Skip to main content

Last year, the NCAA dropped the hammer on Penn State after several of its top leaders were revealed to have been complicit in covering up former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky's rampant abuse of children.  It handed down some of the most severe sanctions ever imposed on a football program--including some pretty draconian scholarship reductions.  Penn State was only allowed to offer 40 scholarships until 2017, and during that same time was limited to a total of 65 scholarship players--the same number as a I-AA team.  But late Tuesday, the NCAA announced Penn State will gradually top up to a full complement of football scholarships.

The Lions are getting some of their scholarships back, beginning next year.

And that will make Penn State a much more competitive program in the near future.

Penn State is now allowed to offer 20 scholarships in 2014 instead of 15. And the NCAA announced it will restore an additional five scholarships the following year, 2015, putting PSU at the full allocation of 25 per season.

In addition, the NCAA is allowing PSU to be at 75 scholarship players in 2014-2015, meaning the Lions will be back to 85 scholarship players by 2016-2017.

Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who was appointed as athletics integrity monitor by the NCAA, recommended that Penn State get its scholarships back because it has fully implemented the recommendations in the Freeh report.  And apparently there's talk that Penn State could have its four-year bowl ban reduced as well.

In just about any other circumstance, the NCAA would be justified in granting some form of leniency.  But this wasn't just a case of point-shaving or academic fraud.  We're talking about a fundamental violation of basic standards of decency--putting the image of a football program above protecting children.  And this wasn't just a decision made in the football office.  This was a decision made at the highest levels of Penn State--all the way up to former president Graham Spanier.  Plus, I have to wonder--did Mitchell or anyone at the NCAA consult with the victims of Sandusky's rampage before coming to this decision?  Not only that, but a federal criminal probe of this matter is still well underway last time I checked, as well as an Education Department investigation into possible Clery Act violations.

I know what the NCAA is trying to do--minimize the damage to players for a decision that was made when they were in elementary and middle school.  But as draconian as the original sanctions were, they were more than justified in light of the outrageous decision to cover the tracks of a child predator.  Seen in this light, the NCAA should have let the original scholarship reductions stick at least until the criminal probe was completed.

Originally posted to House of LIGHTS on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 07:33 AM PDT.

Also republished by DKos Pennsylvania.

Poll

Was the NCAA's decision to let Penn State have its scholarships back ...

33%22 votes
53%35 votes
12%8 votes

| 65 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  THAT'LL TEACH 'EM (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Delevie, bear83, trumpeter

    that crime does pay.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 07:37:06 AM PDT

  •  so, the question is................ (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaktidurga, rhauenstein

    how can the guilty be punished, without punishing the innocent as well?

    I'm sure the very bright people involved could come up with a solution to that.  Perhaps even a poetic one.


    I'm not an athiest. How can you not believe in something that doesn't exist? That's way too convoluted for me. - A. Whitney Brown

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 07:38:20 AM PDT

    •  the players are an excuse (7+ / 0-)

      they could be allowed to transfer without penalty, and any schools that take them could be allowed freebies on scholarship limits.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 07:56:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that happened (5+ / 0-)

        They lost 15 students:

        With the NCAA issuing sanctions unlike any other punishment in collegiate athletic history to Penn State on Monday, current players now have a choice to make.

        Players can stay at Penn State — the school to which they originally pledged — and not be bowl eligible for the next four seasons or transfer to another school and have a shot at a championship....

        There will be no penalty on any Penn State player who decides to transfer. Players will be immediately able to play at another school if they leave Penn State, as long as they are otherwise eligible....

        The NCAA also suspended Penn State’s permission-to-contact rules. Penn State is now not in any way allowed to restrict a player from possibly transferring....

        A Penn State student will be able to transfer somewhere for the upcoming season, even if that school has already reached its scholarship maximum. Schools may still give a scholarship to the Penn State player if they reduce their number of scholarships back down to the maximum number for the next season.

        •  yeah (0+ / 0-)

          although the schools taking them in didn't get the free pass on scholarship limits. the question now is whether penn state will remain suspended from bowls for four years. my guess is no.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 08:52:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not a completely free pass (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laurence Lewis

            More like a one-year exemption.

            The bowl thing is big, because PSU has the kind of alumni base which sells out the ticket allocation and makes these things profitable for the schools. Moreover, as to its share of last year's Big Ten bowl revenue...

            Twelve Big Ten schools, including Penn State, each have been given a portion of what would have been Penn State's football bowl revenues from the past season to distribute to child-focused causes they deem appropriate.

            Officials in the Big Ten Conference are providing $188,344 to each university to donate to a local organization of their choice, whose primary focus is on protecting children and advocacy on behalf of children. The money for each school represents one-twelfth of the revenue Penn State would have earned during the 2013 bowl season -- a total of nearly $2.3 million -- had the Nittany Lions been allowed to participate.

            Penn State was banned from 2013 bowl game participation as part of Big Ten sanctions that were handed down following the investigation of child sexual abuse by former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky. The NCAA also banned the Nittany Lions football program from competing in postseason play for four years and imposed a series of penalties and corrective actions.  

            Penn State has opted to channel its funds through the Centre County United Way with instructions to split the money equally between the Stewards of Children program and the Children's Advocacy Center.

  •  if it had been recruiting violations (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, a2nite, wintergreen8694

    they wouldn't have gotten leniency. the penn state football program, and now the ncaa itself, is forever soiled. it's despicable.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 07:51:26 AM PDT

    •  They might have, actually (0+ / 0-)

      I think back to the SMU football case in 1987.  The NCAA was ready to shut down the football program for two years, and apparently didn't do so only because the school cleaned house.

      •  it was shut down for one year (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jayden, terrybuck, VClib, a2nite, Adam B, Delevie

        and it lost all home games for another. the scholarship losses were huge. the program never recovered.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 08:05:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The way I read the infraction report (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JGibson

          the NCAA was seriously thinking about a full death penalty--which would have meant a two-year shutdown.  Plus, several committee members said the program was completely out of control.  So SMU really caught a break due to its cooperation--the only reason it sat out a second year was that there was no way it could field a competitive team.

          •  and penn state's program (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jayden, terrybuck, a2nite, burlydee

            was completely out of control. it was protecting a child molester. its penalties are now trivial compared to smu's penalties. because that's the ncaa's values.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 08:10:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is a fundamental difference here (0+ / 0-)

              I am not going to argue the question of morality here.

              The key difference between SMU and Penn State, for better or for worse, is that while what Sandusky did was monstrous, it had nothing to do with giving the team an unfair advantage on the field, and giving the team the death penalty would have punished far too many people who did absolutely nothing to deserve it.

              I would be more inclined to argue that the death penalty should never be invoked against any team than that it should be invoked against Penn State.

              We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

              by Samer on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:21:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pedo State will keep that reputation then (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Laurence Lewis

                IMHO the entire football program shoudl have been permanently disbanded.

                But the truth is, that At Penn State and its fans and boosters, Football is more important than children.

                We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

                by ScrewySquirrel on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:34:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Couldn't you say the same thing about SMU? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wintergreen8694, Laurence Lewis

                "giving the team the death penalty would have punished far too many people who did absolutely nothing to deserve it."

                The cover-up did give PSU an advantage on the field.  Had the truth came out sooner, perhaps some of those star recruits would have gone elsewhere.  The whole reason for the cover up was to maintain an on-field advantage.  If Sandusky has been a professor instead of the defensive coordinator, they would have turned him in a second.

                This isn't just about what Sandusky did.  Its also about what PSU covered up and what senior administration officials allowed to continue.  

                •  Which is why I said I'm not inclined to see the (0+ / 0-)

                  death penalty used at all.

                  Couldn't you say the same thing about SMU? (0+ / 0-)
                  "giving the team the death penalty would have punished far too many people who did absolutely nothing to deserve it."

                  We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

                  by Samer on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 10:07:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  the players could have gone elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

                the fans needed- and many still need- a wake-up call.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 01:30:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Well, maybe not. (0+ / 0-)

      Recruiting violations touch on the integrity of college sports, which is the NCAA's legitimate bailiwick.  What they're doing in this case is outside their bailiwick...they're acting, kind of tenuously, as an agent of society's outrage.  Which I'm OK with but it does limit their ability to be totally bulldog-punitive about it.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:01:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have very mixed feelings about this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, wintergreen8694, shaktidurga

    I firmly believe that the ones responsible should pay, and pay dearly.  

    But the current students and athletes are not the ones responsible, and they are sometimes the ones who "pay."  

    I remember what happened with U.S.C. (partially  because Reggie Bush was playing for the Saints at the time).  Essentially, almost all of the penalty fell on people who had nothing to do with the wrongdoing.  

    I think a middle ground may be to reinstate scholarships, ability to go to playoffs, etc., only AFTER the university has proven that IT has taken sufficient action with respect to the wrongdoers, such as demonstrating (1) that it has cooperated fully with law enforcement and with the NCAA investigations; (2) that anyone who had anything to do with the wrongdoing (including administration who may have looked the other way) is gone, and that the university is seeking whatever remedies against them that are allowed under their contracts and the law.   And then the NCAA and law enforcement can also go after the wrongdoers themselves.  

  •  Over (1) year with no child rape! (7+ / 0-)

    We are... PENN STATE!

    Clearly they've learned their lesson, and hey - there's money to be made! Let's get our priorities straight, right?

    I'm not locked up in here with you. YOU'RE locked up in here with ME.

    by Fordmandalay on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 08:10:22 AM PDT

  •  I honestly see both sides of this (6+ / 0-)

    It's a difficult decision.

  •  It would be moot to me. (0+ / 0-)

    I'd never even want to be associated with that school -- especially in athletics.  I mean I'd feel badly for the good people there and from there, but it is what it is.

    Warren/3-D Print of Warren in 2016!

    by dov12348 on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 08:57:13 AM PDT

  •  To me the bigger, or biggest, question (5+ / 0-)

    is why jurisdiction is left to the NCAA in first place.

    An organization, btw, that has long since outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any to start with).

    •  The NCAA's line was that since Spanier (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, sturunner

      apparently opted not to report the abuse at Paterno's behest, it was the ultimate breakdown of institutional control.  And from the looks of it, it opted not to wait until the criminal probe ran its course because by all rights, Paterno should have been fired if not after the 1998 incident, then certainly in 2002.  These are mostly university presidents--and apparently they hit the ceiling when they discovered that failure to report child abuse wasn't a firing offense.

      •  That's peripheral, I think, to my point (0+ / 0-)

        which was that the scholarships should have been stripped by the university administration, or barring that, by state or federal courts (whoever has jurisdiction, I'm not really up on that, I assume it would be at the state level).

        Even now, the university administration should have the good/common sense not to implement the restored scholarships - they * do * have that option right?  The point here being that the NCAA isn't so omnipotent as to be able to force a school to provide football scholarships??  or are they

      •  Paterno DID report the conversation he had (0+ / 0-)

        with McQuery to the appropriate people, per the law.  he also arranged the meeting for McQuery and the Penn St. administrators.  He was never charged.  Also, the investigating lawyer just weeks ago stated he saw no proof that Paterno was involved in a cover up.  But hey, don't let the facts get in the way a good story that involves a famous guy.

  •  It all goes together, though (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer

    The scholarships make the program competitive to the point where it can pay $60 million.  It's precisely because Penn State's offences were against decency rather than against the integrity of college sports (sic!) that it's appropriate to focus on the monetary penalties rather than football-competitiveness penalties.  It would have been much weirder, in an impunity-promoting way, if the NCAA had reduced the fine but kept the scholarship restrictions.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 08:58:25 AM PDT

    •  I'm a childhood rape survivor--my maternal grand- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA, taffers

      father was a deacon & a serial pedophile.  I've written about the issues involved professionally (a while back.)

      I think that those in the administration of the team, the athletic department, in the university--including the board should have all been fired and those in the direct line of  responsibility should personally face the most severe civil & criminal sanctions.

      I don't think that punishing the football team & the University as a whole however does anything to help survivors.  Instead, it makes us a target for the yahoos who support their teams unconditionally.

      As survivors we have enough enemies:  the RCC, the Southern baptists, extreme Orthodox sects (see New York,) insurance companies, the pedophile lobby & so on.

      To change the cultural dynamics of this issue, we need to target the perpetrators & their (institutional) enablers.  

      We need the rest of society, & yes, the rest of the Penn State community on our side.

      Discussion anyone?    

      "Get in the way. Create chaos. Cause trouble. " "On global warming there is no more time to change the Overton Window. We have to break it."

      by sturunner on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:34:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think the Freeh report identified... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sturunner, shaktidurga, Mila18

        ...anyone beyond one guy who's dead and two who are on trial as people who could have prevented even the most recent of the attacks by Sandusky.  The wider circle, including the Board and the in-house counsel, would be people who found out long after the last attack and failed to discipline not Sandusky (which they wouldn't have been able to do, as a long-departed former employee) but rather those three other people.  There's no provision to fire the Board.  Even the state can't do that, not the the state is exempt from scrutiny for the years of inaction by the Attorney General's office.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:52:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  do not punish the kids (5+ / 0-)

    these students and upcoming high school kids were not around when this monstrosity was going on.  To punish the athletes for what the administration and coaches were doing was wrong.  

      this was like the teabaggers, punish everyone for what a few were doing

    sometimes the dragon wins

    by kathy in ga on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:01:33 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it punishes students... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      ...to say Penn State isn't an option for you because there's no scholarship for you.  There are lots of football schools.  The NCAA was careful not to reduce scholarships in a way that would impact any student already on scholarship.  The case for reducing the scholarship sanctions is that there's no longer any point to them, rather than that they were unfair to students.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:04:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, we know what is important to NCAA (0+ / 0-)

    and Penn St. Money is more important than people.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:14:51 AM PDT

  •  This how we let money-filled corporations (0+ / 0-)

    deal with their problems in the U.S. - pay off the victims and sweep the problems under the rug.  There are two types of justice in America, one for the little people and one for the big people.  

  •  I keep wondering when the trial for the former (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sturunner

    President of Penn State, the former Athletic Director ,  and the former Head of Campus Security and Police is going to happen. It keeps getting delayed.

    But they are all going to trial for perjury and various other criminal charges.  

    Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

    by wishingwell on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:21:22 AM PDT

  •  Sickening (0+ / 0-)

    While I would have preferred the death penalty for the PSU program for at least a year, I grudgingly accepted the NCAA fines/restrictions.  Now they're easing up on those?   Sandusky's victims weren't so lucky.  

    The Girl Who Loved Stories
    I’m a feminist because the message is still "don’t get raped" not "don’t rape"

    by Avilyn on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:51:42 AM PDT

  •  Pardon me, but what NCAA bylaws (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taffers, MGross, Mila18

    . . . did Penn State violate? I never knew that Sandusky's crimes, as horrific as they were, fell under the purview of NCAA rules. By imposing sanctions on Penn State over this affair, the NCAA essentially arrogated the power to issue any punishment for any reason, whether or not its actual rules were violated. It's kind of like a judge saying to a defendant, "I can't find any laws that you violated, but you're an all-around despicable person so I'm going to sentence you to four years in prison nonetheless".

  •  Penn State should have had the death penalty (0+ / 0-)

    In the 80s there was a massive cheating scandal at SMU - where, you know, they did all sorts of things to cheat, but, you know, no children got molested...

    They were given a death penalty for their football program.

    Seems like PSU should have suffered at least this fate - been booted from the Big 10, and made to rebuild 10 years from now.

    ALL those players could have transferred.  And all those boosters who, sniff, won't have big time football to watch on Saturdays, sniff, I feel so bad -

    I mean, losing your football, its almost like being raped by a guy three times your size.

    •  To be honest... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      taffers, MGross

      If you read the NCAA bylaws, issuing sanctions for this type of conduct is really outside of what the NCAA is supposed to be regulating.  Sure you can shoehorn these horrific actions into some of the catchall program integrity type provisions, but the NCAA's attempt to step in here was unprecedented (mostly because there hadn't been a widely reported incident like this). If they had given Penn State the death penalty, the university absolutely would have fought those sanctions and, from my understanding of the situation and what I've read, probably would have won. A declaration that this was outside the ambit of the NCAA's regulatory arm would have meant that there would have been NO sanctions against Penn State football. None.

      But by going for these lesser sanctions, the NCAA got Penn State to waive the right to challenge these penalties and ensured that there would be some kind of penalty for the program as a whole. And I have no doubt that part of getting them to agree to all this was some agreement that, if they did everything that they were asked, there would be a possibility of revisiting some of these sanctions. It may not be a formal, written agreement, but I'll guarantee you it was out there in some form.

      •  You are 100% correct. Penn St made this deal (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, MGross, Mila18, pdkesq

        with the NCAA.  Even though many of the "facts" of the case were still being evaluated, the pressure form the media and country forced both the NCAA's and Penn St's hand.  It would have been much wiser for all involved to allow the investigation and court cases to take place before rendering judgment on everyone/everything.  If it is proven that these men really did cover up for Sandusky in order to protect the football program then they can drop the hammer on them.  But at this time there are still way too many questions and this has not been remotely proven.

        The NCAA and Penn St panicked and reacted to all of the mounting pressure from many who knew nothing about the facts of this case.

  •  It amazes me still that the only "penalities" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mila18

    associated with this horrific event occurred to a college football team.  How was/is one child any safer in Pa because of sanctions to Penn St. football.  A state and its child protective agencies allowed Sandusky, in over a 30 yr period,; to adopt 6 children; placed over 20 foster children in his home; and start/found a children's foundation that put him in contact with 1000's of "troubled youth's". A foundation that placed Sandusky firmly in the middle of people who were supposedly trained and educated to detect abuse and grooming.

    Where are the numerous background checks?  Home visit reports? Exit interviews? Where were the parents, teachers and family doctors during this supposed 30 years of abuse?  At different points though out the years, different children complained about Sandusky to different people, with no results.  But, somehow a football coach and a football program are the ones most at fault.  It seems as though the ones most responsible to protect children missed everything and yet, we have not heard a word as to how this will be fixed.

    While I think that Paterno and the rest of the Penn St administration missed signs, I personally don't believe they intentionally allowed Sandusky to continue to abuse children simply to protect a football program that didn't need protected.  Even now, Penn St is doing fairly well, even with being associated with this tragedy. Those involved would have known the football program would be ok if this came out in 2002.  But instead we are made to believe these men risked their lives and reputations to protect a pedophile, and knowingly leave him out there to continue to rape.  I have read every bit of evidence and just don't see it.  Others obviously disagree.

    I want the children to Pa to finally be safe.  But the only way to do that is to fix the problems of the state's children's protective agencies.  Scholarship reductions and bowl bans did absolutely nothing to protect one child.  But hey, at least they got a pound of flesh from a famous person and a football program.  That will certainly stop the next pedophile from slipping through the cracks.

  •  The only person found guilty at this point has (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mila18

    been Sandusky.  No other person associated with Penn St has had a day inside a court room, with the ability to tell their side of the story.  At SMU, many people came forward and admitted they were part of the cheating and payouts.

    The investigating lawyer just stated he saw nothing that indicated Paterno was part of any cover up.  Maybe, just maybe, we should wait until all the facts are made clear before finding everyone guilty.  Oh wait;  we only do that around here in certain circumstances.

    There are plenty of questions that have not been answered.  Already, many of the early reports that so many believed have been proven untrue.  Isn't it possible there is more to come?  I mean, we have seen a few over zealous prosecutions from time to time that the media has hyped without all the facts.

  •  Pound 'em when folks are looking, then relent (0+ / 0-)

    when the spotlight's off? I wondered how long all the punitive measures would last.

    To today's "libertarians," truth is a moving target.

    by 1BQ on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 12:27:43 PM PDT

  •  There was a coverup, but not by these three (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taffers

    Based on the assistant coach's initial "horseplay" report, I think the three administrators thought they were taking strong steps by banning Sandusky from taking Second Mile kids onto campus. (I do think Schultz, the one who knew about the 1998 incident, should have been more aware, but I don't think it was criminal.)

    Since no Second Mile kids were allowed on campus since 2001, there was no way for anyone involved with Penn State to know about any more abuse. (All the victims who testified at the Sandusky trial were molested BEFORE 2001 when McQueary made his vague report.

    The real coverup started later during the grand jury hearings and involved:

    a) Gov. Corbett, who as state attorney general allowed the Sandusky investigation to drag on, in order to protect the state agencies that screwed up -- Child Youth Services and Dept. of Public Welfare -- and the Second Mile (which contributed thousands of dollars to his campaign for governor). Corbett also controlled one-third of the appointments to the Penn State Board of Trustees.

    b) A few members of the Penn State board of trustees (the "business and industry" appointees who had ties to the Second Mile (and allowed the group to purchase land from PSU for pennies on the dollar). They included Merck CEO Ken Frazier, who used Louis Freeh's law firm to defend Merck in the Vioxx scandal) and U.S. Steel's John Surma (who held a vendetta against Joe Paterno over a nephew who was on the football team for one year but did not play.) Both of these men also stood to profit from Corbett's fracking plans.

    By the way, Freeh was presented to the public as an "independent" investigator with no ties to Penn State. Freeh, appointed by Frazier, was a former vice president and general counsel for MBNA -- the No. 1 corporate sponsor of Second Mile.

    So lots of people and organizations had a good reason to pin everything on an old football coach and a few expendable administrators. I hope they go to trial so we can maybe find out what really happened. I don't think the prosecutors have much to go on -- just three out-of-context emails, one of which titled "Jerry" was about former basketball coach Jerry Dunn, not Jerry Sandusky.

    •  Well stated Mila18... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mila18

      Sadly, most opinions on this case were formed in the early weeks when the media and certain Penn St officials and Pennsylvania state officials forced a certain narrative.  From that point on too many in the media and state of Pa. had committed themselves to one story and refused to let all the facts come out.  The reason the NCAA is backing off is because the Paterno family has sued.  They realize the initial story and the Freeh report are being discredited every day.  It wouldn't surprise me to see the rest of the sanctions lifted by next year in order to avoid a trial.  No one in the media (minus Bob Costas) or at the NCAA will admit they destroyed a man's reputation for headlines but will simply congratulate the NCAA for showing mercy on Penn St and congratulate Penn St for changing its ways.  This whole thing has stunk to high hell from day 1.  And you are right;  Corbett, 2nd Mile, state protective services, Freeh and certain PSU board members have some explaining to due.  But I doubt the media will ever pursue any of it.  If the truth came out, it would make them all look horrible.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site