NCAA Could Restore Joe Paterno Wins

[superman7515]

http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/01/12/penn-state-joe-paterno-vacated-wins-ncaa-talks


The NCAA is in talks with Penn State (http://www.si.com/college-football/team/penn-state-nittany-lions) and state officials that could include restoring coach Joe Paterno's vacated wins, reports (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20150113_NCAA_said_to_reconsider_sanctions_against _Paterno__Penn_State.html) the Philadelphia Inquirer. The talks are also considering a proposal that "would leave the $60 million fine levied by the league within the state and the university, to be used for child protection," according to the Inquirer.
The school was forced to vacate 112 victories from 1998-2011, all but one of which came under Paterno, as part of the NCAA's sanctions following the release of the Freeh Report in 2012. The sanctions penalized the school for the Jerry Sandusky scandal, in which the longtime Penn State assistant football coach was convicted on 45 counts of sex abuse earlier that year.​..

[MR. CHICKEN]

20494......DUST OFFAH DUH STATUE.....TOO........xnodx......BRAWK!

[Laker]

20494......DUST OFFAH DUH STATUE.....TOO........xnodx......BRAWK!

We were just talking about that on Sunday on the way to the Gophers game. We wondered how many years that thing would draw dust before they put it back where it was before.

[bluedog]

I still believe he was a co-conspirator.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

[MR. CHICKEN]

I still believe he was a co-conspirator.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

20501....WHAA'...xconfusedx.....JOPA.....DIDN'T NEED TA KEEP HIM.....'ROUND....CAN GETTAH...GOOD DC......FROM DUH WANT ADS......xnodx....BRAWK!

[wmmii]

Joe Pa was just getting old and was naïve which is not an excuse just reality. He dedicated his life and money to Penn State and for his loyalty was knifed in the back by those he loved. What happen was shameful to the children abused but that did not justify a lynching mob of Joe Pa.

[Bisonoline]

Joe Pa was just getting old and was naïve which is not an excuse just reality. He dedicated his life and money to Penn State and for his loyalty was knifed in the back by those he loved. What happen was shameful to the children abused but that did not justify a lynching mob of Joe Pa.

Agree. I never could understand the vacation of the wins?

[walliver]

JoePa was a victim of the 24 hour news cycle. Instead of deliberating and carefully evaluating the situation, the NCAA and Penn State rushed into a poorly thought out plea deal to make the bad publicity stop.

It is not clear how detailed the information JoePa received about the rape was, but it is worrisome that he NEVER followed up on the allegations in any known way. He simply didn't want to know.

That doesn't change the fact that Penn State won a number of football games during that period by playing by the rules of football and the NCAA.

[ngineer]

I think the wins will be restored within the year. As noted by others a true "rush to judgment". PSU's wins during the vacated years were achieved properly. Whether Administrators actively worked to hide Sandusky will eventually be dealt with in the proper arena--the court. But this had nothing to do with the operation of the football team. The NCAA has lost all credibility over this and other decisions the past several years. The hypocrisy reeks.

[Bisonoline]

I think the wins will be restored within the year. As noted by others a true "rush to judgment". PSU's wins during the vacated years were achieved properly. Whether Administrators actively worked to hide Sandusky will eventually be dealt with in the proper arena--the court. But this had nothing to do with the operation of the football team. The NCAA has lost all credibility over this and other decisions the past several years. The hypocrisy reeks.

Well said.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

I still don't believe he should have been credited with wins those last couple of years. The fact he was basically a "honorary" coach propped up in the press box due to failing health can't be ignored. Those wins are the ones that are truly hollow....

[Laker]

The wins have been restored.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored)

[ngineer]

Wow. Quicker than I thought. NCAA was on real thin ice. Smart move not to take this to trial. Their rationale will be that they "made their point" and sent a message to others. Whether the 'message' of ratcheting back the "culture" problem that big-time football has created is whistling past the graveyard. Now, PSU can restore JoePa's statue at Beaver Stadium.

[bluedog]

I still don't believe he should have been credited with wins those last couple of years. The fact he was basically a "honorary" coach propped up in the press box due to failing health can't be ignored. Those wins are the ones that are truly hollow....

Agreed but they did the same thing with Coach Robinson and others.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

[FormerPokeCenter]

Let's not forget that JoePa CHOSE to go to the AD and the University Pres, rather than the police when the whistle blower came forward, and that Sandusky was already NOT coaching...

Great Coach, poor judgement...

[ngineer]

Let's not forget that JoePa CHOSE to go to the AD and the University Pres, rather than the police when the whistle blower came forward, and that Sandusky was already NOT coaching...

Great Coach, poor judgement...

At the time the grad student told Paterno, Joe did exactly what he should have done--inform the Administrators in charge who, 1) have their own police department and 2) can undertake the investigation to determine the credibility of the information. One person's observation/perception or view point needs to be confirmed. At the same time, how the grad student described the conduct a 'horsing around' required a lot of follow up. Paterno, by contacting the AD and University of Security did what was proper, at that time. He was not qualified to make any investigation or judgments beyond that.

[FormerPokeCenter]

We're going to have to agree to disagree....

If I see somebody behaving inappropriately with a kid, I'm calling the police...

The University's rules don't trump society's rules...

[Cocky]

I could careless about his football scorecard. The scorecard on children will be the way I remember Joe Paterno, a coward.

[Bisonoline]

Let's not forget that JoePa CHOSE to go to the AD and the University Pres, rather than the police when the whistle blower came forward, and that Sandusky was already NOT coaching...

Great Coach, poor judgement...

That was the chain of command. He reported it to who he was supposed to.

I will also add that when the supposed act occurred it was a different time. What was the timeline from occurrence to when it first became public? It was quite a few years. So its easy to say what you would have done NOW that the subject it out in the open and there are more laws in place.

Regardless he reported it to he should have. It were those people who dropped the ball---on purpose IMO.

[Franks Tanks]

We're going to have to agree to disagree....

If I see somebody behaving inappropriately with a kid, I'm calling the police...

The University's rules don't trump society's rules...


You have to remember that Joe didn't witness anything. Perhaps Joe should've pushed Mike McQueary to call the Police, but reporting to his boss was also an appropriate response. If a student tells a teacher something that requires action, the teacher files a report with school administration, and does not call the authorities directly. This is a nearly universal practice for folks that work with children. The reports are funneled to administration, who then alerts the proper authorities.

The only question about Paterno is did he follow-up with Mike McQueary or the admin after the report was made? It appears that he did to a degree, and asked McQueary if it was handled properly. Joe's relatively weak follow-up was possibly due to the fact that he did not fully grasp (as it was not reported to him in great detail) the seriousness of Sandusky's actions.

[MR. CHICKEN]

20511...AH'VE BEEN INVOLVED...WHIFF WORK PLACE SITUATIONS........WHERE HR....CALLS YA IN.....ASKS IFIN' YA SEEN O' HEARD.....TELL 'EM WHAA YA KNOW.....AN'....TRUST ME.......DEY DON'T COME BACK AN' TELL YA...DEY'RE RESULT O' INVESTIGATION......xsmhx..BRAWK!

[FormerPokeCenter]

You have to remember that Joe didn't witness anything. Perhaps Joe should've pushed Mike McQueary to call the Police, but reporting to his boss was also an appropriate response. If a student tells a teacher something that requires action, the teacher files a report with school administration, and does not call the authorities directly. This is a nearly universal practice for folks that work with children. The reports are funneled to administration, who then alerts the proper authorities.

The only question about Paterno is did he follow-up with Mike McQueary or the admin after the report was made? It appears that he did to a degree, and asked McQueary if it was handled properly. Joe's relatively weak follow-up was possibly due to the fact that he did not fully grasp (as it was not reported to him in great detail) the seriousness of Sandusky's actions.


Some folks have gone back and reviewed documents in the Joe Paterno Library on the campus of Penn State, specifically his schedule, notes. etc., and Paterno was a hyper organized guy....he always kept his appointments, except, curiously, he blew off a number of engagements starting immediately after police listened in on a conversation between Sandusky and the mother of one of Sandusky's victims.

Interestingly, Paterno got back on track with this regularly scheduled activity a day or so after authorities dropped that investigation....

I'm not buying the fact that Paterno wasn't wise to who Sandusky was....

Particularly since right after that, Paterno told Sandusky that he'd NEVER be the top guy at Penn State (wonder why??) and Sandusky then retired, at age 55, at the height of his coaching career.....

Gee? He admits to his genitals touching a kid, then - Paterno and Penn State disavow him....

I'm not buying Joe's ignorance at all...

[ngineer]

We're going to have to agree to disagree....

If I see somebody behaving inappropriately with a kid, I'm calling the police...

The University's rules don't trump society's rules...

Paterno did NOT see what occurred in the locker room. It was described to him as "horsing around". He went to the police---the head of security at the University. Can't do more than that. It is the University's jurisdiction. They will pay for any malfeasance in following up on the report.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The single most damning piece of evidence, IMO, is this. From the Freeh report.

"Sandusky and others explored the possibility of starting a Division III football program at the University's Altoona campus where Sandusky could coach. Sandusky even spoke with a businessman who was a supporter of Penn State athletics in March 1998 about financing for the plan. Paterno's undate, handwritten notes, maintained in his home office and provided to the Special Investigative Council by his attorney, discussed the plan, and suggested Sandusky work on making "FB at Altoona Happen" until the "window closes". If Sandusky could not get the program established before the window closed, "he retires with a pension fully vested with a severanve pkg. which could include deferred income or a supplemental payment for 20 year (sic)."

1. Does this sound like Paterno does not have a complete grip on the goings-on at the program?
2. Does this sound like Paterno is trying to make a problem go away?
3. What are the odds Sandusky got in touch with this wealthy PSU supporter without the help/endorsement of Paterno, the AD, or even the president?

[Franks Tanks]

The single most damning piece of evidence, IMO, is this. From the Freeh report.

"Sandusky and others explored the possibility of starting a Division III football program at the University's Altoona campus where Sandusky could coach. Sandusky even spoke with a businessman who was a supporter of Penn State athletics in March 1998 about financing for the plan. Paterno's undate, handwritten notes, maintained in his home office and provided to the Special Investigative Council by his attorney, discussed the plan, and suggested Sandusky work on making "FB at Altoona Happen" until the "window closes". If Sandusky could not get the program established before the window closed, "he retires with a pension fully vested with a severanve pkg. which could include deferred income or a supplemental payment for 20 year (sic)."

1. Does this sound like Paterno does not have a complete grip on the goings-on at the program?
2. Does this sound like Paterno is trying to make a problem go away?
3. What are the odds Sandusky got in touch with this wealthy PSU supporter without the help/endorsement of Paterno, the AD, or even the president?

This all pre-dates Mike McQueary's report to Paterno by several years. I believe Sandusky was investigated by the Centre County DA in 1998, but we have no evidence that Paterno was privy to the investigation or the results of the investigation. Reports indicate that Paterno hated Sandusky by the mid-90's at the latest, and possibly before that point. Reports suggest he was highly critical of his coaching by that point. It is clear that Joe wanted to divorce himself from Jerry well before MM walked in on Sandusky. We simply don't know if Joe knew about Jerry, and playing devils advocate an argument could be made that Joe just wanted Jerry gone for football reasons and was trying to do so gracefully. It is just all speculation.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This all pre-dates Mike McQueary's report to Paterno by several years. I believe Sandusky was investigated by the Centre County DA in 1998, but we have no evidence that Paterno was privy to the investigation or the results of the investigation. Reports indicate that Paterno hated Sandusky by the mid-90's at the latest, and possibly before that point. Reports suggest he was highly critical of his coaching by that point. It is clear that Joe wanted to divorce himself from Jerry well before MM walked in on Sandusky. We simply don't know if Joe knew about Jerry, and playing devils advocate an argument could be made that Joe just wanted Jerry gone for football reasons and was trying to do so gracefully. It is just all speculation.

If Paterno simply didn't like him and wanted him out, why go through this expensive dance to astroturf football at Altoona? And involve the president/AD at a bare minimum? Why not have him just become head coach at SFPA? They were looking for a new HC at the end of the 1997 season, and is literally 18 miles down the road from Altoona.

I understand it's a devil's advocate thing you're proposing but I have a hard time making the leaps of faith required to believe that Joe didn't know anything.

[Franks Tanks]

If Paterno simply didn't like him and wanted him out, why go through this expensive dance to astroturf football at Altoona? And involve the president/AD at a bare minimum? Why not have him just become head coach at SFPA? They were looking for a new HC at the end of the 1997 season, and is literally 18 miles down the road from Altoona.

I understand it's a devil's advocate thing you're proposing but I have a hard time making the leaps of faith required to believe that Joe didn't know anything.

I don't think Joe Paterno, or the President of PSU, would be able to hire Sandusky as the head coach of SFPA. The whole coaching at Altoona thing seemed to be about keeping Jerry at PSU where he would be able to retire with his pension etc. I agree the situation is weird, but hoping to ship Jerry off to Altoona (the worst fate imaginable) is not evidence that he knew of Jerry's activities in 1998 and tried to cover the up.

The entire Freeh report is bizarre. He said he has access to thousands of e-mails and just about every record available, yet we get a handful of inferences that can be explained away.

Also congratulations on using "astroturf" as a verb.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If Paterno really didn't know in 2001, shouldn't Curley be behind bars for knowing about Sandusky's actions back in 1998? That would require his AD (Curley) not revealing a criminal investigation to Paterno levied against one of Paterno's subordinates. That strains credulity, even when you take away Paterno's near-beatified status on the PSU campus.

The timeline of the Freeh report, IMO, is pretty damning in and of itself, yet curiously, only Sandusky has completed a trial and faced any punishment for his actions.

[Franks Tanks]

If Paterno really didn't know in 2001, shouldn't Curley be behind bars for knowing about Sandusky's actions back in 1998? That would require his AD (Curley) not revealing a criminal investigation to Paterno levied against one of Paterno's subordinates. That strains credulity, even when you take away Paterno's near-beatified status on the PSU campus.

The timeline of the Freeh report, IMO, is pretty damning in and of itself, yet curiously, only Sandusky has completed a trial and faced any punishment for his actions.

Sorry, when I said "knew" I meant know with some level of detail what Jerry was up to by 1998. I understand the players here were aware that Jerry was being investigated, although they would most likely have little information regarding precisely what was being investigated in regard to Sandusky as results of investigations that don't lead to charges aren't exactly public.

I am not going into a Penn State rabbit hole. My point was that the Freeh report does not uncover very much solid evidence, but rather takes a few e-mails and draws conclusions. His conclusions may or may not be logical (that can be debated), but many of his points are easy to counter for those who are inclined to do so.

You can say that Joe wanted Jerry @ Altoona because he knew Jerry was a sexual predator, and wanted to cover for his program. You can say that Joe wanted to fire Jerry for his performance as a coach, but wanted to make sure he remained employed at PSU so he discussed the possibility of starting a program @ Altoona. It could be one or the other or something different, but we have no idea because free found some notes scratched out on paper.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Sorry, when I said "knew" I meant know with some level of detail what Jerry was up to by 1998. I understand the players here were aware that Jerry was being investigated, although they would most likely have little information regarding precisely what was being investigated in regard to Sandusky as results of investigations that don't lead to charges aren't exactly public.

I am not going into a Penn State rabbit hole. My point was that the Freeh report does not uncover very much solid evidence, but rather takes a few e-mails and draws conclusions. His conclusions may or may not be logical (that can be debated), but many of his points are easy to counter for those who are inclined to do so.

You can say that Joe wanted Jerry @ Altoona because he knew Jerry was a sexual predator, and wanted to cover for his program. You can say that Joe wanted to fire Jerry for his performance as a coach, but wanted to make sure he remained employed at PSU so he discussed the possibility of starting a program @ Altoona. It could be one or the other or something different, but we have no idea because free found some notes scratched out on paper.

My intent isn't to drag you down the rabbit hole, too. I acknowledge your point.

[OSBF]

I'm not buying Joe's ignorance at all...

NOTHING happened at PSU that he didn't know about

He was bigger than GOD on campus

He knew when the urinal cakes got changed in the men's rooms

He full well knew evil was happening and did NOTHING to stop it

Just as culpable in this as any one else was

The world was a better place the day he died

[Lehigh Football Nation]

My take on PSU's president's latest comments:

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-tone-deafness-of-penn-state.html

[OSBF]

My take on PSU's president's latest comments:

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-tone-deafness-of-penn-state.html

INCREDIBLY well written

[Nova09]

We're going to have to agree to disagree....



Of course, because an attorney barred by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's knowledge of child abuse laws in Pennsylvania is no match for the hubris of an insurance adjuster from Louisiana.

Can't believe I missed this thread, but in all seriousness, I am still waiting years later for anyone to establish a clear, explicit course of action JoePa should have taken, based only on what he would have known at the time. The only (logical) step I ever hear is call the police. While not a bad idea, it begs the question: ...and say what?

"Someone told me that he inadvertently walked into a situation in which he felt like something inappropriate might be happening, perpetrated by another individual and possibly victimizing a child." Again, not a bad thing to make the police aware of, but it's not much for the police to go on. They really need to hear from that first someone, and know exactly what he witnessed (spoiler alert: not much) before having a case.

Then there are people who say JoePa should have "followed up" on the matter. What world do these people come from? If I report to my superiors that someone may have done something inappropriate, but I have no real details and that person does not report to me nor do I report to him, then I don't expect to be filled in on how it plays out. I trust that my superiors will take care of whatever needs to be done. If I continue to see that other person in/around the workplace, after some time I will either assume that whatever was found was dealt with and any punitive action is none of my business or that no wrongdoing was found. I will not assume my superiors ignored my report, nor will I ask them how they handled it. This last part is crucial: IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO ANSWER IF I DID ASK ANYTHING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION!

The best of all is: "JoePa should have inferred from what McQueary told him that Sandusky was a child molester." I'll put aside any discussion of the possibility that McQueary may have had ulterior motives (again, from the perspective at the time JoePa first heard it, not saying now that I think McQueary was dishonest), and just focus on one little fact that no JoePa critic ever seems to know: while Sandusky was convicted of almost every charge brought against him, he was NOT convicted of molesting the boy in the shower on the occasion McQueary told JoePa about. So despite mounds of evidence that Sandusky is a child molester, many cases in which the victims were believed, many corroborated accounts, a jury did NOT think there was sufficient reason to believe that Sandusky did molest a child in the incident JoePa knew about (secondhand). And yet, JoePa should have known more than that jury, some people claim, JoePa, with less than 1% of the information the jury had, should have convicted Sandusky of something our legal system could not. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The main crime of which Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are being accused: not reporting to Child Welfare two times that Sandusky was under a very serious allegation of child rape (first from the Penn State police, the second time from McQueary). This is something that is required by law.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/sandusky_second_mile_dpw.html

Paterno was never accused or tried for what he did. He has been accused in the media for doing the absolute minimum, however, considering the seriousness of the charge, i.e. "I'm going to 'tell my boss' and wash my hands of this". He was also Sandusky's boss, too, and at a bare minimum gave him, IMO, extraordinary leeway as a defensive coordinator to pursue Second Mile activities. I don't think it's wrong to parse Paterno's statements over the last thirty years to try to figure out what he knew, and when he knew it. But Penn State is unwilling to do that investigation.

[Nova09]

The main crime of which Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are being accused: not reporting to Child Welfare two times that Sandusky was under a very serious allegation of child rape (first from the Penn State police, the second time from McQueary). This is something that is required by law.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/sandusky_second_mile_dpw.html

Paterno was never accused or tried for what he did. He has been accused in the media for doing the absolute minimum, however, considering the seriousness of the charge, i.e. "I'm going to 'tell my boss' and wash my hands of this". He was also Sandusky's boss, too, and at a bare minimum gave him, IMO, extraordinary leeway as a defensive coordinator to pursue Second Mile activities. I don't think it's wrong to parse Paterno's statements over the last thirty years to try to figure out what he knew, and when he knew it. But Penn State is unwilling to do that investigation.

Assuming you're responding to me, I completely agree that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz did wrong and I look forward to their days in court.

As for Paterno, he was not Sandusky's boss at the time of McQueary incident. At that time, there was really nothing to do except tell people who could do something about it and then trust them to do whatever needed to be done.

It's not wrong for you to parse his statements, there is not much more we (outside the university) can do now that he's dead. But Penn State was willing to do an investigation, they hired someone to do it but he got too obsessed with making the report about himself and pandering to preconceived public opinions to actually conduct that investigation he was paid very generously for.

[OSBF]

I can only speak to the law here in Illinois

Educators, which is a broad term including teachers,coaches, AND administrators are mandated reporters

If they are aware or even suspect anything like this and fail to report to either local law enforcement or the Dept of Children and Family services They go to jail

[Bisonoline]

I can only speak to the law here in Illinois

Educators, which is a broad term including teachers,coaches, AND administrators are mandated reporters

If they are aware or even suspect anything like this and fail to report to either local law enforcement or the Dept of Children and Family services They go to jail


That is the law now. What was the law back then?

[OSBF]

That is the law now. What was the law back then?


That was the law 20+ years ago when in a former life I was married to a social worker.

[ngineer]

The main crime of which Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are being accused: not reporting to Child Welfare two times that Sandusky was under a very serious allegation of child rape (first from the Penn State police, the second time from McQueary). This is something that is required by law.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/sandusky_second_mile_dpw.html

Paterno was never accused or tried for what he did. He has been accused in the media for doing the absolute minimum, however, considering the seriousness of the charge, i.e. "I'm going to 'tell my boss' and wash my hands of this". He was also Sandusky's boss, too, and at a bare minimum gave him, IMO, extraordinary leeway as a defensive coordinator to pursue Second Mile activities. I don't think it's wrong to parse Paterno's statements over the last thirty years to try to figure out what he knew, and when he knew it. But Penn State is unwilling to do that investigation.\

I don't think Paterno was Sandusky's boss when the McQuery incident happened.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

\

I don't think Paterno was Sandusky's boss when the McQuery incident happened.

That is true, though Sandusky had Paterno as his boss in 1998 when documented incident No. 1 happened.

By 2002 Sandusky was given a special emeritus status with Penn State, including a title (authorized by Spanier, an unprecedented move), and an office next to Joe Pa A good rundown of the situation is here:

http://deadspin.com/5925401/joe-paterno-gave-jerry-sandusky-the-option-to-keep-coaching-as-long-as-he-was-the-coach

This part should raise everyone's eyebrows.


Sandusky asked for access to training and workout facilities. Paterno put a check mark next to that request. In a sidebar, Paterno asked if this was for Sandusky's personal use, or for Second Mile kids, and indicated that due to liability problems, facility access should not be extended to Second Mile kids.

We could theoretically argue at this point that Joe Paterno knew nothing of Sandusky's activities. But Spanier, Schultz, and Curley absolutely did - of that there's no debate. And putting that aside for a moment, that's an awfully strange question for a head football coach to be noting about his subordinate's retirement package. "Liability problems"?

Paterno defenders' main case is that he was clueless about Sandusky's overall behavior, yet was so meticulous in his own notes about negotiating Sandusky's retirement package that he appeared to broker the compromise that only Sandusky would be using the facilities and not Second Mile kids. IMO this is a pretty big leap of faith.

[Bisonoline]

That was the law 20+ years ago when in a former life I was married to a social worker.

Question---Is a football coach or anyone for that matter supposed to be learned to the fact of what should and should not be reported? The fact that Joe did report it to his chain of command why angst towards him?

[Bisonoline]

Of course, because an attorney barred by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's knowledge of child abuse laws in Pennsylvania is no match for the hubris of an insurance adjuster from Louisiana.

Can't believe I missed this thread, but in all seriousness, I am still waiting years later for anyone to establish a clear, explicit course of action JoePa should have taken, based only on what he would have known at the time. The only (logical) step I ever hear is call the police. While not a bad idea, it begs the question: ...and say what?

"Someone told me that he inadvertently walked into a situation in which he felt like something inappropriate might be happening, perpetrated by another individual and possibly victimizing a child." Again, not a bad thing to make the police aware of, but it's not much for the police to go on. They really need to hear from that first someone, and know exactly what he witnessed (spoiler alert: not much) before having a case.

Then there are people who say JoePa should have "followed up" on the matter. What world do these people come from? If I report to my superiors that someone may have done something inappropriate, but I have no real details and that person does not report to me nor do I report to him, then I don't expect to be filled in on how it plays out. I trust that my superiors will take care of whatever needs to be done. If I continue to see that other person in/around the workplace, after some time I will either assume that whatever was found was dealt with and any punitive action is none of my business or that no wrongdoing was found. I will not assume my superiors ignored my report, nor will I ask them how they handled it. This last part is crucial: IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO ANSWER IF I DID ASK ANYTHING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION!

The best of all is: "JoePa should have inferred from what McQueary told him that Sandusky was a child molester." I'll put aside any discussion of the possibility that McQueary may have had ulterior motives (again, from the perspective at the time JoePa first heard it, not saying now that I think McQueary was dishonest), and just focus on one little fact that no JoePa critic ever seems to know: while Sandusky was convicted of almost every charge brought against him, he was NOT convicted of molesting the boy in the shower on the occasion McQueary told JoePa about. So despite mounds of evidence that Sandusky is a child molester, many cases in which the victims were believed, many corroborated accounts, a jury did NOT think there was sufficient reason to believe that Sandusky did molest a child in the incident JoePa knew about (secondhand). And yet, JoePa should have known more than that jury, some people claim, JoePa, with less than 1% of the information the jury had, should have convicted Sandusky of something our legal system could not. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Is the world coming to an end? I actually agree with you here.xrotatehx

[ngineer]

That is true, though Sandusky had Paterno as his boss in 1998 when documented incident No. 1 happened.

By 2002 Sandusky was given a special emeritus status with Penn State, including a title (authorized by Spanier, an unprecedented move), and an office next to Joe Pa A good rundown of the situation is here:

http://deadspin.com/5925401/joe-paterno-gave-jerry-sandusky-the-option-to-keep-coaching-as-long-as-he-was-the-coach

This part should raise everyone's eyebrows.



We could theoretically argue at this point that Joe Paterno knew nothing of Sandusky's activities. But Spanier, Schultz, and Curley absolutely did - of that there's no debate. And putting that aside for a moment, that's an awfully strange question for a head football coach to be noting about his subordinate's retirement package. "Liability problems"?

Paterno defenders' main case is that he was clueless about Sandusky's overall behavior, yet was so meticulous in his own notes about negotiating Sandusky's retirement package that he appeared to broker the compromise that only Sandusky would be using the facilities and not Second Mile kids. IMO this is a pretty big leap of faith.

You can read whatever you want into some one's notes. The more practical view, from an attorney, is that having ANY outside kids in the athletic facilities opens up a host of "liability" issues from any kid getting hurt on equipment, in a game, etc. I prefer to base opinions on facts and not speculation.

[OSBF]

Question---Is a football coach or anyone for that matter supposed to be learned to the fact of what should and should not be reported? The fact that Joe did report it to his chain of command why angst towards him?

Why the angst?
Does that really need asked?
He knew full well that industrial scale child rape was going on under his watch and did almost nothing to stop it.

Again, I can only speak as to what the law is here in Illinois, but I'd assume most other states are similar.
ALL educators including teachers, teachers aides, admins, and coaches be they paid or volunteer are required to take a certain # of hours of in-service training to recognize abuse and neglect cases.
Training is provided through the Dept of Health and Human Services/ Child Welfare agencies.
If its found out that they even suspected and failed to report they go to jail. That's how being a mandated reporter works here.
"report" doesn't mean telling administration
It means calling the child abuse hotline, a state level resource
Joe had an obligation, at least a moral one if not a legal one to protect those kids.
And he put protecting his legacy before protecting the kids Sandusky was brutalizing.

[OSBF]

Question---Is a football coach or anyone for that matter supposed to be learned to the fact of what should and should not be reported? The fact that Joe did report it to his chain of command why angst towards him?

FYI, if you want to do some light reading, here's the Illinois Mandated Reporter Manual................
http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/docs/CFS_1050-21_Mandated_Reporter_Manual.pdf

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You can read whatever you want into some one's notes. The more practical view, from an attorney, is that having ANY outside kids in the athletic facilities opens up a host of "liability" issues from any kid getting hurt on equipment, in a game, etc. I prefer to base opinions on facts and not speculation.

It might not ever reach the level of an airtight case against Joe Pa but it's certainly pretty curious. And Spanier, it can be proven, was aware of a criminal investigation against Sandusky, reported and written up by campus police and involving child welfare, etc., back in 1998. A year after this serious allegation Spanier appeared to override Joe (based on the notes) to grant him emeritus status.

Unfortunately the focus on the 2002 incident tends to shift too much focus away from the 1998 incident, which of course was just as serious and occurring when Joe Pa was still Sandusky's boss.

One Joe Pa note on a piece of paper might be able to be explained away, but there is an awful lot more that needs to be explained away, especially when you reach into the 1990s.

[clenz]

Question---Is a football coach or anyone for that matter supposed to be learned to the fact of what should and should not be reported? The fact that Joe did report it to his chain of command why angst towards him?
Yes.

It's required, and has been for decades, for anyone involved with schools, coaching, YMCAs, day cares, anything...

It's an actual law - the Mandatory Reporter Law - as OSBF pointed out

[OSBF]

The key part to making these mandated reporter laws enforceable is that the reporting is to the state child protection agency, not to your boss, or to the responsible administrator, or even to local law enforcement.

Even IF the PA law is structured differently and paterno followed the letter of the law, his actions were morally reprehensible.

He decided protecting himself, the university, and the football program was more important than stopping the abuse.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The key part to making these mandated reporter laws enforceable is that the reporting is to the state child protection agency, not to your boss, or to the responsible administrator, or even to local law enforcement.

Even IF the PA law is structured differently and paterno followed the letter of the law, his actions were morally reprehensible.

He decided protecting himself, the university, and the football program was more important than stopping the abuse.

At issue here as well for the 1998 investigation is not only informing law enforcement but also members inside of Penn State that ought to have known that one of its high-profile football employees was under investigation. For example, you'd think that the Penn State Board of Trustees ought to have at least been informed that someone was under investigation - even not naming him by name - but nowhere in the minutes, nor from the interviews used in the Freeh report, was it said this happened. Same with Penn State's Office of Human Resources - they were not informed of the investigation.

IMO the actions of the administrators in 2002 take on even more serious meanings when you study further the investigation done in 1998.

[MR. CHICKEN]

20558......THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...AT DUH TIME....TOM CORBITT.......WHO WENT ON TA BE GOVERNOR......WAS MADE AWARE........IN THE 1998 TIME FRAME....UH SANDUSKY ALLEGATIONS......NO PROSECUTION...FROM DAT INVESTIGATION.......AWK!



IFIN' DUH AG...CAIN'T MAKE UH CASE......WHAA COME DOWN ON JOE?????????????????

[Lehigh Football Nation]

20558......THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...AT DUH TIME....TOM CORBITT.......WHO WENT ON TA BE GOVERNOR......WAS MADE AWARE........IN THE 1998 TIME FRAME....UH SANDUSKY ALLEGATIONS......NO PROSECUTION...FROM DAT INVESTIGATION.......AWK!



IFIN' DUH AG...CAIN'T MAKE UH CASE......WHAA COME DOWN ON JOE?????????????????

Corbett was a tin-eared governor but was essentially exonerated about his role in the affair:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/kanes_verdict_on_corbetts_sand.html

It seemed to me like his case was hindered by the actions and non-actions of Penn State administrators themselves and local law enforcement rather than purposeful foot-dragging by Corbett. Kane's investigation of Corbett and her report were largely overshadowed by her PR goofs, and the conclusion of the report pretty much didn't do much to change many people's minds.

The local AG that was investigating the Sandusky affair in 1998 was Ray Gricar, who is missing and presumed dead. He is the one that elected not to prosecute the case.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Corbett was a tin-eared governor but was essentially exonerated about his role in the affair:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/kanes_verdict_on_corbetts_sand.html

It seemed to me like his case was hindered by the actions and non-actions of Penn State administrators themselves and local law enforcement rather than purposeful foot-dragging by Corbett. Kane's investigation of Corbett and her report were largely overshadowed by her PR goofs, and the conclusion of the report pretty much didn't do much to change many people's minds.

The local AG that was investigating the Sandusky affair in 1998 was Ray Gricar, who is missing and presumed dead. He is the one that elected not to prosecute the case.


20560....SAME DIFFERENCE.......AH REPEAT...IFIN' DUH GOV'T...COODN'T...NAB HIM.....HOW COOD IT BE UP TA JOE???.......PLENTAH UP LAYERS...'TWEEN CORBETT'S OFFICE...AN' JOE...EVEN IF CASE WAS GIVEN TA ASSISANT......IFIN' PENN STATE DIDN'T CO-OP.......THERE ARE LAWS IN PLACE TA GET ACCESS TA INFO.....WHAA WOOD JOE HAVE REASON...TA KEEP AFTERAH DUH CASE....WHEN ...AG OFFICE.....DIDN'T?????....BRAWK!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

20560....SAME DIFFERENCE.......AH REPEAT...IFIN' DUH GOV'T...COODN'T...NAB HIM.....HOW COOD IT BE UP TA JOE???.......PLENTAH UP LAYERS...'TWEEN CORBETT'S OFFICE...AN' JOE...EVEN IF CASE WAS GIVEN TA ASSISANT......IFIN' PENN STATE DIDN'T CO-OP.......THERE ARE LAWS IN PLACE TA GET ACCESS TA INFO.....WHAA WOOD JOE HAVE REASON...TA KEEP AFTERAH DUH CASE....WHEN ...AG OFFICE.....DIDN'T?????....BRAWK!

Some might argue he had a moral obligation to, at a bare minimum, follow up on the charges internally. Or dismiss him. Whether that lays at Joe's feet it's not certain, but it certainly lays somewhere within Penn State.

At a bare minimum Spanier, Curley and Schultz knew that there was a criminal investigation in 1998. Assuming Joe knew nothing, at what time were they going to tell Joe that allowing him continued use of Penn State facilities was a bad idea only a year later? And why would Second Mile kids be brought up at all in Paterno's hand written notes on the negotiations regarding Sandusky's retirement?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Nah, nothing suspicious still going on here...

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/growls/Penn-State-pays-for-Paterno-wins.html#pf8a2bIxjkSQICC5.99


Now comes news the university will pay $1.5 million in outside legal costs in a case that restores 111 wins under the late Joe Paterno. The wins were stripped by the NCAA as part of its sanctions against PSU in the wake of the Sandusky scandal.

Restoration of the wins means Paterno again is college football's Division I winningest coach with 409 victories.


The Harrisburg Patriot-News says PSU will pay lawyers hired by Senate GOP Leader Jake Corman, whose district includes Penn State, and former state Treasurer Rob McCord, who resigned earlier this year before pleading guilty to extortion charges related to his 2014 campaign for governor.


They brought the suit initially to make sure an NCAA fine against the university to fund child-abuse prevention efforts would be spent only in the state. But it was expanded to challenge all NCAA sanctions against PSU.


The university says it will not use tuition money or tax dollars to pay the lawyers but will use funds from "internal loans."

I'm clearly in the wrong racket. xsmhx

[Bisonoline]

Looks like the ncaa over reach is crumbling .