<p>I’d be curious as to how many of next year’s team has already decided to transfer and/or leave the team anyway. They could decide that it’s not something that they, personally, want to be a part of. Given the hold that football has on Penn State and the history of that program and the behavior of the administration, I personally would think long and hard about whether I still wanted to associate my name with that school and program and give it my hard work and athletic skill.</p>
<p>Do we know if PSU has had any freshmen decommit yet?</p>
<p>Yes, but why did these leaders make this particular poor decision? Keeping Sandusky around didn’t minimize the risk. It maximized the risk. And they knew it. And yet they did it. Why?</p>
<p>Pizza girl! Are you serious you mean go to college and go to class and not be able to play football!! Or just play,gasp, intermodal football and be like normal college kids!!!</p>
<p>the world will stop spinning!!! Dogs and cats will live together!!! </p>
<p>And males (hard to call them men) who helped a pedophile can hold their heads up high saying they did all they could while not knowing anything…</p>
<p>Pull therug out from under him because he couldnt play a sport? Oh gosh how will the 22 yer old get thru then year not playing football in front of a crowd? Quick get the therapist</p>
<p>Ps yes they called lawyers, and yes there is proof.</p>
<p>And calling child rape a hot potatoe shows then disconnect with the reality of the decades long coverup.</p>
<p>Little boys are not hot potatoes, they were victims of an animal who was supported by Penn state for decades,</p>
<p>Lasma I think that’s the biggest question I have and probably many other people. How could so many people have made so many poor decisions. Probably they didn’t believe that Sandusky could be so criminal. They thought by getting rid of him it would take care of the problem. They didn’t want financial and public relations damage. On a sinister level perhaps they thought the kids that were involved would never tell and if they did it wouldn’t “touch” the college after they removed Sandusky. The who really knew part will get played out in the next stage of prosecution although if the Freeh report has teeth and documentation to back up the summary, that chapter might be written.</p>
<p>seahorses may not be the most eloquent, momof3boys, but he’s making a valid point. It’s really not the end of the world if football players don’t get to play football. Or if they just play intramural football. The attitude that football IS such a big deal is precisely why Penn State focused more on protecting the PSU Football “Brand” and reputation than on ensuring that a predator was reported to the appropriate authorities.</p>
<p>“if the freeh report has teeth” - did you read it? The emails and support are right there in the appendix. It’s pretty clear and damning. They knew that Sandusky was doing things he shouldn’t, they (Curley/Schultz) had a plan that involved, among other things, alerting the authorities; after talking w Paterno, they had a “sudden change of heart” and Spanier approved their change of heart. I didn’t have much dog in this fight but the Freeh report is about as clear as it gets - they knew and they swept it under the rug for years.</p>
<p>Those kids are so privileged to make it to a university, to have parents who could afford the tuition or the grades or talents to get scholarships at this big, important college. Would there be all this hand-wringing if a student who loved chess went to college and the chess club shut down? Get an education, like a university is supposed to provide, and be grateful for it.</p>
<p>I would hope current students, even those who like football, even those who play football, would want their university to become the kind of place where the administration doesn’t feel the football team needs to be protected at all costs. And it is becoming more and more evident, seeing the reactions still abundant in Happy Valley that this will not happen while the football team is still around to fawn over.</p>
<p>Did they get rid of him? Not so much. He was granted a very nice title. He was paid very well. He was actually rehired after he retired to coach. He was given access to the athletic facilities with no monitoring. His charity was supported to a large extent by Penn state personal and money and image. He was able to bring little boys around to games, across state lines, under the guises of being a Penn state prof. He was able to tiad his victims onto the sidelines at Penn state games. </p>
<p>So I don’t see how they got rid of Sandusky. They were all involved with him in a myriad of ways-financially, ethically, charity support, camps, access, approval, meeting the little boys and giving Sandusky the cover he needed to continue his crimes.</p>
<p>This is not getting rid of him, it was actually embracing him.</p>
<p>My apologies, momofthreeboys, I missed your response.</p>
<p>I think you are right, especially about not wanting public relations damage. But that brings up another question: Why did they think turning in a child molester would cause PR damage? I think most people would applaud someone who turned in a dangerous criminal. But they seemed to think that the Penn State community would react negatively. Why would they think that?</p>
<p>I have no idea. I still don’t know why the prosecutor didn’t pursue the original charges against Sandusky. Perhaps they felt that since the prosecutor felt it wasn’t worthy of prosecution there was nothing there for them to worry about. There are so many unknowns and woulda, coulda, shouldas. But yes, it’s been proven time and time again that businesses and organizations are far better off being truthful and forthright and manage from a position of ethical strength, but it can be difficult to make groups of people believe that in the heat of the moment. It’s tough to get everyone around a table to agree on something and there were two layers of oversight: administration and the BOD.</p>
<p>Seahorse, this is entirely speculation on my part and I don’t want to believe it in my heart, but when the prosecutors didn’t prosecute and once Sandusky was not in the athletic department payroll perhaps they felt it became someone else’s problem…sounds awful but strange things happen in this world.</p>
<p>And my point was adult men can get thru not playing football. They can. Little boys where ignored while they suffered so those men could play football without any tarnish on the Penn set image.</p>
<p>Those adult men not being able to play football would pale in comparison to what those boys suffered.</p>
<p>Haven’t read this thread recently, so forgive me if I’m repeating someone else’s comment - but does anyone else think that Sandusky knows something that would embarrass JP?</p>
<p>As for getting a consensus or whatever in a business environment and circling the wagons, etc, I get it. But when it involves the assualt of children, I don’t get it. For decades I don’t get it or excuse it as some sort of institutional mindset of someone less will take care of it.</p>
<p>As for why the 1998 case wasnt pursued the charges, we can pretend there was an independent process. </p>
<p>And even if no charges were pressed, I don’t know any unselfish adult who would say, hey, guess sanduskys an upright guy now. We see lots of evidence, but we will ignore it because no charges were pressed.</p>
<p>If I suspected an acquaintance was a thief, but was never charged, domi leave my valuables around or continue to associate? I would say no. </p>
<p>If I got a second report of sexual assualt from a work associate against children would I sy sure let’s give him a Grady retirement package and support his charity so he can access children and giv that same charity money, and give him the appearance of being a good man, yeah, that’s a good plan.</p>
<p>I am sorry, this wasn’t someone who stole money or fixed games for gambling, this was a pedophile.</p>
<p>Substitute Archdiocese of Boston for Penn State and Cardinal Law for President Spanier and it is the same thing, although on a much smaller scale.</p>
<p>Well i live in PA but could care less about Penn State football (though i confess i do like football…) but i keep wondering how Paterno , who seemed like a decent enough guy, could possiblyi have been ok with the things sandusky was accused of. Then i wonder if (in football circles) molestation of young boys is considered “ok” as long as it isn’t talked about outside of football. That would be really sick and twisted, i know, but i don’t get it otherwise. Maybe it wasn’t even considered a crime in that circle.</p>
<p>Oh and yes, i feel the same goes for the catholic church (full disclosure: catholic elementary school, catholic high school, catholic college…no longer practicing). Perhaps in the priesthood, molesting boys is considered ok (as long as they aren’t consorting with evil and consenting women!)</p>