Personally I think it was closer to the first, but with a heaping dose of incompetence sprinkled in. In truth Penn State's leadership mishandled this situation in every way possible, beginning with the 1998/2001 incidents (albeit limited to a few people at that point), continuing through the time a grand jury was convened and the Board did nothing to prepare a PR strategy, and ending with the bungled Freeh Report and response. The incompetence was so apparent that even an equally inept NCAA could sense the upperhand, and so they jumped in to score a PR win of their own.
You need to understand how this all comes across to non-Penn State people: It makes it sound like you're being advocates for the very people who have been on trial...or are going on trial (Sandusky; AD Tim Curley; Prez Graham Spanier; Gary Schultz, Sr. VP for Finance & Business).
Yeah, on some level I get that. Unfortunately these parties are viewed as a monolith by many, when in reality there are quite a few separate players/agendas involved here: Paterno's family is attempting to salvage his legacy, Gov. Corbett is desperately doing anything to get reelected, and the university administration is continuing to sit idly by. Theoretically there could be some Machiavellian plan for Penn State itself to do nothing and thus be able to deny anything other than compliance, but based on track records I highly doubt the people involved are that capable.
Are you defending any of these four for their actions or (non-actions when something actionable was demanded)???
No, certainly not. In my view there's enough hard/confirmed evidence available to say that Curley/Spanier/Shultz did execute a coverup. There's enough evidence about Paterno to provide good fodder for internet speculation like what we see here - but not enough for people like the NCAA or Freeh to state it as unambiguous fact, as they have a responsibility to uphold some level of due process.
In truth my argument isn't that Paterno is innocent, it's that the standard isn't met to find him "guilty". The portions of today's report that state that case resonate with me, and the portions that draw definitive conclusions of innocence seem like the mirror image of Freeh's report.
(I appreciate your reasonable tenor / attitude in your remarks)
Re: your comment above...Tell me what you think of this one comment made by this columnist back in Nov. 2011:
Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves
Columnist Ostler wrote: Several e-mailers demand, "Have you ever heard of due process?" The due process I've heard of involves a justice system and a legal trial. Paterno faces no legal action or charge. Legally, his rear end is covered. But there was no trial when Paterno was sainted, no jury declared him one of the noblest and finest college coaches of all time. The public decided. It's the same deal on the flip side...
Other graphs from that Ostler column: What is the over-under number on how many people have to know about a depraved predator working under their noses before one of them takes a step to stop the predator and protect the victims? Jay Bilas, the ESPN college basketball commentator, called it "a conspiracy of cowards." ... With responsibility comes responsibility... "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more," Paterno said in a statement. That's pathetic. You need hindsight to tell you that you must do whatever you can to stop a dangerous criminal?