids who had nothing to do with it to transfer etc. What can the NCAA really do to Spanier etc.

I also think Penn State should de-emphasize football. Withdraw from the Big 10 as soon as reasonable and schedule smaller programs, ie Navy, Army, maybe Duke Northwestern etc.

Just my 2 cents.

SoCal

[JasonEvans]

In an email discussion about Penn State, someone suggested the school should take football profits and use them to fund a Child Abuse Prevention Center. I decided to merge that idea with the notion of punishing the football program in some way.

They should voluntarily reduce the number of football scholarships they are going to give by 6 for the next decade. The cost of a year's tuition at Penn State (out of state) is a little less than $30k. Add in room and board and other assorted stuff that athletes get it probably goes to about $40k (maybe more). So, with 6 less scholarships, they could fund $240k/year in a Child Abuse Prevention program. I imagine donations from individuals and corporations could probably fund the program another $100-$250 grand, at least. That way we both address the victims of crimes like this and also provide a bit of a penalty to the football program.

-Jason "sadly I think there is a zero percent chance it happens" Evans

[Pghdukie]

I personally don't think that the NCAA should do anything. While this may have been all about football, it my judgement from here on out it is primarily a legal matter and best handled by the criminal and civil courts. Lastly the NCAA seems top punish the innocent. Banning football to a year forces kids who had nothing to do with it to transfer etc. What can the NCAA really do to Spanier etc.

I also think Penn State should de-emphasize football. Withdraw from the Big 10 as soon as reasonable and schedule smaller programs, ie Navy, Army, maybe Duke Northwestern etc.

Just my 2 cents.

SoCal

I'm not a lawyer, but, I strongly believe the ncaa will not get involved with this until the judicial system has run its course. If PSU puts self-imposed sanctions on the football program-so be it. Its a tough call to punish the scholar/athletes that had nothing to do with this. Just my .02.

[Newton_14]

I personally don't think that the NCAA should do anything. While this may have been all about football, it my judgement from here on out it is primarily a legal matter and best handled by the criminal and civil courts. Lastly the NCAA seems top punish the innocent. Banning football to a year forces kids who had nothing to do with it to transfer etc. What can the NCAA really do to Spanier etc.

I also think Penn State should de-emphasize football. Withdraw from the Big 10 as soon as reasonable and schedule smaller programs, ie Navy, Army, maybe Duke Northwestern etc.

Just my 2 cents.

SoCal


In an email discussion about Penn State, someone suggested the school should take football profits and use them to fund a Child Abuse Prevention Center. I decided to merge that idea with the notion of punishing the football program in some way.

They should voluntarily reduce the number of football scholarships they are going to give by 6 for the next decade. The cost of a year's tuition at Penn State (out of state) is a little less than $30k. Add in room and board and other assorted stuff that athletes get it probably goes to about $40k (maybe more). So, with 6 less scholarships, they could fund $240k/year in a Child Abuse Prevention program. I imagine donations from individuals and corporations could probably fund the program another $100-$250 grand, at least. That way we both address the victims of crimes like this and also provide a bit of a penalty to the football program.

-Jason "sadly I think there is a zero percent chance it happens" Evans


I'm not a lawyer, but, I strongly believe the ncaa will not get involved with this until the judicial system has run its course. If PSU puts self-imposed sanctions on the football program-so be it. Its a tough call to punish the scholar/athletes that had nothing to do with this. Just my .02.

A lot of people from the media to fans are now loudly calling for the Death Penalty. Many are suggesting that Penn St should do the right thing and shut the program down for a minimum of 1 year, if not 2, and if they don't, then the NCAA should impose a Death Penalty with 2 yr ban from playing. They are calling for the NCAA to immediately make it legal for every player and recruit to transfer anywhere they wish and be eligible right away.

I am struggling with that, but to be honest, I think it best if there are no Football games this year. I do agree that if that happens all players and recruits should be able to transfer and play right away. I definitely like the idea of funding a Child Abuse Center also. Finally, they should clean house from top to bottom in the administration, and coaching ranks. They need to start fresh with a new culture, and retaining even one of the lowest ranking football coaches would retain the stench from this mess.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

I also think Penn State should de-emphasize football. Withdraw from the Big 10 as soon as reasonable and schedule smaller programs, ie Navy, Army, maybe Duke Northwestern etc.

Just my 2 cents.

SoCal

Can someone far more qualified than me explain why expelling PSU from the B1G or PSU withdrawing from the B1G will help bring about ending child abuse in the world, or even at Penn St.?

From what my simple minded brain can tell, the entire University administration, coaching staff, players, and student-body are not involved in the abuse or cover-up. From what I can tell, it is limited to about 6 or so people, all of whom are either dead, in jail, or will be soon. Why should all of the student athletes, coaches, administration, and student-body (not to mention people employed as vendors, security, first aid, etc. at each of the football games, basketball games, etc. that may have their lives altered if PSU goes 1-AA overnight) be punished for what only a few did? Why not the entire Pennsylvania State University just close and send everyone home because THAT will finally bring an end to chid molestation.

All of this grandiose, self-righteous talk of "death penalty" and "punishment for the arrogance of PSU" seems at best well intentioned but short-sided and at worst good old fashioned media/political pandering with a smidge of "witch hunt" thrown in!

Again, Please Explain???

Those are just MY 2 cents.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

A lot of people from the media to fans are now loudly calling for the Death Penalty. Many are suggesting that Penn St should do the right thing and shut the program down for a minimum of 1 year, if not 2, and if they don't, then the NCAA should impose a Death Penalty with 2 yr ban from playing. They are calling for the NCAA to immediately make it legal for every player and recruit to transfer anywhere they wish and be eligible right away.

I am struggling with that, but to be honest, I think it best if there are no Football games this year. I do agree that if that happens all players and recruits should be able to transfer and play right away. I definitely like the idea of funding a Child Abuse Center also. Finally, they should clean house from top to bottom in the administration, and coaching ranks. They need to start fresh with a new culture, and retaining even one of the lowest ranking football coaches would retain the stench from this mess.
Hasn't there already been a change of coaching staff? Bill O'Brien took the head coach's job after finishing the NFL season. O'Brien has brought in a new staff, several of whom have worked together at both Duke and Ga. Tech. Are you saying that they should be let go?

[Newton_14]

Hasn't there already been a change of coaching staff? Bill O'Brien took the head coach's job after finishing the NFL season. O'Brien has brought in a new staff, several of whom have worked together at both Duke and Ga. Tech. Are you saying that they should be let go?

No, no, not at all. I meant any coaches from the Paterno staff. Sorry, I did not make that clearer. Collateral damage is a tough one here. When punishments are doled out, there are always innocent people impacted. It is never fair, but in some cases necessary. Like someone upstream mentioned, vendors at the games, ushers, etc who had nothing to do with this and no knowledge it was going on, will be impacted if there is a ban of sorts. I empathize with those people if it happens. It's a tough deal.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Can someone far more qualified than me explain why expelling PSU from the B1G or PSU withdrawing from the B1G will help bring about ending child abuse in the world, or even at Penn St.?

From what my simple minded brain can tell, the entire University administration, coaching staff, players, and student-body are not involved in the abuse or cover-up. From what I can tell, it is limited to about 6 or so people, all of whom are either dead, in jail, or will be soon. Why should all of the student athletes, coaches, administration, and student-body (not to mention people employed as vendors, security, first aid, etc. at each of the football games, basketball games, etc. that may have their lives altered if PSU goes 1-AA overnight) be punished for what only a few did? Why not the entire Pennsylvania State University just close and send everyone home because THAT will finally bring an end to chid molestation.

All of this grandiose, self-righteous talk of "death penalty" and "punishment for the arrogance of PSU" seems at best well intentioned but short-sided and at worst good old fashioned media/political pandering with a smidge of "witch hunt" thrown in!

Again, Please Explain???

Those are just MY 2 cents.

Nothing that Penn State does is going to end child abuse.

In my opinion the problem at Penn State was that football and Paterno ruled. They could not get Paterno to retire. When they had an idea to kinda do the right thing about a former coach, Paterno evidently said no and they changed the plan. Football should not rule at Penn State. Intelligent men including a formerly respected college President evidently permitted a child abuser to continue to abuse. Again in my opinion if this was an assistant basketball coach, or track coach, or any other sport, then the University officials would have done the right thing. So de-emphasize football.

SoCal

[DesertDevil]

I'm not so sure the NCAA will do anything directly involving the Sandusky situation, but this does remind me a bit of the situation with the Baylor basketball program years ago.

The initial situation - one basketball players shooting/killing another - opened the door to the NCAA which lead to serious infractions/sanction against the MBB program.

[KenTankerous]

Can someone far more qualified than me explain why expelling PSU from the B1G or PSU withdrawing from the B1G will help bring about ending child abuse in the world, or even at Penn St.?

From what my simple minded brain can tell, the entire University administration, coaching staff, players, and student-body are not involved in the abuse or cover-up. From what I can tell, it is limited to about 6 or so people, all of whom are either dead, in jail, or will be soon. Why should all of the student athletes, coaches, administration, and student-body (not to mention people employed as vendors, security, first aid, etc. at each of the football games, basketball games, etc. that may have their lives altered if PSU goes 1-AA overnight) be punished for what only a few did? Why not the entire Pennsylvania State University just close and send everyone home because THAT will finally bring an end to chid molestation.

All of this grandiose, self-righteous talk of "death penalty" and "punishment for the arrogance of PSU" seems at best well intentioned but short-sided and at worst good old fashioned media/political pandering with a smidge of "witch hunt" thrown in!

Again, Please Explain???

Those are just MY 2 cents.

I find it a bit reductive to suggest the if NCAA cannot end child abuse through sanctions it ought to do nothing. Paterno and PSU covered up and in essences condoned child rape for the sake of it's football reputation. The NCAA has the power to send a strong message that this will not be tolerated.

While the current student-athletes may have had nothing to do with the crimes or cover-ups, they did benefit from the latter. Give them free and unfettered transfer privileges but to allow football business as usual at State College would be a travesty. The program needs to pay a hefty toll for preserving itself above all else.

[DukeandMdFan]

Can someone far more qualified than me explain why expelling PSU from the B1G or PSU withdrawing from the B1G will help bring about ending child abuse in the world, or even at Penn St.?

From what my simple minded brain can tell, the entire University administration, coaching staff, players, and student-body are not involved in the abuse or cover-up. From what I can tell, it is limited to about 6 or so people, all of whom are either dead, in jail, or will be soon. Why should all of the student athletes, coaches, administration, and student-body (not to mention people employed as vendors, security, first aid, etc. at each of the football games, basketball games, etc. that may have their lives altered if PSU goes 1-AA overnight) be punished for what only a few did? Why not the entire Pennsylvania State University just close and send everyone home because THAT will finally bring an end to chid molestation.

All of this grandiose, self-righteous talk of "death penalty" and "punishment for the arrogance of PSU" seems at best well intentioned but short-sided and at worst good old fashioned media/political pandering with a smidge of "witch hunt" thrown in!

Again, Please Explain???

Those are just MY 2 cents.


One reason for the Death Penalty would be to change the culture of Penn State.

I agree that a punishment’s value as a deterrent should be considered when determining the punishment.

The punishment should not be given with expectation that child predators will resist their urges for fear of the Death Penalty to their institution.

The punishment should be given with the expectation that it will lead to other schools becoming more compliant with the Clery Act (which requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their campuses).
http://http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/department-education-could-bigger-threat-penn-state-ncaa-203019718--ncaaf.html
The punishment should be given with the expectation that it will deter coaches and administrators at big-time sports programs to report crimes committed by their players rather than covering them up.

IMO, all college coaches should hear the message that if they covers up horrific crimes by members of their team or coaching staff, their coaching careers will be over and all of the good that they have done will be outweighed by their decision (made every day) to look the other way.

A harsh penalty could also lead to more thorough background checks on the coaches that work the youth summer camps. (Admittedly, a background check may not have identified Sandusky, but it could prevent some other child molesters from working one of these camps.)

IMO, when Sandusky was consciously scheming to molest boys, the possibility that it could lead to NCAA sanctions had little to do with it. He may have thought he could lose his job, go to jail, etc.

But the four most powerful leaders at Penn State did consider the possible institutional ramifications of getting caught. When making the decision to talk to Sandusky rather than notify the proper authorities, Gary Schultz sent an email to Graham Spanier and Tim Curley on Feb 28, 2001, “The only downside for us is if the message isn’t heard and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.”

IMO, if Pres Spanier had replied that the potential losses included the potential for the losing federal funding, losing accreditation, and losing over $100 Million, Schultz would have agreed that the risk was too great and decided to report it.

IMO, if AD Curley had replied that the potential losses included the Death Penalty and vacated wins, Schultz would have agreed that the risk was too great and decided to report it. (Perhaps Paterno thought that the risk of getting caught in his lifetime was minimal, so I'm not as sure that he wouldn't have still rolled the dice.)

The Freeh report also found that Penn State was “significantly lacking” in its compliance with the Clery Act to report crimes. The PSU employee responsible for being compliant with the Clery Act asked for help, but was told that PSU did not have the money. If the person deciding to downplay the importance of the Clery Act understood that it could lead to loss of federal funding, it is likely that they would have found the money.

[75Crazie]

One reason for the Death Penalty would be to change the culture of Penn State.

I agree that a punishment’s value as a deterrent should be considered when determining the punishment.

<etc.>


Nailed it in one. I believe the cover-ups occurred because the administration believed it was their duty to do so, to protect the insular culture of college football. This attitude and culture MUST be changed, by force if necessary.

[sagegrouse]

One reason for the Death Penalty would be to change the culture of Penn State.



IMHO (where the H is usually silent) the NCAA is done with the "death penalty," unless it truly wants to end a sport at a member institution. The one case where applied in football -- at SMU -- made SMU utterly non-competitive for at least 20 years. Before then, while not a powerhouse, it was often competitive and occasionally would have superb teams, as with Eric Dickerson and Craig James during the undefeated season in 1982.

Here's a passage from Wikipedia:


Years later, members of the committee that imposed the "death penalty" said that they had never anticipated a situation where they would ever have to impose it, but their investigation at SMU revealed a program completely out of control. Still, the crippling effects the penalty had on SMU has reportedly made the NCAA skittish about imposing another one. Former University of Florida President John V. Lombardi, now president of the Louisiana State University System, said in 2002: "SMU taught the committee that the death penalty is too much like the nuclear bomb. It's like what happened after we dropped the (atom) bomb in World War II. The results were so catastrophic that now we'll do anything to avoid dropping another one.”

sagegrouse

[JasonEvans]

IMHO (where the H is usually silent) the NCAA is done with the "death penalty," unless it truly wants to end a sport at a member institution. The one case where applied in football -- at SMU -- made SMU utterly non-competitive for at least 20 years. Before then, while not a powerhouse, it was often competitive and occasionally would have superb teams, as with Eric Dickerson and Craig James during the undefeated season in 1982.

I agree. The NCAA will not "kill" the Penn St. program. In fact, I think the NCAA will work with Penn St on a penalty that punishes the program but keeps it alive. Take away some scholarships, ban from bowls for a couple years, perhaps a fine or something that goes toward Child Abuse Prevention too.

-Jason

[BlueDevilBrowns]

I find it a bit reductive to suggest the if NCAA cannot end child abuse through sanctions it ought to do nothing. Paterno and PSU covered up and in essences condoned child rape for the sake of it's football reputation. The NCAA has the power to send a strong message that this will not be tolerated.

While the current student-athletes may have had nothing to do with the crimes or cover-ups, they did benefit from the latter. Give them free and unfettered transfer privileges but to allow football business as usual at State College would be a travesty. The program needs to pay a hefty toll for preserving itself above all else.

If the NCAA has to give PSU the death penalty in order to show the public and other schools it doesn't tolerate child rape, then apparently the NCAA has a serious image problem. Who in their right mind would think the NCAA or any other organization as a whole tolerates or has ever tolerated child abuse? The fact that the federal and state authorities sent Sandusky away for the rest of his life and will likely pursue the conviction of the university pres., AD, and any other official with knowledge of the cover-up should be message enough. The fact that everyone involved in the crime will likely be a convicted felon who's career is basically over or, in Paterno's case, his legacy destroyed(rightfully so) should be message enough to any other school.


Nothing that Penn State does is going to end child abuse.

In my opinion the problem at Penn State was that football and Paterno ruled. They could not get Paterno to retire. When they had an idea to kinda do the right thing about a former coach, Paterno evidently said no and they changed the plan. Football should not rule at Penn State. Intelligent men including a formerly respected college President evidently permitted a child abuser to continue to abuse. Again in my opinion if this was an assistant basketball coach, or track coach, or any other sport, then the University officials would have done the right thing. So de-emphasize football.

SoCal


Nailed it in one. I believe the cover-ups occurred because the administration believed it was their duty to do so, to protect the insular culture of college football. This attitude and culture MUST be changed, by force if necessary.

Again, I don't doubt that the 3 or so members of the administration believed it was their duty to protect the image of PSU football, but that was THEIR belief, not the belief of THOUSANDS of fans, alumni, students, employees, etc. This was a disgusting crime and horrible cover-up but it was the actions of a FEW individuals, NOT the entire university.

To say that their is something wrong with the "culture of PSU" because of the actions of a handful is simply ludicrous IMO. The "over-emphasis" on football brings thousands of fans into State College each fall, providing hundreds of jobs for stadium employees, nearby hotels, dining establishments, retail stores, etc. Think about the $ that is generated from this "evil" culture of PSU that provides funding not only for all other athletic teams but also academics. Over-emphasis on football could be claimed at dozens of other colleges, such as Texas, OU, USC, FSU, OSU, MICH, Nebraska and the entire SEC(except Vandy and KU).

Let's not be too self-righteous here because their are SO MANY people that would/could say similar things about Duke, KU, UK, UNC and it's "over-emphasis" on Basketball if the opportunity presented itself.

Punish the individual, not the organization.

[Duvall]

IMHO (where the H is usually silent) the NCAA is done with the "death penalty," unless it truly wants to end a sport at a member institution. The one case where applied in football -- at SMU -- made SMU utterly non-competitive for at least 20 years. Before then, while not a powerhouse, it was often competitive and occasionally would have superb teams, as with Eric Dickerson and Craig James during the undefeated season in 1982.

And yet...

Twenty years ago SMU was completely unable to balance academics and athletics, to the point that the university president was managing an illicit payroll for the football team. After they received the "death penalty," they were able to find the right balance. Having Penn State football spend a few years as an up-and-coming program in the MAC could help the university, even if it hurt athletics (which, let's face it, just aren't that important.)

[Duvall]

Let's not be too self-righteous here because their are SO MANY people that would/could say similar things about Duke, KU, UK, UNC and it's "over-emphasis" on Basketball if the opportunity presented itself.

Perhaps they should.

[formerdukeathlete]

And yet...

Twenty years ago SMU was completely unable to balance academics and athletics, to the point that the university president was managing an illicit payroll for the football team. After they received the "death penalty," they were able to find the right balance. Having Penn State football spend a few years as an up-and-coming program in the MAC could help the university, even if it hurt athletics (which, let's face it, just aren't that important.)

Re playing in the MAC, where Penn State ought to be playing, of course, is in the ACC. They would save 3 million a year in travel, earn a couple of million more a year in Basketball, play against teams where rivalries make sense, play within a geographic footprint where many more of their alums live and where they can attend away games, and align themselves in a conference where academics prevail to a greater degree. Were Penn State to lose its Football Program for a year or more, they might have an out from the Big 10. Penn State did not have an offer from the ACC at the time they decided to join the Big 10.

Regarding this, I have had discussions with Penn State alums and others from Central PA about how this would not do, joining the ACC, that Penn State is a surreal culture during home game weekends and it is all about playing against the "big boys." Folks drive Winnebagos and stay for extended weekends in droves. Its more about playing the big boys in the Big 10 than it is about rivalries. Folks dont care if few alums live within the footprint of the Big 10. Its all about the experience of the big time home games in a sort of detached isolation.

Well, it seems to me that in this time of self-reflection Penn State might reconsider what the heck they are doing in Football and whether the Program makes sense as it is currently configured. Paterno squashing the reporting of criminal activity was all about avoiding adverse publicity which could hurt the Program, recruiting wise, revenue wise. This was more about the money than it was doing the right thing. Penn State Athletics also might consider what is best for the rest of their athletic teams. Certainly they would be better off competing in an eastern and southeastern footprint. Penn State needs to reconfigure their Athletic programs in ways where it is much more about doing the right thing. After they get things straightened out, they can still play Ohio State every year, as a member of whatever conference.

http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2012/07/penn_state_football_is_a_53_mi.html#incart_mce $53 million net from Football is pretty staggering.

[KenTankerous]

If the NCAA has to give PSU the death penalty in order to show the public and other schools it doesn't tolerate child rape, then apparently the NCAA has a serious image problem. Who in their right mind would think the NCAA or any other organization as a whole tolerates or has ever tolerated child abuse? The fact that the federal and state authorities sent Sandusky away for the rest of his life and will likely pursue the conviction of the university pres., AD, and any other official with knowledge of the cover-up should be message enough. The fact that everyone involved in the crime will likely be a convicted felon who's career is basically over or, in Paterno's case, his legacy destroyed(rightfully so) should be message enough to any other school.





Again, I don't doubt that the 3 or so members of the administration believed it was their duty to protect the image of PSU football, but that was THEIR belief, not the belief of THOUSANDS of fans, alumni, students, employees, etc. This was a disgusting crime and horrible cover-up but it was the actions of a FEW individuals, NOT the entire university.

To say that their is something wrong with the "culture of PSU" because of the actions of a handful is simply ludicrous IMO. The "over-emphasis" on football brings thousands of fans into State College each fall, providing hundreds of jobs for stadium employees, nearby hotels, dining establishments, retail stores, etc. Think about the $ that is generated from this "evil" culture of PSU that provides funding not only for all other athletic teams but also academics. Over-emphasis on football could be claimed at dozens of other colleges, such as Texas, OU, USC, FSU, OSU, MICH, Nebraska and the entire SEC(except Vandy and KU).

Let's not be too self-righteous here because their are SO MANY people that would/could say similar things about Duke, KU, UK, UNC and it's "over-emphasis" on Basketball if the opportunity presented itself.

Punish the individual, not the organization.

I don't think I made the point I was going for.

NCAA sanctions are not to condemn child rape. Everyone agrees this is bad. The sanctions need to be levied against the cover up. Yes, a few powerful people are going to do seriously hard time and pay the just and righteous price for their lapses in judgement. But if the institution is not held accountable for those in charge, it allows a window of, let's call it martyrdom, where individuals can cover-up heinous crimes for the reputation of the institution, take the bullet and the program is unscathed.

If that is going to be okay with college sports fans, imma learn the rules to cricket.

But I second, or third, the idea that the "death penalty" would do more harm than good. The program ought to survive, in the long run, so as to tell the tale of how to not do the wrong thing.

[Wander]

From what my simple minded brain can tell, the entire University administration, coaching staff, players, and student-body are not involved in the abuse or cover-up. From what I can tell, it is limited to about 6 or so people, all of whom are either dead, in jail, or will be soon. Why should all of the student athletes, coaches, administration, and student-body (not to mention people employed as vendors, security, first aid, etc. at each of the football games, basketball games, etc. that may have their lives altered if PSU goes 1-AA overnight) be punished for what only a few did? Why not the entire Pennsylvania State University just close and send everyone home because THAT will finally bring an end to chid molestation.


I agree that it sucks that some innocent people will be punished, but by this logic, no one can ever levy even a mildly serious punishment or sanction against any university, company, country, business, team, or group for anything, ever. And given how a lot (not all, but a lot) of Penn State students/fans rioted months ago, I'm not sure I'd feel too sorry for them.

Re the NCAA, I like Doyel's opinion on the matter (yeah yeah, I know everyone here hates him). That is: the NCAA shouldn't get involved, but if it does, it has to levy the death penalty. If this isn't a case where the death penalty is appropriate (again, assuming the NCAA has jurisdiction), then what is?

[oldnavy]

Why does Penn State deserve a football program at this point given that they obviously place their program above child molestation and cover it up and allow it to go on for over a decade?

Stop them, and if they want to start over from scratch in 3 years let em, if not, who cares....

[cspan37421]

I agree that it sucks that some innocent people will be punished, but by this logic, no one can ever levy even a mildly serious punishment or sanction against any university, company, country, business, team, or group for anything, ever. And given how a lot (not all, but a lot) of Penn State students/fans rioted months ago, I'm not sure I'd feel too sorry for them.

Re the NCAA, I like Doyel's opinion on the matter (yeah yeah, I know everyone here hates him). That is: the NCAA shouldn't get involved, but if it does, it has to levy the death penalty. If this isn't a case where the death penalty is appropriate (again, assuming the NCAA has jurisdiction), then what is?

I agree with your first paragraph but not so much the 2nd.

With respect to the first, others have brought up the notion that it punishes innocent athletes who joined the program after the violations took place. I think most of us recall how Tommy Amaker was hamstrung at Michigan by the NCAA penalties that were handed down as the ink was drying on his first contract as he left Seton Hall for Michigan. He had to toil under a burden he didn't create, and arguably producing an average team in a major conference under such circumstances speaks rather well of his coaching abilities.

The proposed solution to let the kids transfer without requiring them to sit out is the most fair to them. As for coaches under contract, well, it seems reasonable and appropriate for coaches to negotiate into their contracts some "out" if the hammer comes down on the program as a result of something that went on under their predecessor. These contracts are for large amounts of money and it's reasonable that a coach at that level can afford to have a good agent and legal representation looking over the provisions. With such help, they are sufficiently sophisticated to insist upon provisions that will protect them in such a case. As for assistant coaches ... that's a bit more ambiguous and a ready solution does not immediately come to mind. I'm confident there can be one though.

Putting aside the history of Duke and Doyel, I find it a strange position, and disagree with it. If it is so uncertain whether the NCAA has jurisdiction, and in fact it seems like they should not, then I would think that such uncertainty should be reflected in a mitigated punishment. I'm sure there's a legal analogy somewhere about hung juries and whatnot, but IANAL.

That said, in light of this article on the former head of student affairs at PSU ("the woman who stood up to Joe Paterno" - and lost, I'd add)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/us/triponey-paterno-penn-state/index.html

I do not see how this is not a lack of institutional control over the football program. It's a long read, but basically the admin of PSU were prevented from disciplining the football players for conduct off the field. It's the very definition of lack of institutional control.

We don't have many data points on the "death penalty" in college football. SMU comes to mind; are there others of substantial note? I do question whether the NCAA has the backbone to do much if anything.

[roywhite]

I haven't read posts here for over a week. The recent events have been very disappointing and sad to me as a long-time Penn State fan. I spent the past weekend with my brother (PSU 1976) and father (PSU 1947, who would have been PSU 1944 but enlisted in the Army after Pearl Harbor). Frankly, I'm glad my dad has dementia now and is not generally aware of recent developments with Penn State and Paterno; they would be heart-breaking to him.

As I said, I haven't read through these posts and am uncertain about getting back into this. It's dismaying to see the last couple posts which have to do with reasons for a death penalty against Penn State football, which I don't think is warranted.

There usually is an attempt to be fair in these threads, so I hope some posters will research before taking up things like the cause of Vicky Triponey.

Vicky Triponey's timeline of terror (http://safeguardoldstate.org/the-vicky-triponey-timeline-of-terror/)

All this information was collected well in advance of the recent scandal at Penn State.
Her experiences at the University of Connecticut and Penn State were not positive for either insitution, and she is no longer working in higher education.

[dcdevil2009]

I'm not so sure the NCAA will do anything directly involving the Sandusky situation, but this does remind me a bit of the situation with the Baylor basketball program years ago.

The initial situation - one basketball players shooting/killing another - opened the door to the NCAA which lead to serious infractions/sanction against the MBB program.

That's a good point. Another analog might be the University of Colorado football team where a few players where several women alleged that they were raped by CU football players. People might remember it because one of the allegations came from their placekicker, a female, a couple years after she left the program. I don't remember the NCAA coming down on Colorado for the allegations to come out of that, although there were NCAA penalties for improper training table benefits provided to athletes across several sports.

On the other hand, what happened at Penn State is so far beyond the scope of anything that's happened in college sports, nothing really serves as a good precedent. Regardless of whether the NCAA decides to get involved, it strikes me as something that's beyond their scope. Yes, Sandusky was a college football coach, whose crimes happened amid the backdrop of college sports, and may have been covered up because the football program was the face of the university, but they didn't happen because of the football program. However, there was nothing inherent in college sports that led to Sandusky's atrocities. He wasn't raping children because he was a football coach, he was a child rapist who happened to coach football.

While obviously not of the same magnitude, think of all the arrests the Florida football program had under Urban Meyer. The arrested players weren't committing crimes because they were athletes, they were athletes who were committing crimes. Because of that, the University of Florida and the NCAA let the Florida football program (and criminal justice system) mete out punishments, but it was never viewed as an NCAA issue. When the NCAA has gotten involved, it was been to regulate/police conduct that happens because of college sports. For example, false SAT scores, improper benefits, academic fraud involving eligibility issues. When there has been a lack of institutional control, it is the institution not having control over NCAA issues such as recruiting violations, agent-athlete relationships, and academic integrity regarding player eligibility, not control over morality or immorality. Basically, the NCAA's function hasn't been to police morality or universities internal balance of power issues, but rather to deal with rules regarding interscholastic athletic competition, such as amateurism and eligibility issues. As the criminal conduct and coverup that happened at Penn State wasn't the type of conduct the NCAA has had power over in the past, I'm of the opinion that the NCAA should defer to law enforcement and the courts, the proper authorities to deal with such issues.

[Lid]

\There usually is an attempt to be fair in these threads, so I hope some posters will research before taking up things like the cause of Vicky Triponey.

Vicky Triponey's timeline of terror (http://safeguardoldstate.org/the-vicky-triponey-timeline-of-terror/)

All this information was collected well in advance of the recent scandal at Penn State.

I never heard of Triponey before today, but I will say that the website you linked is not the most convincing as far as its attempts to be fair. I don't know the facts, but I do know sensationalism, and I would say that if the authors of that site have a good point to make (which they may), they obscure it with the drama.


Her experiences at the University of Connecticut and Penn State were not positive for either insitution, and she is no longer working in higher education.
Actually, she is back in higher education, as the article linked before yours makes clear.

[roywhite]

I never heard of Triponey before today, but I will say that the website you linked is not the most convincing as far as its attempts to be fair. I don't know the facts, but I do know sensationalism, and I would say that if the authors of that site have a good point to make (which they may), they obscure it with the drama.


Actually, she is back in higher education, as the article linked before yours makes clear.

I see that she is back in higher education....my mistake.

As to the other information, there are over 20 links in that article about her time at Connecticut and Penn State.
If you want to just dismiss that, see ya.

[Duvall]

I see that she is back in higher education....my mistake.

As to the other information, there are over 20 links in that article about her time at Connecticut and Penn State.
If you want to just dismiss that, see ya.

As far as I could tell, none of those links had anything to do with the issues raised by the CNN report about conflicts over discipline of football players. Do you know of any articles that provide a different view on that particular topic?

[KenTankerous]

That's a good point. Another analog might be the University of Colorado football team where a few players where several women alleged that they were raped by CU football players. People might remember it because one of the allegations came from their placekicker, a female, a couple years after she left the program. I don't remember the NCAA coming down on Colorado for the allegations to come out of that, although there were NCAA penalties for improper training table benefits provided to athletes across several sports.

On the other hand, what happened at Penn State is so far beyond the scope of anything that's happened in college sports, nothing really serves as a good precedent. Regardless of whether the NCAA decides to get involved, it strikes me as something that's beyond their scope. Yes, Sandusky was a college football coach, whose crimes happened amid the backdrop of college sports, and may have been covered up because the football program was the face of the university, but they didn't happen because of the football program. However, there was nothing inherent in college sports that led to Sandusky's atrocities. He wasn't raping children because he was a football coach, he was a child rapist who happened to coach football.

While obviously not of the same magnitude, think of all the arrests the Florida football program had under Urban Meyer. The arrested players weren't committing crimes because they were athletes, they were athletes who were committing crimes. Because of that, the University of Florida and the NCAA let the Florida football program (and criminal justice system) mete out punishments, but it was never viewed as an NCAA issue. When the NCAA has gotten involved, it was been to regulate/police conduct that happens because of college sports. For example, false SAT scores, improper benefits, academic fraud involving eligibility issues. When there has been a lack of institutional control, it is the institution not having control over NCAA issues such as recruiting violations, agent-athlete relationships, and academic integrity regarding player eligibility, not control over morality or immorality. Basically, the NCAA's function hasn't been to police morality or universities internal balance of power issues, but rather to deal with rules regarding interscholastic athletic competition, such as amateurism and eligibility issues. As the criminal conduct and coverup that happened at Penn State wasn't the type of conduct the NCAA has had power over in the past, I'm of the opinion that the NCAA should defer to law enforcement and the courts, the proper authorities to deal with such issues.

I don't think anyone is advocating NCAA sanctions for Sandusky's rapes. The cover-up by the PSU leaders and JoePa especially, are the fuel driving the call for NCAA sanctions. I agree with what you say about criminals being athletes and coaches and had the offenses been properly dealt with, the university and the program would be above reproach.

But that didn't happen.

In fact, the opposite occured. Powerful people chose to cover-up the crimes, and in fact, provide a safe haven for future rapes, for the sake of the football program. That cannot stand.

[dcdevil2009]

I don't think anyone is advocating NCAA sanctions for Sandusky's rapes. The cover-up by the PSU leaders and JoePa especially, are the fuel driving the call for NCAA sanctions. I agree with what you say about criminals being athletes and coaches and had the offenses been properly dealt with, the university and the program would be above reproach.

But that didn't happen.

In fact, the opposite occured. Powerful people chose to cover-up the crimes, and in fact, provide a safe haven for future rapes, for the sake of the football program. That cannot stand.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone was advocating for NCAA sanctions based on Sandusky's rapes. Instead, I was saying that the NCAA should only get involved in handing out a punishment for a cover-up when the act being covered up is something the NCAA would be the proper authority to regulate in the first place. In other words, the body from whom the information is being hidden should be the one to handle how to deal with the cover-up. Even though Penn State's institutional balance of power was improperly skewed toward the football program, that in and of itself isn't an NCAA matter.

Basically, I don't see college football as being very important in what happened, so I don't think football's governing body should be involved. For example, if the same thing had happened on Wall St. (sexual assaults by an employee of a bank's flagship division, cover up to protect division), I wouldn't view the subsequent cover-up as an SEC matter. On the other hand, had the cover-up been of the employee's insider trading, then it's a different story.

[JasonEvans]

I am sure most of you recall that SI's Joe Posanski spent quite a while close to Paterno and Penn State recently because he was writing was was supposed to be the definitive biography on JoePa. Well, noted author/biographer Jeff Pearlman has some compelling thoughts (http://www.jeffpearlman.com/posnanski-and-paterno/) on that book and what Posanski should do with it--


I scrap it.

I do. I scrap the whole thing. I put it aside, maybe wait a year or two, then—when the dust clears and the implications are more understood—I return and write a real biography.


-Jason "he has some pointed words about how Posanski came to be quite close to Paterno too -- a good read" Evans

[JasonEvans]

I am putting this in a new thread as I think it is a very significant development to Duke fans. I will move all the comments here back into the other Paterno thread in a day or so.


Coach K speaks about the Freeh report (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/london/basketball/story/2012-07-15/coach-krzyzewski-says-scandal-marred-paterno-legacy/56242548/1)--


"That's a burden now on Coach Paterno's legacy. And that's just the way it is," Krzyzewski told USA Today Sports on Sunday.

"I would hope that a person in that position would say the truth then take responsibility," he said. "I think all of us have done something wrong and how you take responsibility for it, I think people respect that. They may not respect that you did something wrong, but they respect that you're being honest with them. And you want to make amends and do what's right now if you weren't able to do what was right before.

"And I wished that would have been done sooner and that Coach Paterno would have that opportunity. For it to go that length of time is really inexcusable. It's inexcusable."

There is video on the site too. He talks at length and talks about the AD and University presidents as "my boss" and how they are a "check" to ensure he does nothing that is not in the best interests of Duke.

-Jason "for the folks calling on K to speak... the video is strong and shows that K 'gets it' in my opinion" Evans

[Turtleboy]

How in the world did Paterno not have "that opportunity"? Hell, he talked Spanier, Curley and Schultz out of reporting Sandusky to child services in 2001! He had ten years of opportunity.

K dropped the ball on this one.

[Bluedog]

How in the world did Paterno not have "that opportunity"? Hell, he talked Spanier, Curley and Schultz out of reporting Sandusky to child services in 2001! He had ten years of opportunity.

K dropped the ball on this one.

Did you read the next sentence?

[elvis14]

How in the world did Paterno not have "that opportunity"? Hell, he talked Spanier, Curley and Schultz out of reporting Sandusky to child services in 2001! He had ten years of opportunity.

K dropped the ball on this one.

Did you notice the word 'sooner'?

[Duvall]

How in the world did Paterno not have "that opportunity"? Hell, he talked Spanier, Curley and Schultz out of reporting Sandusky to child services in 2001! He had ten years of opportunity.

K dropped the ball on this one.

You're misreading Krzyzewski's statement. What he meant was that he wished Paterno had created the opportunity to take responsibility for his actions. Otherwise it would make no sense to say that waiting that length of time was inexcusable.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I was initial upset when Coach K accused PSU regarding Paterno's firing (and have voiced this many times on DBR). He didn't know all the facts and made a conclusion based on assumptions. Everyone makes these mistakes, especially when you are emotionally attached to someone.

I am thankful that he came out with this press release, which is appropriate and takes into consideration the facts.

That is the sign of a great leader.

[OldPhiKap]

I hope K's future statements are to the effect that "It's horrible, and I've said all that I am going to say about it." No good comes from picking at the scab, no matter how well-intentioned.

It was not our program, it was not our school. It was not our coaches. If anyone wants answers, ask the good folks in the PSU administration that supposedly oversaw the football program.

K doesn't have to answer for this, or to this.

Nothing good comes from it.

[OldSchool]

K dropped the ball on this one.

I'm with you. We are talking about a man who raped young boys, and Paterno protected him. We should keep a gallows lying around just for guys like Sandusky.

If K is going to comment on it, I hope he comes out with something much less mealy-mouthed.

[Class of '94]

I'm with you. We are talking about a man who raped young boys, and Paterno protected him. We should keep a gallows lying around just for guys like Sandusky.

If K is going to comment on it, I hope he comes out with something much less mealy-mouthed.

I hope you're being sarcastic in response to Turtleboy's comments; but if not, I couldn't disagree more with your comments or Turtleboy's. As K basically said in the link, we all make mistakes; it's how we handle those mistakes and make amends that reflects the depth of our character. While I didn't necessarily agree with K's prevous comments about PSU handling of this situation, I respected his opinion and the fact that he was willing to say what he thought and believed at the time regardless of what others thought or the negativity that would come back to him. IMO, one of K's most enduring traits and simultaneouls biggest flaws is that he is quick to give the people he believes in and supports the benefit of the doubt; but to his credit, he can change his position and "gets it" when necessary. And I would never characterize K's comments as being mealy-mouthed. He's been very clear with thoughts and position in his comments throughout this whole sad and unfortunate situation.

[OldSchool]

"we all make mistakes"

I'm sorry, Class of '94, but protecting someone who is raping young boys is NOT in the "we all make mistakes" category. That is what I mean by mealy-mouthed.

I'm sure K will be more direct in his future comments.

[Bluedog]

I'm sure K will be more direct in his future comments.

"It's inexcusable" sounds pretty direct to me...

[OldSchool]

"It's inexcusable" sounds pretty direct to me...

He said "for it to go that length of time is inexcusable."

To me, K gives the impression he doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation when his comment focuses on the "length of time" Paterno allowed it to go on.

There IS NO reasonable length of time to allow the rape of boys by one of his coaches to go on. One nanosecond after Paterno and other people in authority learned that McQueary saw Sandusky anally raping a ten-year-old boy in the shower, they needed to address it and get law enforcement involved.

I'm sure K DOES understand the seriousness of the situation, which is why I expect his future comments to be more direct.

[Duvall]

He said "for it to go that length of time is inexcusable."

To me, K gives the impression he doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation when his comment focuses on the "length of time" Paterno allowed it to go on.

There IS NO reasonable length of time to allow the rape of boys by one of his coaches to go on. One nanosecond after Paterno and other people in authority learned that McQueary saw Sandusky anally raping a ten-year-old boy in the shower, they needed to address it and get law enforcement involved.

I'm sure K DOES understand the seriousness of the situation, which is why I expect his future comments to be more direct.

That's a lot of work to find an insufficient condemnation in "[i]t's inexcusable."

[OldSchool]

That's a lot of work to find an insufficient condemnation in "[i]t's inexcusable."

I read K's whole comment. If K had said nothing more than the two words "it's inexcusable" then that would have been appropriate, direct and not mealy-mouthed.

[dcdevil2009]

I read K's whole comment. If K had said nothing more than the two words "it's inexcusable" then that would have been appropriate, direct and not mealy-mouthed.

I just rewatched the video and I'm not sure I would agree K saying that he would "still like for Paterno to be alive to answer questions, say the truth, and accept responsibility" makes his subsequent comment mealy-mouthed. K didn't come down on Paterno as harshly as most people have, but just because K acknowledges that he would like to be able to see Paterno explain himself, doesn't mean he doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation.

[OldSchool]

dcdevil2009-

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure K DOES understand the seriousness of the situation. However, I think comments like the one he made unfortunately can give the other impression.

OldPhiKap nails it above. There isn't much purpose served for someone in K's position other than saying how horrible it all is.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

That's a good point. Another analog might be the University of Colorado football team where a few players where several women alleged that they were raped by CU football players. People might remember it because one of the allegations came from their placekicker, a female, a couple years after she left the program. I don't remember the NCAA coming down on Colorado for the allegations to come out of that, although there were NCAA penalties for improper training table benefits provided to athletes across several sports.

On the other hand, what happened at Penn State is so far beyond the scope of anything that's happened in college sports, nothing really serves as a good precedent. Regardless of whether the NCAA decides to get involved, it strikes me as something that's beyond their scope. Yes, Sandusky was a college football coach, whose crimes happened amid the backdrop of college sports, and may have been covered up because the football program was the face of the university, but they didn't happen because of the football program. However, there was nothing inherent in college sports that led to Sandusky's atrocities. He wasn't raping children because he was a football coach, he was a child rapist who happened to coach football.

While obviously not of the same magnitude, think of all the arrests the Florida football program had under Urban Meyer. The arrested players weren't committing crimes because they were athletes, they were athletes who were committing crimes. Because of that, the University of Florida and the NCAA let the Florida football program (and criminal justice system) mete out punishments, but it was never viewed as an NCAA issue. When the NCAA has gotten involved, it was been to regulate/police conduct that happens because of college sports. For example, false SAT scores, improper benefits, academic fraud involving eligibility issues. When there has been a lack of institutional control, it is the institution not having control over NCAA issues such as recruiting violations, agent-athlete relationships, and academic integrity regarding player eligibility, not control over morality or immorality. Basically, the NCAA's function hasn't been to police morality or universities internal balance of power issues, but rather to deal with rules regarding interscholastic athletic competition, such as amateurism and eligibility issues. As the criminal conduct and coverup that happened at Penn State wasn't the type of conduct the NCAA has had power over in the past, I'm of the opinion that the NCAA should defer to law enforcement and the courts, the proper authorities to deal with such issues.


I didn't mean to imply that anyone was advocating for NCAA sanctions based on Sandusky's rapes. Instead, I was saying that the NCAA should only get involved in handing out a punishment for a cover-up when the act being covered up is something the NCAA would be the proper authority to regulate in the first place. In other words, the body from whom the information is being hidden should be the one to handle how to deal with the cover-up. Even though Penn State's institutional balance of power was improperly skewed toward the football program, that in and of itself isn't an NCAA matter.

Basically, I don't see college football as being very important in what happened, so I don't think football's governing body should be involved. For example, if the same thing had happened on Wall St. (sexual assaults by an employee of a bank's flagship division, cover up to protect division), I wouldn't view the subsequent cover-up as an SEC matter. On the other hand, had the cover-up been of the employee's insider trading, then it's a different story.

My thoughts exactly... IMO, this is a criminal act commited by an immoral, deranged person and covered-up by immoral administrators, not a school-wide conspiracy to break and then cover-up NCAA rules. At this point, it doesn't appear that anyone on the Board of Trustees, athletic boosters, alumni association, or other school administrators were aware of any crimes being committed. Prosecute those responsible to the highest degree but allow Penn State to begin repairing itself slowly. No matter what happens now, for the next 20-30 years, everytime someone mentions "Penn State" - the mental image of Child Abuse will be always be attached...just devastating.

[KenTankerous]

I didn't mean to imply that anyone was advocating for NCAA sanctions based on Sandusky's rapes. Instead, I was saying that the NCAA should only get involved in handing out a punishment for a cover-up when the act being covered up is something the NCAA would be the proper authority to regulate in the first place. In other words, the body from whom the information is being hidden should be the one to handle how to deal with the cover-up. Even though Penn State's institutional balance of power was improperly skewed toward the football program, that in and of itself isn't an NCAA matter.

Basically, I don't see college football as being very important in what happened, so I don't think football's governing body should be involved. For example, if the same thing had happened on Wall St. (sexual assaults by an employee of a bank's flagship division, cover up to protect division), I wouldn't view the subsequent cover-up as an SEC matter. On the other hand, had the cover-up been of the employee's insider trading, then it's a different story.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I understand your perspective now.

But something still must be done. I think the power of the fottball program allowed horrible things to happen for over a decade. That power needs to be checked and amends made. Perhaps it is outside the realm of the NCAA, like you said, it is not a competition violation, but somehow the football program at PSU cannot be allowed to continue with business as usual. The crux of the cover-up was to protect the program. That needs to be corrected.

[MartyClark]

"That's a good point. Another analog might be the University of Colorado football team where a few players where several women alleged that they were raped by CU football players. People might remember it because one of the allegations came from their placekicker, a female, a couple years after she left the program. I don't remember the NCAA coming down on Colorado for the allegations to come out of that, although there were NCAA penalties for improper training table benefits provided to athletes across several sports."

I agree that the University of Colorado may be a situation to consider in evaluating Penn State. From my perspective, the Colorado football situation was signficantly different than Penn State. There was considerable evidence that the sexual contacts were consensual, albeit drunken and ill considered. The football players and the female students were basically the same age and status. I wasn't there and can obviously express no opinion on what actually happened but as an attorney with some contacts in the program, my impression at the time was that there was considerable doubt as to whether the Boulder D.A. could get a conviction on any of these incidents.

The female kicker, by all accounts a decent and honest young woman, was on a date with a football player and contended that her teammate raped her. No charges were filed despite considerable antagonism between the Boulder County District Attorney and the C.U. athletic program.There wasn't much of a link or argument that the program covered this up or influenced law enforcement to not prosecute.

Gary Barnett, the coach, was fired I think because of his boneheaded public statements. When asked about the female kicker, he said she was a terrible kicker. Probably true but it was an incredibly stupid and insensitive comment. Maybe even more importantly, the Buffs were killed by Nebraska in their final home game, went to the Big 12 Championship game and were destroyed by Texas. Call me cynical but I think the wins and losses played a bigger role in Barnett's termination than the scandal.

I think all this falls way short of the Penn State situation.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Here's more from Doyel:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19594707/drop-your-pitchforks-and-let-state-college-have-the-football-it-needs