Penn State Latest

I agree. How about being the only major college football program to have never been convicted of a major NCAA violation? How about graduating 74 percent of players historically (that's 20 percent better than the national average) and 80 percent last year (32 percent better than the national average)? How about benching starters for missing a single class? How about winning the academic bowl more often than any other program (including last season)? How about a coach who donated large portions of his salary back to the school to build libraries and class rooms?

Do those things fall in line with the NCAA's assertion that football trumped academics at PSU?

 

How about covering up the serial rape of children to protect the football program?

 

I don't accept that there was a cover up "to avoid tarnishing the image of a football program." Have you read the Freeh report? Not just the summary, but the whole report? I have.

 

What is your evidence that such a thing took place? Even the Freeh report can only cite two instances that were ever known by anyone at PSU. And the first one was investigated.

In 2001, there should have been another investigation. Sandusky probably would have been caught sooner. But to say that there wasn't one because they wanted to protect the football program is a leap that is taken with absolutely no evidence.

 

No, I have not. So, armed with all of that knowledge you have from reading the entire thing, are you saying a handful of supposed leaders at Penn State didn't take part in a cover-up? Or are you saying they did -- but just not for the sake of the football program? Or is it that you think sitting on the knowledge that something morally wrong is happening under your watch just isn't that big of a deal? Would you still waste time hollering about a lack of "evidence" if you had a brother or son or nephew who was one of the victims?

I bet you and Mark think Chef has great taste in comedians.

 

My bad. I did not read them closely enough. You haven't written anything worth reading closely yet, so I'll have to lean on that as an excuse.

Regarding the points made on those shirts, they are irrelevant. Nobody is questioning the academic backgrounds of Paterno or O'Brien. Nobody is saying that Paterno never did anything for anybody.

What many of us are saying is that Paterno's disgraceful failure in the case of Sandusky's abuse of young boys overwhelms the good he did. Hell, it might have even been a motivating factor for his philanthropy, to try to ease his own guilt for failing to stop the child molester because he couldn't do it without damaging his program and his legacy.

 

As for whether or not I think there was a cover up; that depends on your definition of a cover up. I think a handful or less of those at the top at PSU actively decided to be less aggressive about the 2001 incident than they should have been. I would say that it had more to do with the fact that child molester charges are hard to wash off, even if you beat it in court. I think they didn't think Jerry Sandusky, the great guy with the great charity for kids, was capable of such things.

I think Sandusky was probably thought to be a little weird, maybe even a little touchy-feely, but that his intentions were good. After all, the Second Mile helped a lot of kids and did a lot of good work. I think they probably thought because he had this charity for kids and was a little weird, people misconstrued his behavior. I also think that the 1998 investigation, in which a psychologist said the child showed no signs of having been abused, reinforced this idea.

I don't think they actively concealed it as much as they just didn't push forward with an investigation in 2001. And I don't think it was to protect a football program that the guy didn't even work for anymore.

All of that said, they were wrong to handle it the way they did. The fact that there were two incidents should have been a red flag. And I do think that had it been a janitor or a landscaper and not somebody with emeritus status, the situation would have gone down a lot differently.

And my last point is this, what I'm saying is just as much speculation as what any of you are saying. But I don't think you can have a complete investigation without talking to the principals involved (the Freeh group didn't talk to McQueary, Schulz, Spanier, Curley or, obviously, Paterno). Those guys clearly mishandled things, but I don't think they were evil. And to speculate on their motives is pure conjecture.

And for the record, Chef's taste in comedy is abhorrent.

 

Amazes me how many people spouting opinions about this issue still have not bothered to read the actual report.

 

You think they were less aggressive than they should have been in 2001.

In your opinion, why was that the case? .

 

Penn State just doesn't get it. Now they'll wear ribbons on their jerseys in honor of those that were abused in their showers. Yep, that's going to help, wear the Scarlet Letter.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/penn-state-adds-names-ribbon-201719388--ncaaf.html

 

Sorry. I thought I was clear.

I think they didn't believe good ol' Jerry was capable of being a child molester and didn't want to dirty his name and the work of the Second Mile with a second investigation into child abuse.

Essentially, I think they were protecting Sandusky and The Second Mile because they didn't believe the guy could really have fooled everyone to the point of starting and running one of the biggest charities for at-risk kids in the country.

 

Of course if they did nothing, people would rip them for that too.

There's plenty to hammer them for but this isn't one of those things.