5 Ways Penn State Has Protected Joe Paterno

For the past week, the sports world has been engulfed in possibly the worst scandal in its history.

The Penn State sex abuse scandal goes beyond extra benefits, point shaving, illegal betting, performance enhancing drugs or any other type of "scandal" usually associated with sports, either amateur or professional.  This scandal involves the worst crime in humanity, the rape and abuse of children.  

I have always been a Joe Paterno fan. Growing up in Ohio, I remember Penn State's two national championships. When Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1993 and started competing against Ohio State, it became the Buckeyes' second most important rivalry game of the year.

When the story first broke, I gave Paterno the benefit of the doubt. He reported it to his immediate supervisor, so he should be allowed to coach the rest of the season. However, after reading the indictment, and as more information came out in this story, Paterno had to go immediately. His culpability is now in question more than ever.

Many feel that, by firing Paterno, the Board of Trustees have made Paterno the scapegoat. However, the opposite is true. I believe Penn State protected Paterno from the beginning of this scandal, and firing him continues to do so. If you are following this story as a sports fan, news junkie, outraged citizen or casual observer, and haven't already done so, READ THE INDICTMENT! Yes, it is shocking. Yes, it is explicit. Yes, they are only allegations at this point. But it will change your perspective on this case immediately. 

Paterno's Knowledge of Shower Incident

Paterno testified that he was told that Sandusky was "doing something of a sexual nature with a young boy." Do you believe that McQueary, who testified in explicit detail in a grand jury proceeding nine years after witnessing the alleged sodomy of the minor, failed to tell Paterno the details the day after the incident? 

I believe Paterno minimized his knowledge of the incident to the grand jury, and no one contradicted his testimony, not Mike McQueary, not Tim Curley and not Gary Schultz. 

Paterno's Reporting of Incident to Supervisor

Paterno was informed about the Sandusky shower incident the day after it allegedly happened, but waited until the next day before informing his immediate supervisor, Tim Curley. I don't know about you, but if I became aware of a child allegedly being raped by an adult at my place of business, I wouldn't wait until the next day to tell anyone. 

That is wake-you-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night-phone-call-type news.

The time of the meeting between Paterno and Curley wasn't stated in the indictment. Was there some form of damage control between McQueary's meeting with Paterno and Paterno's meeting with Curley?

Penn State's Response to Paterno's Notifcation

Paterno was not present at the meeting between McQueary, Curley and Schultz.

If Paterno was so concerned about the integrity of his program, the abuse of the child and the fact an alleged child molester was walking around amongst his program, why didn't he attend the meeting with Curley and Schultz over approximately a week and a half later?

While Paterno did not witness the alleged incident, how could Paterno not be at that meeting? There is no reason for Paterno not to be at that meeting. Paterno should have been there for the following reasons:

1. To protect McQueary. Paterno should have been there to support his former player and then graduate assistant in telling this awful story to university administrators.

2. The buck stops with Paterno. Paterno is the most important figure at Penn State University. Not just on the football team, not just in the athletic department, but the university as a whole. Paterno was the larger than life person at Penn State, not Curley or Schultz. This occurred within his program, and he should have been involved in handling the situation. His program would not have remained squeaky clean if he didn't oversee every detail of the program.

I can't believe for a second that Paterno didn't want to be at that meeting, as this was a problem in his program. It suggests that Paterno was insulated and given deniability of the facts of the shower allegation involving Sandusky and the young boy.  

Jerry Sandusky's Continued Presence on Campus

According to the report, Sandusky was no longer allowed to bring children into the football facilities, as decided by Curley and Schultz. McQueary was notified of this decision, but the report does not make clear if Paterno was.

However, one has to think that if Sandusky faced enforceable restrictions on campus, that story would have gotten around in the small town of State College, PA. This type of story would quickly become the hot topic in the local media there.

This incident had to be resolved quietly and discreetly.

Paterno's Attempt to Speak with the Media

After the scandal broke, Paterno was not afraid to address the media. However, Penn State was very afraid of Paterno addressing the media. 

Because of Paterno's status in the community and the goodwill that he has accumulated over the decades, Paterno was willing to speak to the media to tell his side of the story. However, there were significant ramifications for Paterno, and Penn State knew it.  When Paterno stated, "I wish I had done more," his fate was sealed.

Paterno might have opened himself and the university up to liability that could potentially cost the university millions of dollars in legal fees and civil judgments and settlements with alleged abuse victims. 

At this point, Paterno had to go because Penn State could no longer afford him to be a representative of the university for their sake and Paterno's.