Joe Paterno: How His Ego Tarnished His Legacy and the Image of Penn State

Just a few short weeks ago, the name Joe Paterno resonated with not only Penn State fans, but with fans of college football. He seemed untouchable; his image represented the epitome of consistency, passion and dedication. His players loved him, his university trusted him immensely, and the state of Pennsylvania revered him.

When the Jerry Sandusky story broke, Paterno’s unblemished image was forever tarnished. The story has been well documented. A graduate assistant named Mike McQueary was an eye-witness to Sandusky acting inappropriately with a young boy in the shower.

According to his story, he went to meet with Paterno, who then relayed the message to his superiors. The police were not involved.

This event happened back in 2002, yet Sandusky was still allowed to work with The Second Mile charity. Penn State University even accepted $250,000 to allow The Second Mile to use its facilities from 2008-2009. Long after Sandusky mysteriously retired, Paterno still welcomed him at Penn State football practices.

A disturbing story has just emerged concerning Paterno and the way he wanted his Penn State football players to be treated.

Former Penn State student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey told The Wall Street Journal that football players were treated "more favorably than other students accused of violating the community standards as defined by the student code of conduct."

Paterno requested that any violation by a football player, whether it was a legal issue or an issue with the student code, be kept within the Penn State community and not be made public. In addition, Paterno insisted that if one of his players broke a law/code, he should be in charge of punishing the player.

Paterno even requested that the disciplinary committee not be involved. Former AD Tim Curley also admitted that Paterno believed it was his prerogative to decide if a player who had been found guilty of breaking a law/code should play or not.

This egotistical behavior should immediately raise a red flag. The details of Paterno’s knowledge of the alleged actions by Sandusky are unknown; however this is an indicator of Paterno’s thought process, and how he could influence the university as a whole.

Paterno was trying to create a bubble around his team. He believed that a player who had broken a law or a university rule should be dealt with privately.

Can we be sure that he treated the Sandusly situation the same way? Of course not.

Is it a possibility? Absolutely.

Unfortunately, the real tragedy here is that victims have gotten lost in this mess. Sandusky’s actions have transcended football, and Penn State fans could not understand this at first. The riot at Penn State was irresponsible and completely oblivious to the suffering of the victims.

Paterno’s notoriety will go down with Tiger Woods’ as possibly the most widespread and fastest fall from fame in sports history. The tenure, the wins and the relationships take a backseat to what really matters: how Sandusky’s alleged actions were allowed to continue for so long.

Paterno’s ego was a product of his unprecedented tenure at Penn State, the records he had broken/the new ones he had set, and the power (perhaps too much) that the university gave to him.

It also ultimately led to his downfall.