<p>
</p>
<p>Not very likely, since you can’t defame a dead person.</p>
<p>By 2001 I have to think they were already so implicated in this conspiracy of silence…I mean what would you say? “In 1998 we thought it might be ok for him to be raping boys in the showers, but now we’re taking the high road.”?</p>
<p>
Curley’s already been indicted for perjury once…</p>
<p>
Incredible.</p>
<p>Here is another quote from the article-</p>
<p>"By late Thursday, back in his home office in Tuscaloosa, Marsh and his fellow lawyers began talking about Penn State’s willingness to accept a package of severe sanctions that would not include the death penalty. He felt cautiously optimistic. Then at 6:30 p.m., Marsh’s office phone rang, and he was told again that a majority of the university presidents on the board still favored a multiple-year death penalty. After all of Penn State’s arguments, he was stunned by the board’s continued stance. </p>
<p>“I just thought we were past that,” he says. “The idea you’d be driving by an empty stadium with 108,000 seats every Saturday in the fall for four years and no football team playing there … well, to me it was just unthinkable.” "</p>
<p>Unthinkable. Yes, heaven forbid a life without PSU football. The world would stop on its axis. What a travesty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Early on I assumed Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier just decided to turn a blind eye to what Sandusky was doing. But it was more than just having the attitude of not wanting to deal w/ Sandusky. The cabal of 4 went into full cover-up mode in order to maintain the perception that PSU FB had the secret or right formula for a successful, top-notch athletic collegiate program. In order to maintain this perception they needed to recruit the type of athlete bclintonk described in post #7770.
This is the subset of student athletes Paterno and company wanted to attract. Exposing Sandusky meant the risk of losing those recruits to ND or Michigan or Northwestern and the like - especially when it was bound to come out that they knew about Sanduskys molestations as early as 1998.</p>
<p>***bclintonk your posts are extremely informative. Thanks!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, for years and years it was successful. Paterno, apparently believing in his divine powers that his faithful worshipers ascribed to him, had every reason to think it would continue to be successful.</p>
<p>It did work, for a long time. I think in some twisted sick way, Paterno et al. believed these boys were getting so much from Sandusky, how bad could it be that Sandusky simply wanted the kids to give something back to him. To have referred to these 10 year old children in their emails as “guests” demonstrates they had dehumanized them, and made them consenting partners to Sandusky’s sexual abuse, rather than children who were terrified to tell. I think they also were able to dehumanize them because they were disposable kids to them, poor, vulnerable, etc. </p>
<p>None of them counted on a strong mother protecting her child. Because they had dehumanized the mothers too, expecting them to ignore their children, or dismiss any reports because the kids after all, were “troubled”.</p>
<p>And none of them counted on Sara Ganim. I do believe part of the problem was this testosterone fueled groupthink.</p>
<p>The other player in this is Pennsylvania’s archaic system/habit of stripping parental rights from parents when a child goes astray. Matt Sandusky’s mom was an approved FOSTER parent, yet the courts stripped her son away from her. Yes he was a troubled kid, set a fire, etc., and I do not profess to be an expert in child delinquency however, it seemed she had absolutely no rights when he was taken away and given right over to Sandusky.</p>
<p>[Jerry</a> Sandusky, adopted son had ‘rocky’ relationship | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/jerry_sandusky_adopted_son_had.html]Jerry”>Jerry Sandusky, adopted son had 'rocky' relationship - pennlive.com)</p>
<p>My point was one can’t just put up a list of scholarship amounts and go see, less for athletic than academic. It’s a much more complicated equation. if yu have twice as much money going for academic scholarships but that is going to ten times as many kids, per student it’s a much lower number.</p>
<p>As for the paterno family, they are making fools of themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An athletic scholarship is actually revenue to the University itself. An academic scholarship is coming out of the University budget. The athletic department is writing a check for millions of dollars every semester to pay the tuition of its student-athletes on scholarship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your basic point is correct, but the situation may be a little more subtle. If the choice is between having a football team and 85 full-paying non-athletes, then the academic side does not receive any more money when there is a football team. In other words, if each football player crowds out a full-payer, then there is not a net revenue increase to the academic side. Of course, bringing in 85 students with merit scholarships would also crowd out full-payers. </p>
<p>Now imagine that there is a football team and it is above the FBS minimum of 77 scholarships but below the maximum of 85. If Willie the walk-on is given a scholarship, that does not impact the academic side. The only difference is that the athletic department is paying for him now instead of his parents. So, the academic side is unaffected, but the athletic side is down in the amont of one scholarship.</p>
<p>samiamy, the article you referenced in post 7829 does not support several of the claims you made. Matt Sandusky was not living with a foster parent prior to living with the Sandusky’s. He was living with his biological mom and the courts in PA moved him into a foster home situation with the Sandusky’s. His adoption by the Sandusky’s was by his own choice/acceptance when he turned 18.</p>
<p>Yes it does support my claims, Matts biological mother was an approved foster parent for other children, but he was taken from her.</p>
<p>[Jerry</a> Sandusky, adopted son had ‘rocky’ relationship | PennLive.com](<a href=“http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/jerry_sandusky_adopted_son_had.html]Jerry”>Jerry Sandusky, adopted son had 'rocky' relationship - pennlive.com)
From the article:
• Long had already been approved to be a foster parent for a nephew who was taken from his home, and after Matt left, she took care of three more. Why was she fit to take care of someone else’s child but not her own?
• In a letter from school-based probation officer, Terry Trude expressed concerns about Matt’s placement with the Sandusky’s, even though he acknowledged that Matt should remain in foster care.
• And a letter in response to concerns made by Long indicates that not all procedures were followed in Matt’s case </p>
<p>Just an added link on one judge and the child welfare and corruption that has been a part of PA past history</p>
<p>[Luzerne</a> Kids-for-Cash Scandal | Juvenile Law Center](<a href=“http://www.jlc.org/current-initiatives/promoting-fairness-courts/luzerne-kids-cash-scandal]Luzerne”>Luzerne "Kids for Cash" Scandal | Juvenile Law Center)
[Judges</a> Accused of Jailing Kids for Cash - ABC News](<a href=“Judges Accused of Jailing Kids for Cash - ABC News”>Judges Accused of Jailing Kids for Cash - ABC News)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you can’t assume all of the 85 non-athletes the football players are “crowding out” would be full-pays. That’s just highly unlikely at a school like Penn State, where a little over half the undergrads receive need-based FA. So it’s more likely that of the 85 who are “crowded out,” about 43 or so would need FA coming from the non-athletic budget. So yes, the academic side is financially better off, because each of those football players is attending on what amounts to a full-ride “external” scholarship, funded by football revenues and not by the university’s general fund.</p>
<p>I’m sure they don’t think about it that way. Nor should they think about it that way. You can’t assume all those 85 scholarship football players wouldn’t have been admitted through the regular admissions process, had they decided not to play football; presumably at least some of them meet normal admission requirements, so it’s not clear they’re “crowding out” anyone. And at a school as big as Penn State, with over 38,000 undergrads, 85 scholarship football players spread over 4 classes represent little more than a rounding error in terms of admissions targets. The “crowding out” phenomenon is actually much more of a real issue at small schools, where it’s not uncommon for recruited athletes to represent 15% to 25% of the undergraduate student body. I suspect at a big school like Penn State, no one in the admissions office ever thinks, “Gosh, we’ve got 25 kids on football scholarships starting this year, so we need to set our non-athletic admissions target with that limitation in mind.” No, not when you’re processing 42,000 applications and accepting 22,000 of them; then those 25 freshmen coming in on football scholarships are not even a blip on the admissions radar. They’re not crowding out anyone. Nor will the NCAA-imposed curtailment of football scholarships to a maximum of 15 per year mean that 10 more non-athlete will be admitted for each of the next 4 years. These numbers are just too trivial for admissions to pay any attention to, one way or the other.</p>
<p>Second mile is dropping it’s probe into who there knew what when. Big surprise.</p>
<p>
They are getting sued into oblivion, I am not surprised that they are devoting all resources to that. Besides, as the NCAA sanctions showed, anything you do can and will be used against you… so why do anything when it is just going to arm those who want to destroy you?</p>
<p>To get rid of the people there who are willing to look the other way while someone rapes little kids??</p>
<p>It seems like that might be something rather important for a charity that deals with children.</p>
<p>Or maybe everyone there in authority knew.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying that without the Freeh Report, no one would ever have found out that Saint Joe was up to his eyeballs in the cover-up? Penn State’s fatal error was belatedly trying to discover the truth, which led to all those nasty sanctions? And that if Second Mile just circles the wagons, maybe they can ride out the storm?</p>
<p>OhioMom is correct; everyone in authority did know. Second Mile was concerned enough about Sandusky as far back as 2008 to end his direct program involvement with children, although some how he was still able to ■■■■■ for Second Mile victims right up until his arrest. Perhaps the concern in '08 was cumulative; they also knew about the 1998 investigation. They knew, and like the top brass at Penn State, they didn’t want to deal with it. But pretending now that this is all a big surprise simply doesn’t pass the laugh test. </p>
<p>And I agree with Naturally. A children’s charity which harbors a pedophile deserves to be destroyed. That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?</p>