I'm not defending McQueary, just trying to get a fair perspective in trying to understand his reaction. It's clear he did nothing to protect the child in that moment. Read Pennsylvania's OP in the thread "Just a Few Thoughts on the Great Institution that is Penn State". I'm trying to understand McQueary's reaction, not defend it. Unlike LSU which has seen 9 or 10 coaching changes in the Joe Pa tenure, Penn State is a totally different situation. McQueary grew up in State College, played there, coached there....Sandusky was a father figure, an institution, an icon. I'm trying to image the shock that McQueary must have experienced. He had to be shaken to the core. His whole world must have felt like it was crumbling. To me, McQueary's greatest moral failure is in the aftermath when he saw that Joe Pa and the rest of the PSU authority structure did nothing with the information he provided. Whether he felt pressured, was pressured, was paid off, threatened into silence, yada, yada, yada...in the end he did the same thing Joe Pa and rest of PSU family - nothing. He should be fired along with the entire football staff.
Because NCAA rules were broken that gave USC an edge, obviously. Not because of legal troubles at the school.
I assume that the NCAA has some sort of "Code of Conduct", which I would also assume was violated. But the NCAA usually sticks to ruling on violations that actually affect what happens within the realm of college sports. What we have here (at PSU) is a reprehensible act that happened to be performed by a football coach. The act had nothing to do with the PSU football program. The NCAA is not likely to say, "you know, Coach Sandusky going to jail for 20 years won't be enough. We need to ban him from coaching as well." PSU is going to suffer a major black eye from this, especially if the allegations mentioned in another thread, about Sandusky allegedly pimping out kids to boosters, turn out to be true. The NCAA won't have to do anything to them, public opinion will take care of it.
I did, post #47 before his. You're slippin AGAIN. What I posted was essentially what he did. See the connection now?
Irrelevant in the scope of your logic as for why it should NOT happen. NCAA or not, fact is current coaches/players are held accountable for the actions of even single persons who were there before them and left before they arrived. If you don't get it this time I quit.
“Dude, what NCAA regulation was broken? That's all that they have the authority to regulate.” http://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/instctl.pdf "CONTROL" IS DEFINED IN COMMON-SENSE TERMS. In a case where proper procedures exist and are appropriately enforced, especially when they result in the prompt detection, investigation and reporting of the violations in question, there may be no lack of institutional control although the individual or individuals directly involved may be held responsible. C. ACTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. 2. A person with compliance responsibilities does not take steps to alter the system of compliance when there are indications the system is not working. If a system of control is in place, a single deviation by a member of the athletics staff or a representative of the institution's athletics interests will not be considered a lack of institutional control. However, if there are a number of violations, even if they all are minor, indicating that the compliance system is not operating effectively, the person(s) responsible cannot ignore the situation, but must take steps to correct the compliance system. 4. Compliance duties are assigned to a subordinate who lacks sufficient authority to have the confidence or respect of others. A supervisor may be acting in good faith when assigning responsibility for compliance to an athletics department secretary, or a student intern, or to someone who does not have stature in the organization. Nevertheless, that very action often makes it appear that the institution is not serious about compliance. If coaches, alumni, boosters and others do not respect the person responsible, they may well ignore that individual. Violations that occur may then be considered the result of a lack of institutional control. 6. The institution fails to make clear that any individual involved in its intercollegiate athletics program has a duty to report any perceived violations of NCAA rules and can do so without fear of reprisals of any kind. Compliance is everyone's obligation. Loyalty to one's coworkers, student-athletes, or athletics boosters cannot take precedence over loyalty to the institution and its commitment to comply with NCAA rules. There is a lack of institutional control if individuals are afraid to report violations because they have reason to fear that if they make such a report there will be negative consequences.
We have a serial rapist and an institution that hid it for years and some of you want the corrupt NCAA who worries about condiments to muddle into the investigation. To paraphrase Obama, this is way above their pay grade.
