gyea36;1227114 wrote:It drives me nuts to hear from the media that Penn State gained no competitive advantage. Of course they did. They maintained their pristine image and were allowed to keep a coach that was good in a strategic sense on staff. Stability is very important in college football. The stability and image enabled recruiting and probably enabled millions of dollars through donations, sponsorship, and media contracts. They have to get hit hard.
That's the exact part that I have a difficult time wrapping my head around, only for different reasons than you. If Paterno actually knew firsthand -- or believed, which in my view Paterno chose not to -- that Sandusky was in fact sodomizing children on campus on a regular basis, he could have just gone to the police himself and there would have been zero penalty to him. In fact, in light of helping bring a serial predator to justice, Paterno would have been recognized as an even bigger hero and humanitarian than he already is.
Penn State would have had way more to lose by arranging a coverup than they had to gain. The only thing they would have gained by a coverup is escaping the embarrassment of Sandusky in the news. That would have eventually faded from memory, though, since no other parties were involved in Sanusky's activities, so the idea of a grand coverup just seems pointless. It doesn't make any sense. I think what Paterno, Shultz and Curley are most guilty of is pure negligence and not treating the matter as serious as they should have (i.e. misconstruing Mike McQueary's story as a mix-up).