Skip to main content

When it came out that the NCAA was going to issue sanctions against Penn State, I was surprised--not that the NCAA was going to drop the hammer, but that it opted to do so with two separate federal investigations still well underway.  It made me wonder--what did the NCAA find that was so egregious that it had to act now.  Well, the answer seems to have come loud and clear in the form of a penalty that I didn't expect--the NCAA's decision to strip Penn State of every single game it won from 1998 to 2011.  The only plausible conclusion one can draw is that the NCAA felt that if there was any sort of institutional control in Happy Valley, Joe Paterno would have been fired in 1998, when  Jerry Sandusky was first caught molesting a boy in a locker room.  And reading the Freeh report, it's hard not to agree.

For those who missed it, Paterno's assistants knew that Sandusky was taking boys into the shower for some time before 1998--but no one reported it.  Not only that, but one of Sandusky's victims testified that longtime assistant Tom Bradley--who eventually went on to become interim coach for the last four games of the 2011 season--saw Sandusky taking him into the shower and was suspicious enough that he watched them for the whole time they were in the shower.  Which means there may have been any number of incidents of abuse that had gone unreported.  

Apparently the NCAA concluded that if then-president Graham Spanier and athletic director Tim Curley had any sort of control over the program, once they learned this they would have fired Paterno on the spot.  It's almost impossible to think that there would be any school where failing to report potential child abuse isn't a firing offense.  But apparently there was one--Penn State.  And it very nearly got them the death penalty--school president Rodney Erickson said that Penn State was staring down the barrel of having the football program shut down for four years if it didn't accept today's sanctions.

It can no longer be seriously debated--Joe Paterno has gone from the embodiment of what a collegiate program should be to the embodiment of a "win at all costs" mentality.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There will be a new "winningest coach in college (8+ / 0-)

    ... football history."

    Same as the old "winningest coach in college football history."

  •  For those who believe (27+ / 0-)

    that the NCAA overstepped its bounds with these penalties, consider this:

    In not reporting Sandusky's activities to authorities (as they were required to do under the Clery Act), Penn State chose the school's reputation over obeying the law...and by not terminating Paterno for his non-reporting, chose his record and reputation over protecting the children...which provided an unfair advantage in recruiting. When other schools were going through coaching changes, Penn State could say to potential recruits, "Look at our tradition -- you're not going to find a revolving door like at those other schools!"

    I think you've got a decent analysis of the NCAA's thinking behind vacating the victories, CDinNC -- from the time that Paterno chose to not report the activities of his friend in favor of a "discreet" handling (and continuing to allow access to the facilities), his record was tainted. One wonders if there were incidents prior to 1998 known but covered up...but for now, we only know of 1998 forward.

    "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

    by Cali Scribe on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 03:42:41 PM PDT

    •  I wouldn't call it an unfair recruiting advantage (12+ / 0-)

      as much as it was the definition of a failure of institutional control.  Like I said, you would think failing to report child abuse would be an instant firing offense--do not pass go, do not collect $200.

      But yeah, you're spot on, Cali.  And I'd go further--the minute Spanier and Curley found out that Paterno knew Sandusky was taking kids into showers and chose to retain him, it created a situation that ran counter to the basic principles of collegiate athletics.

      •  To me, this wasn't "win at all costs"... (7+ / 0-)

        But rather "cover up at all costs". Which, ironically, is very Nixonian.  Coach Pa chose to cover up Coach Sandusky's crimes and "...handle them internally", even though to do so was a violation of Federal law. And he had co-conspirators in the persons of Spanier and Curley, among many others.

        For many years I always suspected that there was something just not right about Coach Pa and his whole "St. Joe" well-cultivated persona; I just could never put my finger on it (other  than, of course, his down-the-line support of conservative Republicans). Well, now we know--and no winning record, no national championships, no "...always doing it the right way" in terms of recruiting and handling players once they got to campus, none of that can make up for covering up one of the most horrific crimes of which humans are capable.

        "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."--George Santayana

        by GainesT1958 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:54:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not so much an unfair recruiting advantage but... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WakeUpNeo, CherryTheTart, Avilyn

        It would of have been a major deterent for incoming recruits and a motive for covering it up would be to prevent that from occurring.  

        Don't get me wrong, I agree with your comment.  I'm just saying that it is was all about recruiting.  I am a Buckeye fan (as my monicker suggests) but I have always admired Joe Paterno (JoePa) and he has always held a position of high respect in my book... until now.  To say that this cover-up was not to prevent the football program from taking a significant hit to its reputation is niave.  Recruiting is all about reputation, winning football games is all about recruiting and PSU is all winning football games.  

        Joe Paterno could have had Sandusky strung up from any tree in Pennsylvania by a mere suggestion if he so desired (and I would have brought the rope) but he didn't.  He knew what had happened and looked the other way because of a game that he believed was more important than the safety of young children.  Jim Tressel looked the other way when he found out his players were selling there own stuff and was rightly fired.  Looking the other way when children are being raped is infinitely worse and deserves the condemnation of the NCAA, the criminal courts and the judgement of God Himself (or Herself).  

        If Penn State had any decency, they would just retire their athletic programs (like the University of Chicago did) and focus on its true purpose, being a university for the education of young adults.  They could use their 1 billion dollar + endowments to offer free scholarships to victims of sexual preditors and remind the country what is truly important... The betterment of our youth.  Every Penn State fan should be appalled not by what some monster did (because society will always have monsters) but by what some people who were entrusted with the power to protect children allowed to happen in the name of a game and because of money.  I cannot begin to express how disgusted I am with the whole organization.

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:01:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They didn't retain him... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eru

        He retired... not by choice, I'm sure.  The baffling question is why they let him back on campus.

        GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

        by LordMike on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:08:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Only correction: Clery Act requires notification (10+ / 0-)

      not only of authorities, but reports of crime statistics for campus to the public. The Clery's lost their daughter because the university did not bother to report crimes on campus and they argued successfully (to Congress) that such disclosure is critical for parents and students in the selection of a university.

    •  Plus, I think it says (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ahumbleopinion, eru, WakeUpNeo, Avilyn

      or I hope it says, that if you (the college or university) conspires to cover up crimes, such as sexual or physical abuse (like rape or hazing) against children or adults, whether they be students or non students, committed by administrators, coaches or players, the same fate will happen to your program.

      It's about time I changed my signature.

      by Khun David on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:55:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Clery Act was passed in 1990 (6+ / 0-)

      One of the stunning things from the Freeh report was that Penn State never got around to implementing the Clery Act.  Spanier came in in 1995, and never resurrected the "draft" plan to implement the Clery Act.  

      Spanier & the PSU Board of Trustees ignored an Act of congress for more than 15 years!

      From Wikipedia:

      Annual security report

      By October 1 of each year, institutions must publish and distribute their Annual Campus Security Report to current and prospective students and employees. Institutions are also allowed to provide notice of the report, a URL if available, and how to obtain a paper copy if desired.

      This report is required to provide crime statistics for the prior three years, policy statements regarding various safety and security measures, campus crime prevention program descriptions, and procedures to be followed in the investigation and prosecution of alleged sex offenses.

      Crime log

      The institution's police department or security departments are required to maintain a public log of all crimes reported to them, or those of which they are made aware. The log is required to have the most recent 60 days' worth of information. Each entry in the log must contain the nature, date, time and general location of each crime and disposition of the complaint, if known. Information in the log older than 60 days must be made available within two business days. Crime logs must be kept for seven years, three years following the publication of the last annual security report.

    •  The problem with what the NCAA did is that in '98 (0+ / 0-)

      the accusation WAS reported to police AND Child Welfare Services.  Both groups independently found the charges had NO MERIT, and dropped the case.

      PSU, according the the Freeh Report, did not in any way, affect the outcome of the investigation.  

      What I don't understand is how anyone can claim there was a cover up in '98 by PSU.  Children's Services, choosing to either ignore or break the law, failed to report Sandusky's accusations to 2nd Mile.  Penn St. has not (nor will they be charged) with any failures legally in 1998.

      And here in lies the rub;  If no one broke any laws in '98, and no one believed any laws were broken in 2001 (and please review the actions of all involved--McQueary, his father, the family friend who was an MD, and the 4 PSU men), then it is quite reasonable to believe no one truly believed Sandusky was a criminal or broke any laws.

      It has been reported that Spanier is a suverior of child abuse.  Does everyone really believe he knowingly allowed children to continue to be raped to protect a football program.  If any of them report the 2001 incident, none of them are in any trouble and the story lasts for a few weeks/months--no big deal.  We are being led to believe these guys risked future children being raped, along with their entire lives to protect something that didn't need protected.

      And if simply showering with children is against the law, our jails would be full of 10's of thousands (probably more) of men who used a YMCA while I was growing up in the 80's/90's.

      •  The fact is they chose not to believe (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        taffers

        the child's mother. In all likelihood the same accusations would have been taken as credible had she not been disadvantaged. Perhaps the university did play a role in that.

        •  Perhaps, but PSU should not be punished if all we (0+ / 0-)

          have is, "perhaps".  

          I truly want to know what happened and why.  But right now, I believe we are being led down a path that powerful people want us to follow.  And it is a very convenient path.  One that we all want to believe.

          But we need to remember who paid Freeh to issue his report.  It reads as if he started with a conclusion and worked backwards to make facts fit that conclusion.  And when he didn't find facts he filled with opinion.

          Look, I believe PSU/Paterno screwed up royally.  But the fact everyone can so easily supply motive and so easily condem with out all the facts distrubs me.

          I want there to be a complete resolution to what happened and how.  But it has to be based on facts, not theories, hunches and our need to fit this into a nice easy box that confirms our preconceived notions of how people act.

          It bothers me that so many can so easily believe a survivor of child abuse (Spanier) would so callously and knowingly allow children to be raped simply to protect a football program, that didn't need protected.  And all of them would risk everything they accomplished, to protect a child rapist.

          Something is missing...  

      •  I suspect the NCAA must have thought the 1998 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        taffers, Avilyn

        incident should have been enough for Spanier and Curley to look more into Sandusky's interactions with kids.  Had they done so, they would have found out that assistant coaches had known for some time Sandusky was taking boys into the shower with him and didn't report it.  We already have at least one documented case where an assistant saw Sandusky go into a shower with a boy, watched him the whole time--and then, nothing.

        The standard for what is acceptable behavior is set at a higher level than the bar below which you get arrested.  As I said earlier, it looks like the NCAA concluded that had Penn State exhibited even a minimum level of control over the football program, Spanier and Curley would have made it their business to look more into Sandusky taking boys into the shower--and had they done so, Paterno would have been a goner in the summer of 1998.

        •  I do agree that Spainer/Curley were lax (0+ / 0-)

          in their focus/control of how the football program ran.  However, I think it's a stretch to say that it was obvious something was wrong because he had kids using the facility showers.

          I grew up during a time when it must have been ok for children and adults to use the same communal showers.  Even when I was in college in the early 90's, attending summer sessions, kids at the camps used the same showers as the adults.  I don't think this, in and of itself (especially during this time period) was anything out of the ordinary.  If Sandusky said he was mentoring a child and they had just worked out, I'm not sure I would have jumped to any conclusions.    I imagine many kids, who were never molested, showered with adults at Y's and camps throughout the years.

          I don't believe Paterno would have been gone because of this practice.  Unless I have missed something, there were no accusations of abuse prior to '98.  And the '98 accusation was "proven" to be unfounded by both the police and childrens services.

          The '98 investigation did not turn up any signs that he abused children.  Even the psychiatrist  report that children's welfare summitted, determined (wrongly) that nothing inappropriate had occurred.  Only that Sandusky had "boundary issues".

          Again, I just believe we are looking at all of this through the lens of what we now know to have occurred.  Nobody had that luxury in '98.

          How can you charge them with a cover up of something that was reported, investigated, and found to be without merit (and remeber--Freeh's report states PSU did not interfer with this investigation)?

          •  My guess is that the NCAA must have thought (0+ / 0-)

            Spanier and Curley should have used evidence that Sandusky had "boundary issues" to look into the matter further.  Had they done so, they would have likely found out assistants had known he was taking boys into showers.  Paterno would have presumably been held responsible for this failure to report and fired.

            •  Well, you are probably correct in why the NCAA (0+ / 0-)

              ruled as they did.

              I just seriously doubt Paterno would have been fired, because Sandusky was using the facilities to shower after working out with kids.  Adults and children showering together was very common for a long time in this country (not saying this was ok--just saying it was very much accepted)

              The PSU community (and the sports world) would have erupted with calls that this was a crazy reason to fire a coach.  Remember, we did not know Sandusky was a pedophile in '98.

  •  In Paterno's later years (18+ / 0-)

    he was chasing Bear Bryant's and Eddie Robinson's all time coaching victories records.Obviously this was more of a priority than reporting child molestation.Seems to me though if Paterno turned  in Sandusky at the beginning he wouldn't have been fired but seen as a hero.Why he chose not to I don't understand.The fact that not only McQuery but Bradley witnessed this also and was named interum coach I find stunning.Unbeleivable.

    •  I am sure that this (4+ / 0-)

      covering up of this sort of crime has been going on for years, if not decades or even centuries.  It's been going on by people of authority, such as priests, teachers, family elders against people without power, such as children, nuns, factory workers forever.  It is only in the last two decades or so that the cracks of this armor of conspiracy have opened up.

      For too long, people only thought that stranger danger occured, and took a blind eye towards those close to them.  That is not at all excusing Paterno or what he failed to do, but I am sure that this is not unique to him.

      It's about time I changed my signature.

      by Khun David on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:03:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As I have thought about this punishment (8+ / 0-)

    My first thought was that it was fairly tough, not the complete shutdown for a few years that I hoped for, but still fairly serious.

    Then I had another thought...given this decision, what would it take to shut a program down?  I mean this seriously.  Its hard to imagine what would be a realistic worse offense by a coach, athletic director, university president and board of trustees.  Sure, in some theoretical distopian world the whole team might drive through the suburbs shooting people randomly from their booster-paid-for cars...but really, what happened at Penn State is really about the worst possible thing the NCAA will ever face.

    So now we have seen what the maximum possible penalty is from the NCAA.  In all future cases, the defense will be...

    Yeah, sure we intentionally gave our players crank to improve their on field performance, but it ain't like we were Penn State!  Hell, our mistakes weren't even half or a quarter of what Penn State's were...so we should only have 1 year penalty on scholarships and post season bowl games.  Hell, are you seriously gonna compare getting a new lexus with child molestation?  Of course not, so there is no reason to fire our coach.  etc, etc, etc, yada, yada, yada.
    This penalty is too small, by a longshot.  From this day forward anything less than child molestation will be considered a misdemeanor by the NCAA and all big football teams.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:10:41 PM PDT

    •  They would have been shut down had they not (4+ / 0-)

      accepted the sanctions--basically a sweeping consent decree implementing them.  Like I mentioned, Penn State was staring down the barrel of a four-year ban if it didn't agree.

      •  I guess I am saying that they shouldn't have been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Occam was an optimist

        given the offer for what they received.  They should have been just shut down.

        Let me give you an example.  Say we have a college coach that decides to systematically give their players steriods for on field play (with designated pissers recruited elsewhere for the drugs testing), and hookers (over 18 year-old) for off field play.  Meanwhile the coach is betting on the outcome of his own teams games based on his knowledge which of his players are hurt.  The AD knows about it, the college president knows about it...but they do nothing.  They do this a decade.

        There is no question that this would be less serious than what happened at Penn State.  So...this program will receive less of a punishment than was levied today.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:37:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Since other schools have been given the Death (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Mongo1967

      Penalty by the NCAA, it's difficult to pretend this is the most severe possible penalty.

      But ultimately, the reasons that PSU did not get the DP while schools like SMU did are that 1) SMU's violations were directly related to obtaining unfair advantage on the field via prohibited recruiting practices, and 2) SMU was warned repeatedly over its violations, warnings which it essentially ignored before the NCAA brought down the hammer.

      The NCAA is unlikely to institute the worst possible punishment to a program that hasn't previously had violations.

    •  I forget where I read it today (0+ / 0-)

      and take this as hearsay, but I read that for years, PSU football players could go to a local gay bar in Happy Valley, and physically and verbally harass the patrons there with impunity.  Even if patrons made complaints to the police, nothing would be done about it.

      It's about time I changed my signature.

      by Khun David on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:06:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If They'd Killed a Top Rank Football Program (5+ / 0-)

    completely, we would then all see the evidence in the following years of the mythology of football being such an economic boon to universities.

    Maybe they couldn't risk the chance that a school's economics improved when football was taken away from it.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:17:57 PM PDT

    •  They pretty much killed a top rank football... (0+ / 0-)

      ...team today.  PSU football is done forever.  It might as well be a club sport at the moment.  The penalties are beyond devastating.  I doubt the team will ever recover.

      So, your theory will be tested.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:30:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN FOR 4 YEARS! (0+ / 0-)

    But PSU football is "too big to fail" and rich powerful entities must be protected at all costs!

    Never underestimate stupid. Stupid is how reTHUGlicans win!

    by Mannie on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:17:59 PM PDT

    •  How is instituting devastating sanctions (7+ / 0-)

      as was done "protecting" it?  Make no mistake, these sanctions are extremely powerful and might just do what the Death Penalty would have done, only via a slow, painful process rather than instantaneously.  The loss of the scholarships, the post-season and conference championship bans, the substantial monetary fines... these aren't little things, these strike at the core of any powerful football program.

      But by not killing the program, they've actually protected the other athletic programs at PSU which depend on the football revenue for their existence, not to mention all of the jobs that depend on it.

      •  Good point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Khun David, LordMike

        The scholarships are going to be the most devastating in the long run--there simply won't be enough warm bodies for Penn State to be competitive, unless O'Brien can pull a rabbit out of his hat.  And we're not even talking about the likely stampede of transfers.

        We probably won't hear from Penn State again until 2020 at the earliest.

        •  Please read this diary about PSU (3+ / 0-)

          Not mine, it is a very well researched diary.

          After reading this and the comments, please tell me if you still feel the death penalty was not warranted

          PSU a national scandal

          Never underestimate stupid. Stupid is how reTHUGlicans win!

          by Mannie on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:48:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think we'll hear from them for a long whil (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Khun David, LordMike

          We're not even talking about the civil suits, which are going to be substantial.  There are going to be at least nine (for the victims in Sandusky's convictions), and most likely more, and I'd guess each of those is going to be north of six figures, possibly north of seven.

          Alumni donations are bound to drop, particularly in this economy.  There may even be slight drop in student attendance (although my university argues that students cost them money, so maybe that'd be a good thing, though I've always thought my university's cracked).

          Effectively, you might as well double that $60 million fine, I think.

  •  What About the Board of Penn State??? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greengemini

    Penn State's football team brought in a lot of revenue for the university  - at least $50 million per annum and I believe only the Texas Longhorns bring in more revenue.

    So did Paterno stop any reporting or firing of Sandusky or does it go right to the board?

    My observation is wherever a lot of money is flowing in this country bad behavior is overlooked.  Wall Street is a perfect example of this.

    I don't view the problem as one of football rather greed.

    This being said it's unclear to me how nipping the issue in the bud years ago would have hurt the football program.

    •  I've not seen any evidence reported that (3+ / 0-)

      the board had any idea what was going on wrt Sandusky.  Nothing in the Freeh report suggests such, either.

      •  thx (0+ / 0-)

        Boris - thanks, but I was just curious because the football program isn't using all the revenue it generates.

        And I just don't understand why it wouldn't be reported immediately.

      •  Isn't that exactly part of the problem? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, Avilyn

        IIRC the Freeh report indicated that the board should have been informed of these issues, but was not. The board should not have to quiz staff at each meeting - "are there any legal actions you aren't telling us about?", "are there any potentially concerning issues that you haven't shared?" "is there anything we should know as a board that you have failed to report?" "are you absoultely sure about that? No child abuse, no financial fraud, no rumors of misconduct, no questionable payments to players, no rumors of steroid use, no kick-backs with vendors, no....this/that/other/long list of possible awfuls?"

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:48:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I'd agree that the responsibility of (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LordMike, Catte Nappe, ConfusedSkyes

          informing the Board lies with the University President, and in this case the evidence suggests the President deliberately hid the information from the Board.  So I can't understand the criticism of the Board in this matter, as they reacted pretty swiftly in firing Paterno.

          Where I do fault the board is in their allowing Paterno to remain there as long as he did in the first place.  He basically gave them the middle finger over and over again with regards to his retiring, as they had wanted him to leave around the time that Sandusky was first accused of misconduct.  

          The conspiracy theorist in me doesn't come out often at all, but a part of me wonders if the reason Paterno stayed as long as he did was precisely because of what he knew about Sandusky.  After all, Sandusky was his heir-apparent up until his abrupt retirement in 1999, which we now know was precisely because of the 1998 shower incident with Victim 6.  I have to wonder if Paterno stayed at PSU well past when everyone thought he would have retired because he felt that his grip over the program (and the school) was insurance by keeping a lid on the Sandusky allegations.  Perhaps he felt that if he handed the program over to someone else, things would be more likely to surface, as a new coach would likely soon become aware of what had happened.  

          So, long story short, I think the Board is only culpable in the fact that they allowed the Cult of Paterno to continue because they were afraid to challenge his god-like status on campus.  But that same criticism could be leveled at the board of any major university in Div I sports, and they could not have known the horror that was lurking under the surface.

      •  a least 1 board member did (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avilyn

        PA's gov is on the board.  Before he was gov he was the atty general for the state.  in that capacity he knew about the investigation into Sandusky.

        some have also questioned whether his office investigated Sandusky as aggesively as it could have.  (this was when he was running for governor)

        Republicans: if they only had a heart.

        by leu2500 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 10:11:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Do They Have a Consensus of How Early This Abuse (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avilyn

    began? Obviously before 1998.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:40:01 PM PDT

    •  I think that the issue is... (4+ / 0-)

      ...that the PSU Athletic Department & Administration was made aware of the abuse in 1998, and chose not to do anything about it.

      That's where the NCAA has jurisdiction, the Athletic Departments. The NCAA has no right to punish Sandusky directly, that's for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Court system.

      Any previous abuse is (imho) rightly considered a criminal case, whereas the PSU Athletic Department's (lack of) reaction is covered by the NCAA.

      "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." - Tom Robbins - Political Compass sez: -8.25, -7.90

      by ARS on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:52:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  sexual abuse against (0+ / 0-)

      children and others without power has been committed by adults in a position of power has been going on forever, and people of higher authority have been covering this up for as long.  Perhaps Sandusky only started in 1998 (but I doubt it), but he wasn't the first.

      It's about time I changed my signature.

      by Khun David on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:16:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One wonders (0+ / 0-)

    if anyone at NCAA ever had suspicions about problems with the Penn State program at any time before Sandusky's eventual arrest?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site