<p>When is the NCAA going to weigh in? Recruiting violations pale in comparison to this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What NCAA rule was violated? As wrong as it is, I don’t think any NCAA rule was violated therefore the NCAA needs to just stay out of it.</p>
<p>I think a clean sweep has already been made. Why would you shut down the football program? If Sandusky was professor or chair in the engineering school, would you shut it down? or, would you fire all involved parties and start fresh? My D will be a freshman this fall and although horrified by this disgusting mess, she (and we) don’t feel the entire university should be punished. She just bought her football season tickets and can’t wait to participate in Thon. Hopefully, Penn State will use this mess as an opportunity to re-focus it’s priorities. But, just with any other large school, and some small ones, sports are part of the whole college experience.</p>
<p>But, I’m Catholic and have been through this same mess before. I still go to church and know many wonderful priests. I would not have wanted the Catholic religion shut down over the actions of a few disgusting rotten people.</p>
<p>kville - I was catholic, and that mess got me out of the church. Some will shrug their shoulders and continue cheering from the sidelines, others will have a different take on it. </p>
<p>I just can’t support any organization that looks the other way when it comes to abusing children. It’s very rarely just once, or just one person knowing - it’s a problem where a whole lot of people were in on a cover up and where a culture was created that the program was more important. </p>
<p>I couldn’t imagine attending a game at that school and putting .02 into their coffers.</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State Nittany Lions – NCAA launching investigation in wake of scandal - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7251458/penn-state-nittany-lions-ncaa-launching-investigation-wake-scandal]Penn”>Penn State Nittany Lions -- NCAA launching investigation in wake of scandal - ESPN)</p>
<p>hops_scout: The link above is an old article (Nov. 2011) regarding the NCAA possibly launching an investigation into the Penn St football program. Now that Sandusky has been found guilty, what was once a possible investigation will become a thorough investigation.</p>
<p>In short: There is a strong basis for the NCAA to take actions.</p>
<p>per the article:
“NCAA president Mark Emmert sent a letter to Penn State president Rod Erickson saying that the governing body for college sports will look at “Penn State’s exercise of institutional control over its intercollegiate athletics programs” in the case of Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator accused of 40 counts of child sex abuse.”</p>
<p>“NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said attorneys for the legislative body have confirmed the Penn State circumstances apply to a possible violation of unethical behavior standards and possible violation of rules of institutional control and oversight. Williams said the NCAA has not launched an enforcement investigation but instead a review that could prompt a formal investigation if recommended by the NCAAs senior management group.”</p>
<p>“If the NCAA decides to move ahead from there, the process could take an additional six to 10 months. If the enforcement staff were to conclude violations occurred the NCAA Infractions Committee would have at its discretion standard penalties such as financial, loss of scholarship, loss of bowl eligibility and/or probation.”</p>
<p>“Everyone that works inside a university, a coach, an administrator, a faculty member is first an educator and mentor,” Emmert said. “When you’re in that position you have a responsibility to provide leadership and maintain a high ethical standard.”</p>
<p>“What NCAA rule was violated? As wrong as it is, I don’t think any NCAA rule was violated therefore the NCAA needs to just stay out of it.”</p>
<p>[Crime</a> and Punishment](<a href=“Story Archives - NCAA.org”>Story Archives - NCAA.org)</p>
<p>Mini, I just reread the grand jury indictment. What page indicates that the grand jury thought Joe P was part of a cover-up? With respect to victim 2, the indictment on pages 11 and 12 indicate the grand jury felt the testimony by Curley and Schultz was not credible and they were liable as heads of a school or institution for failure to report. There was no judgment of Paterno’s action, just a narrative of when and what he reported to Curley and Schultz. Please tell me what I have missed. Page number please.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>With Matt now acknowledging having been abused there are others who appear to have enabled Sandusky as well…</p>
<p>[Did</a> Jerry Sandusky Molest His Son Matt? - The Daily Beast](<a href=“Did Jerry Sandusky Molest His Son Matt?”>Did Jerry Sandusky Molest His Son Matt?)</p>
<p>Debra Rose Long’s protests began well before any of the current accusers’ cases are alleged to have occurred. Long says because she was a poor, disadvantaged single mother at the time, no one listened to her. When the esteemed Jerry and Dottie Sandusky told authorities they wanted to adopt young Matt, then a troubled minor, it seems everyone thought that would be a fine idea. Everyone except his mother… She wrote letters of complaint to the Child and Youth Services department and to a Centre County Judge. She refused to give up her parental rights to the boy, originally named Matt Heichel.</p>
<p>“Centre County was an enabler to him,” Long wrote in an email to The Daily Beast. “The only voice other than my own was the Juvenile Probation Officer [Terry Trude] who wrote a letter to Judge Grine stating that the Sanduskys’ was not the right placement for Matthew.” But the judge ultimately decided for the famous Penn State coach and his wife.</p>
<p>Dottie Sandusky is quoted telling a teenaged Ron Heichel, Matt’s brother by birth, “He’s not your brother anymore,” when he called to speak to Matt. “This was before he was even adopted,” Heichel told the Patriot-News. The final adoption went through soon after Matt’s 18th birthday in 1997.</p>
<p>Dottie’s treatment of Matt’s biological brother is chilling…and telling</p>
<p>“Mini, I just reread the grand jury indictment. What page indicates that the grand jury thought Joe P was part of a cover-up?”</p>
<p>It says that Mcq saw anal sex and told JoePa “what he saw”. Then JoePa did NOT convey that same information down the chain. Of course, they weren’t investigating for the coverup, they were investigating Sandusky.</p>
<p>As far as we know, they haven’t gone for JoePa’s financial records yet. We do know that he was engaged at the time in negotiations for a multi-million dollar business deal with individuals from Second Mile that likely would have failed had this all come out. We do know of his later associations with folks from Second Mile. We know of his refusal to defend his players from racial threats that same year. We know that he allowed Sandusky to use the locker room after McQ came forward. We don’t know about what “arrangements” were made when he let Sandusky go, or why. But they weren’t investigating JoePa at the time.</p>
<p>We’ll learn heaps in the civil suits against JoePa’s estate - though I expect they will be settled out-of-court for many millions, with the taxpayers of Pennsylvania, and parents of current students of PSU picking up the tab.</p>
<p>kvile - it’s not about blaming the blameless - it’s about holding an institution responsible for creating a culture of abuse and turning ones head. It doesn’t mean everyone in that institution is corrupt, but that at it’s very foundation, there are some very evil, awful things going on, and on a purely personal decision, I would not financially support such an institution. But the church thing for me is way deeper than an online open forum discussion, and it was not in and of itself the only reason I pulled away. </p>
<p>But I’ve never been to a penn state, have no reason to think I ever will, am not at all related to that school and I have absolutely no attachment to protecting anything to do with that university or football program, I’m also not some secret cheerleader of a rival program. I couldn’t even name their rivals. So, since I don’t care about the program, I can only tell you how it seems as a pure outsider to it all.</p>
<p>The NCAA will have to go back and investigate all of the violations that were taking place during the Paterno years–the burglaries and assaults by football players that he refused to report–the firing of Vicky Triponey–things that were being kept secret–people have talked about it for years, but nothing was ever done because of the Paterno name–if the NCAA has one ounce of credibility, they will address these issues–other football programs have received sanctions for far, far, less–it’s very important that the truth come out and be made public–it’s the only way that Penn State can start on the road to recovery–I don’t think that the whole football program needs to go–perhaps a five year ban. In many, many cases, the coaches and players who actually committed the violations are not the ones that end-up paying the price–it’s normally the innocent ones that have to–witness USC.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Why? Well, as I said back in post #4841:</p>
<p>“What shutting it down would do is abolish the conditions and mindset in which people get so devoted to the team’s prowess, invested in the program’s continued glory, and convinced that the coach can do no wrong that they lose their common sense. Mindset and conditions in which it becomes okay to protect the football program instead of protecting children.”</p>
<p>That’s why.</p>
<p>But I also went on to say:</p>
<p>“But I don’t favor shutting it down entirely. I’d say just reduce it to the point that it gets the same level of attention and funding as say the Penn State women’s rugby team. Then people would feel a lot more confident that these sorts of sordid crimes won’t be swept under the rug should they happen again.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If the Engineering department was:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>so corrupt in its leadership and so worshiped and revered by the college community and alumni that it had fostered a climate where the thinking was that it could do no wrong, </p></li>
<li><p>where high department and school officials covered up years of abuse and allowed it to continue rather than damage the reputation of its famous Engineering department, </p></li>
<li><p>and if they put the interests of the department above the interests of horrendously victimized children, </p></li>
</ol>
<p>…then yeah, I think that shutting it down would be an option that deserves serious consideration.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/mcqueary_says_he_sat_at_patern.html[/url]”>Mike McQueary told Joe Paterno he saw something 'extremely sexual' between Jerry Sandusky, young boy - pennlive.com;
<p>The above article quotes McQueary when he was asked what he told Joe Paterno.</p>
<p>“I went to his house and sat at his kitchen table and told him I saw Jerry with a young boy in the shower. That it was way over the lines and extremely sexual in nature,” McQueary testified. "The rough positioning I described but not in much detail.
“(Paterno) was slumped back in his chair, he said well I’m sorry you had to see that. It’s terrible. I need to think and tell some people about what you saw and I’ll let you know what we’ll do next.” end quote</p>
<p>The next morning Paterno told Curly and Schultz what he was told. Jerry Sandusky was not an employee of Penn State and had not been for some time. Curly and Schultz were the direct line to now deal with Sandusky. </p>
<p>These are the facts. </p>
<p>people can weave whatever theories they want about Paterno’s involvement but these are the facts from McQueary about what he said to Paterno. And the action that paterno took the next day.</p>
<p>I just needed to remind people of that.</p>
<p>What’s your point? He didn’t do enough. Read the 4000+ posts again to see why.</p>
<p>No. My point is to present the facts as stated by McQueary as to what he told Paterno. I am countering Minis insistance that McQueary told Paterno in full graphic detail what he saw in the shower.</p>
<p>but you really don’t know what Paterno’s conversation with Curley and Schultz consisted of, or if there was any attempt to cover up between them. </p>
<p>as I said upthread, I didn’t understand why Paterno didn’t bring McQueary along to report the information directly and accurately and thus avoid the possibility of distortion. That is a mystery to me. Since Sandusky didn’t work there anymore, as you point out, McQueary wasn’t reporting on a fellow employee, so why did Jerry have to be the one to report what McQueary witnessed?</p>
<p>edited to add, Sax, you seem to still be focusing on McQueary not being clear enough. But if Paterno didn’t know what McQueary saw, then WHY was HE going to Curley and Schultz to report it? and why didn’t he ASK those clarifying questions. anyone who has ever worked in HR or senior management knows when you have an incident of violence at a workplace, you better ask questions so you then KNOW how to handle it. These were the senior leaders, they knew they needed to ask questions if they were unclear, c’mon!</p>
<p>your last sentence is confusing to me.</p>
<p>Schultz and Curly had every opportunity to ask as many questions as they wanted to to McQueary. Paterno obviously didn’t attend the meeting with the three of them. We don’t know why</p>
<p>I have no idea what was said between Schultz. Curley and Paterno. All I know is that it resulted in a meeting with McQueary 10 days later.</p>
<p>With Paterno gone Schultz and Curly get to say whatever they want to say as there is no one left to refute it. It will be interesting to see if their recollections are the same.</p>
<p>Look, none of us really know what happened. The only “facts” we have are what these guys say they said and heard at the time. .After this is heard in court it will be up to judge/jury to decide who is telling the closest thing to the truth.</p>
<p>This is the way I view Paterno’s culpability.</p>
<p>If Paterno wanted Sandusky banned from his access to Penn St. (and its showers), all he had to do was say the word. If he wanted an investigation, all he had to do was say the word. If he wanted Sandusky exposed, all he had to do was say the word. Paterno held the power at Penn St. as well as in the community. He answered to no one. He was the boss. Yet, after being told to his face about Sandusky’s molestation of a young boy, Paterno turned a blind eye each and every time thereafter when he saw Sandusky on the Penn St. campus as well as in the company of young boys. Paterno chose to not push the issue in order to keep the reputation of his precious Penn St. as his priority. He thrived on being revered, so much so that he dismissed the abuse of the boys as an insignificant blip in order preserve the status of his program and his reputation.</p>