Why only IF?

There has been alot of talk about Penn State and its' football program lately.  The general discussion is now revolving around what type of sanctions, if any, should be put on PSU.  Opinions range from nothing should be done to the death penalty should be used on the football program.  Paul Jarley, Dean of the Lee Business School at UNLV looked at things from a business and academic standpoint and made the point, "...that if the allegations of abuse and institutional cover-up involving the Sandusky incident are all true, the business case for closing down Penn State football is a strong one."  I agree with what Dean Jarley says, but actually go further.  I think we already know the allegations of institutional cover-up are true.  As for Jerry Sandusky and what he is accused of, as it pertains to the fate of Penn State football, it does not matter.

My basis for believing the cover-up is true comes from the grand jury testimony of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.  After Mike McQueary told them what he saw, they ordered Sandusky not to bring children on campus and reported the incident to Sandusky's foundation, The Second Mile.  This leads one to believe they knew something was wrong.  Stopping there and not taking the report to the proper state authorities is the definition of trying to cover it up.  What reasons would they have for not turning the information over to the police?  I don't believe Curley or Schultz are trained investigators, nor did they even try.  Their only thoughts were to protect the Penn State football program and themselves.  After all, Sandusky was a retired coach that the school would have been able to distance itself from very easily.  How on earth could we have known something like this was going on? The "Jerry was a pillar in our community and he had everyone fooled" would have been a very compelling argument coming from a respected institute like Penn State.  The only problem was, this wasn't the first incident, and by turning Sandusky in this time they would have in essence been turning themselves in.  So the cover-up was on, or in this case, continued.  These actions took place by the leaders of the University, and regardless of Sandusky's guilt or innocence, Penn State administrators put the entire reputation of the school at risk for the football program.

Now I realize there will be those that argue that innocent players, both current and future, at Penn State would be getting punished and those people would be correct.  But unfortunately, that's life.  In a case like this, where it involves an institution that stands for things much bigger than athletics, a message needs to be sent.  Rather than think of the players that would be punished, why don't we focus on the good it could do for Penn State along with the message it would send to other institutions.  Because I'll be honest, I have zero doubt that at other schools there are administrators that would willingly fall on the sword to protect the brand and if that were to happen just one more time it would be one time to many.  It may be bad for Penn Staters, but it's time a message is sent that athletics exist to compliment the university, not the other way around. 

For those that would like to read Dean Jarley's entire commentary, here is a link.  http://business.unlv.edu/dean/the-business-case-for-closing-penn-state-football/