The Blue Board

This is from his Polanski's book, "Paterno":

"In 1993, Paterno wrote what the family would sometimes call the “Why I Hate Jerry Sandusky Memo.” In it Paterno complained that Sandusky had stopped recruiting, seemed constantly distracted, had lost his energy for coaching, and was more interested in his charity, The Second Mile. “He would gripe about Jerry all the time,” one family member said."

Paterno was fed up with Sandusky and wanted him gone for awhile. He finally told him that he would never be HC at Penn State because he spent too much time with his charity.

The sanctions didn't happen because of the report. If PSU hadn't hired Freeh, the NCAA would still have taken their pound of flesh. This was the biggest scandal of my lifetime in college athletics, the NCAA wasn't going to stand idly by and say they didn't have jusrisdiction.

Up until the Freeh Report, those around PSU were hearing no sanctions.

so what that you found it odd, louis freeh didnt....

Yes - every page in fact

Here is another summary:

She didn't go in with an open mind. It would take a complete retard to believe that.

Just listened to Jay Paterno on Mike and Mike. Golic went at him pretty hard and you could tell he was annoyed with Paterno rationalizing and justifying Joe and his superior's response to the report from McQueary. Paterno kept saying, "According to PA law at the time, Joe did what was required." Golic asked him, as a parent, if he thought in hindsight Joe and PSU did enough to help that kid, and the turd wouldn't even answer that question.

I don't think what went on, cover-up or not, deserved sanctions. It wasn't a football issue. The sanctions were a reaction to the sensationlistic nature of what was being alleged. But listening to this guy refusing to concede that anybody did anything wrong, constantly pointing to the benefit of hindsight, is not something I want to hear on the radio.

Nobody?

I think that the issue at hand is whether Paterno covered this up or not. I myself have an issue with him not taking MM straight to police, but what he did is legal and "correct" per PA state law. So putting that to the side (since he followed proper protocal), did he cover this up? There isn't anything that points to that.

Sooo... I'm not saying your mind should change, but this needs to be put in a perspective. If what he did was merely kick the information up to his superiors, that is not the most terrible thing in the world... not even close. It is disappointing, but not heinous. It was a very poor choice.

You mean someone who took the time out to read the report and not become a sucker to national media sensationalism.

Well, there is the rub. Morallity is ultimately subjective. Even your definition of a coverup is subjective.

I think we can all agree that there has been no evidence that Paterno actively sought to conceal information. If he wanted, he could have just told MM to not worry about it and held the information to himself.

It all comes down to what makes the most sense to you. To me, what makes the most sense (based off of his history of disdain for Sandusky and the lack of evidence pointing otherwise) is that Paterno simply did not want to deal with this situation. He didn't cover anything up, but he didn't want to spend a great deal of time over something that frankly was not his problem. He was not the witness nor the perp.

Again, I am disappoitned that he decided to take the info to his bosses instead of the police, but since he followed state law, how upset should I be? That I am not sure. It seems, based on all the evidence, that I should be way more upset with Curley, Schultz and Spanier (Schultz in particular). McQueary as well since he witnessed the event. Joe Paterno is all below them, in terms of blame, IMO. Unless someone will find concrete evidence showing that Paterno actively conspired to cover this up, that is where I am at.

Please. Knight was a huge Paterno supporter, then turned on him after the Freeh report came out, and now he's back to supporting him. He changes his stance any time something even semi-authoritative comes out about the situation.

Don't act like Phil Knight is somehow enlightened because he happens to agree with your personal view of the situation.

First of all, he did not have that detailed description of what happened. That is an established fact that everyone agrees on. Secondly, the only reason you think that a 75 year old man had that much power at that time is because he is the only face you saw on TV. He was the only name you heard about. It's curious that people believe that he ran everything at PSU and in SC... he could barely run the football program at that point (and frankly, he was not doing a very good job at that point in his career).