The Next Chapter in the Penn State Story That Never Ends

I'm not saying it isn't interesting, since that is clearly a personal opinion that will vary on the individual level. I'm wondering how is really directly relates to Michigan sports and if fairly small developments in a dark story need to be discussed at length on this forum.

a few minutes after I posted that, and they asked their legal analyst the same question. My guess from his tone of voice and his verbatim answer ("very difficult" to charge with conspiracy) makes me think that the police and the DA might have threatened Paterno with something to secure his testimony and cooperation, but they probably wouldn't have gone through the trouble to indict him with anything.

Then again, PA politics on the matter have to be incredibly messed up right now and anything might have happened. One point of interest is that he wasn't named a co-conspirator in the presentment, at least according to ESPN's guy (which he then implied might come up in the other trials).

There is a strong argument that the football program was used to enable the crimes, not wholly unlike Sandusky's "charitable" foundation.  After all, access to the program was one way that prick lured some of the children. 

think the crimes were covered up to protect the football program.  The initial non-disclosure was due to denial, actual disbelief, individual character deficits and institutional ineptitude.  The long-term non-disclosure was due to the participants understanding the seriousness of the initial non-disclosure and not wanting to face the personal and legal consequences of failing to disclose in the first place.  I can almost guarantee that protecting the football program was not part of the equation.  I don't know if Sandusky was close with any of these guys, thus, I could not argue if the argument was made that they were protecting Sandusky,  the acts had nothing to do with the football program.  Initial disclosure to appropriate authorties of what McQuerrry had witnessed would have resulted in short term bad ink for the program, but would not have evidenced any wrongdoing on behalf of the athletic department/football team.  Sandusky would have been fired, imprisoned, and Penn State would have taken the field the next year without any sanctions.  The "protecting the football program" angle does not make sense.  They were protecting their own asses.

This was a particularly heinous crime, and covering it up almost certianly was done with the intention of protecting the football program.  But I can't think of another instance in which the NCAA punished a school for criminal behavior of its administrators/coaches when the behavior didn't directly relate to the school's sports teams.  The NCAA isn't punishing Arkansas for having its then-coach give a false report to police when he was motorcycling with his mistress, then trying to cover it up - so why here?  (note: not saying the crimes are comparable in significance)

I can't think of a single positive impact the NCAA's sanctions on Penn State will have.  Are they trying to show PSU and other schools that they shouldn't harbor and enable pedophiles?  I think they probably already got that message.  Unlike sanctions stemming from shady recruiting practices, these sanctions aren't necessary to send a message, because the courts have already done that.  At some point, the NCAA has to let the legal authorities deal with criminal behavior and focus its sanctions on the actual teams and competition.

while they (undeniably and horribly) put football before abused children, the NCAA is not here to enforce laws that aren't on their books.  Coaches and administrators looked the other way while another coach committed crimes.  They should (and hopefully will) be punished for it.  If Sandusky was writing bad checks and Curly got wind of it and ignored it should the PSU football program pay a price?  No players took benefits or acted in a way that broke rules. 

I see and respect the opposing side of this argument, but I think the nature of the crimes skewed the viewpoints for many of us.

As for your "sigh..." enough already.

It is hard to imagine they gained any advantage by not reporting it, and certainly not an "ongoing" advantage. Had they reported in 2001 or just stopped Sandusky from having any access to PSU facilities, teams, and players after the 1998 incident it would have almost certainly been a minor blip on the screen and may have been used as further evidence that PSU does things the right way no matter the consequence, their big selling point under Paterno.

As evidence we need look no further then Syracuse basketball. Their situation is very similar to what PSU would have looked like had they done the right thing. What has happened to Syracuse? A month or two of bad press, but no real downfall in recruiting and I don't think anyone expects them to suddenly fall of the face of the planet in terms of their on court performance.

Now that said, I have no problems with the sanctions. Ultimately the football team was used to help enable a child abuuser to gain access too young children and take advantage of them. The administration and head coach had some knowledge this was taking place. When your football program is being used as an access point for a child molester to gain access to young boys, the program should not just go on as usual. No other organization would be able to just move forward freely and the same should be true for a sports team.