The conspiracy within the school president, the AD, and the HC to hide the 2002 incident makes it a NCAA matter b/c it happened in a football program.
Hiding it and covering it up might and will make it a LOIC charge.
School president was not charged. He testified he wasn't informed about the seriousness of the eyewitness report. There was no testimony offered to the contrary. Therefore he wasn't charged. In fact, the preliminary testimony of the trial shows that the stories of both the head of campus police AND the AD were more than backed up by witnesses (including McQueary's family doctor) who testified that he did not express to them the seriousness of the charge. Based on preliminary testimony in the case, a lot of objective lawyers have opined that it's a virtual certainty that the PSU administrators will not be found guilty of perjury. Therefore, there is no cover-up. What happened was a matter of negligence similar to Syracuse.
I'll say it again: unless they are convicted of perjury, there's nothing for the NCAA to decide on, since everyone followed protocol.
I'll add one more to this: after grand jury testimony, the two PSU administrators were charged BECAUSE the governor and former AG were political opponents of the PSU President, and they were trying to pressure the two administrators into testifying against the PSU President, whom they hoped to charge.
He was a former coach with the program. He was still getting paid (pension).
He was allowed access to the program, the weight rooms etc-Also the shower room where the rape occurred.
And? He wasn't paid by the program. He was paid by the school. This isn't even the first emeritus professor at PSU who was caught doing this. Another guy did it in the 80s (non-sports). But Sandusky, as an emeritus professor, had access like all such people. You get a pension after working at a place for 40 years. There's nothing strange about this.
Maybe but the NCAA requires less. They do what they want. As evident w. the Ohio State case where, previously, a program slapped with a failure to monitor charge, never got a bowl ban. Ohio State did. UConn got the same charge last year, no post season ban.
UConn was NOT bagged for lack of institutional control. In fact, UConn only received minor penalties. They were indeed charged with non-institutional control but defended themselves successfully against it. In fact, the guy who was charged with lying (Patrick Sellers) was later determined to have truthfully testified after the investigation.
Who cares what he got fired for?
He like Jim Tressel, hid the truth to protect his legacy and the program.
The board of trustees for years wanted to force Joe Pa to retire. Joe PA did not want to. When the case hit the fan, he chose to subvert the Board by retiring at the end of the season. The board chose to fire him the same day.
He was protecting his program from what? It's not like anyone cared about the Sandusky story. Sandusky was caught doing this in 2008 and it was reported in all the PA newspapers, and no one cared nationally. Then the story of what he did at PSU was reported in 2010, and reported in all the papers, and no one cared nationally. So, explain to me why this would have hurt the program? It seems that people only really care about Paterno's reaction to the program. They hardly care about Sandusky. The Sandiusky story goes on everyday without notice all over the country. The big story was Paterno not reporting it to police and instead reporting it to his superiors. Tressel on the other hand LIED directly to the NCAA.
NCAA won't do anything to Joe Pa. They will however will be placing some sort of sanctions, whether if it's probation, sanctions or banning the football program for 1-2 years.
I guarantee you they won't.
