[FredZarguna]

Not even a good try. In 2011 the grand jury investigation was well underway and it was clear that Penn State would face no legal challenge to revoking Sanduskys privileges.

As for the rest... yawn. This is the typical Paterno haters cherrypicking. The 1998 investigation by both police and the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare CLEARED Sandusky, and that was the only facet of the investigation of which his exit contract negotiators would have been aware.

Again, a very feeble effort on your part, indeed.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Not even a good try. In 2011 the grand jury investigation was well underway and it was clear that Penn State would face no legal challenge to revoking Sanduskys privileges.

PSU's Emeritus policy clearly states that the University can revoke Emeritus status whenever it feels like it for any reason (look it up) - there never was any legal condition on revoking Sandusky's access. And I still don't see a good try or even a bad try at explaining why some assistant football coach who was known to have been investigated for sexual molestation of a child was considered Emeritus material by PSU in the first place.

As for the rest... yawn. This is the typical Paterno haters cherrypicking.

Yeah, those are facts, not cherries. And I don't hate Paterno - I feel sad that a legendary college coach was revealed at the end of his career and life to be so devoid of character and good judgment. Paterno had a chance to save a lot of children from a sexual predator - he wasn't up to that achievement and came up small instead.

Again, a very feeble effort on your part, indeed.

The facts speak for themselves, and what they have to say about PSU's football program is not good. I'll leave it to you to tell those facts that reality is a very feeble effort on their part.