Paterno is all but done. The Harrisburg and Pittsburgh papers are calling for his resignation.

It's reportedly in the works per some reports.

I know that this is in poor taste, and I don't want to have fun at kids expense, but this is too good to pass up.

If an older woman that chases younger men is called a "cougar", would an old man that chases young boys be called a "Nittany Lion"?

Let's get this timeline clear. In '98, Sandusky is investigated by campus and state authorities. Even though he implicated himself during an intercepted telephone communication, charges were not brought. A year later, he's able to get a retirement package (no silly jokes please) that includes unfettered access to athletic facilities and professor emeritus status.

Let's get that timeline straight and consider the implications.

I'll even laugh at that one because there is no way Ohio State would ever allow it. Ohio's research reputation would be at the very bottom of the Big Ten. Even the ACC is out of the question because of academics. Every school in the ACC is rated above Ohio except NC State and FSU. The Big XII though is a different story with WVU rated below OU in most rankings. WVU didn't have the academics to cut it in the ACC but was fine enough for the Big XII. Penn State leaving the Big Ten is inconceivable unless they continue to break the law. They'll clean the house of the athletics administration and clear out the Paterno staff. The next coach will have no prior Penn State connections. The NCAA won't impose a death penalty but I could see a bowl ban from this until the legal issues are sorted through.

I guess, to me, the question comes down to what role the person in question, who oversaw the campus police, normally took. In this case he apparently personally conducted the investigation, and decided not to pursue it. Is this the only time he ever personally conducted an investigation? Or, did he do so fairly often in major cases? If this was the only time he ever personally conducted an investigation, it adds to the appearance of a cover up. If he often personally investigated major charges, the appearance is exactly the opposite. If it wasn't unusual for him to conduct investigations, that lends credence to the view that the matter was investigated, and also to the opinion that indeed it WAS his call to make whether there was sufficient evidence for further action. Note that the presence of an earlier investigation by campus police of charges against Sandusky for similar events does make it appear more like a cover up, and less like an investigation.

I'm not a fan of Paterno, but I'm also not a fan of public lynchings. I can easily see why he thought he can done the right thing, and why he thought that the matter was being investigated properly. Not only was there an immediate investigation, but the investigation was conducted by none other than the highest ranking people, an indication that the charges were being treated seriously and promptly.

Comparisons to Enron miss the mark widely, unless the comparison is intended to imply that the AD and chief of police were also involved in child molestation. The problems in Enron started at or near the top, so reporting it to superiors was simply reporting to the perpetrators.

Your answer implies an answer to my question, but doesn't directly answer it. Is this the only time Schultz ever conducted an investigation? Or, did he do so from time to time? Your answer implies that it was not something he normally did, but doesn't specifically say that. If he did not normally, or did not ever, conduct investigations, it certainly looks like a cover up.

To be clear, I'm less interested in his official title than I am in the role he routinely played.

First of all, I have a degree in Industrial Engineering. While that isn't my line of work, I am quite certain that having a degree in Industrial Engineering does not make it illegal or inappropriate for a person to conduct investigations, so his educational background isn't really relevant. In the years between 1971 and 2002 I'm sure he could have learned a great deal to supplement his degree.

I'm sure that in time his specific job description, and the normal scope of his duties for the University will come out, and then we will have more to go on. Even then, though, the discussion here really isn't whether or not Schultz had the actual authority to conduct an investigation, but whether Paterno had reason to believe that he did. That is also a question that I can't answer.

Thank you. The job description was what I asked for to begin with. As I said before, what is important is what his job really was.

The thing is, according to the indictment, Paterno never called Schultz. He only called Curley. A week and a half later, McQueary was called into a meeting with Curley and Schultz. Paterno was not present at that meeting. So the argument that Paterno notifified Schultz, whether he had police power or not, is baseless. Paterno did not even care enough to see it through to McQueary's meeting with Curley and Schultz. 

A prosecutor had previously brought Sandusky to a grand-jury testimony without charges being returned.

This whole thing reminds me of the Catholic scandal where the old Cardinals in charge were more worried about ruining the great careers of the accused pedophile priests than the lives of the youths. To me, it is "exactly" the same. Paterno was more concerned about protecting the reputation of Sandusky, Wow, such a great guy, so much more than these "throwaway, at-risk" youths. Funny thing is, a lot of this was going on at the same exact time the Catholic church was being exposed for its decades-long practice of shuffling molesters off to other parts of the country to avoid prosecution.

Didn't Paterno say tonight something like we pray for all our 16 grandchildren so we might want to now start praying for these kids, too. Of course, we didn't pray for them until it became public.

But hey, let's build a building! The Pope will think it's cool.

http://www.torbertmedia.com/ccm/2010/10/student-faith-center/

That's if, of course, you're economically fortunate enough to attend this Parish. If not, we can forward you to the Second Mile.

McQueary gets most or all of my wrath.  How can a full grown man see that and do anything other than immediately run in there, beat the living crap out of Sandusy, call the police and hold him down (if he is still alive) until they arrive.  Sorry but there is no argument to do anything other than that.  If you can leave a hopeless boy in that situation, you really have to question your character.

Here is the link to the indictment: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandus...

McQueary testified that he saw Sandusky and what appeared to be a 10-year-old boy having sex in a shower and he testified that both saw him. It's Victim 2 in the indictment. There is no excuse for what McQueary did.

Grobe's name is on the this "B List" to replace Paterno.

http://coachesbythenumbers.com/paterno-era-ends-whats-next-for-penn-state/