Right or wrong, Bradley represents the previous 'penis in the butt, look the other way' old guard and must go.

It's called guilt by association.

Wait, wat

McQueary's action in the moment and in the immediate aftermath of that moment are indefensible. Maybe so much so that the exercise of even trying to understand is misguided. He witnessed child molestation apparently needed to sleep on it to figure out what to do.

I'm saying that given everything that happened prior to the moment the next day when he phoned Paterno, (that is, a series of failures), calling Paterno was a sensible and defensible thing to do, it was the first sensible and defensible thing he did.

Maybe this is too fine of brushwork or this is the wrong medium or I'm simply wrong, but it is what I think.

BoT McQueary inaction - inexplicable
Any statement about victims, helpnig them, etc - inexplicable
I'm still surprised the Chairman of the BoT from 2002 is still around (I think he is anyways).

Anyways, if anyone wants to put up a summary, I'll edit it and relevant links into the OP. I've already got the indictment in there. Maybe add the April article, a summary of 1998 and how the timeline seems to have gone.

You might have noticed I had a quote from Bradley talking about how wonderful Joe Pa is.

I am not saying that he knew about any of the actual ass raping (time will tell... not like he wasn't around when a lot of this happened though)... but his comments don't really match the narrative that the board is going with.

I'm not down with the guilt by association thing. Ever. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why guilt by association is never a good thing.

With that said, I can understand the need to start fresh. If full scale changes are made then they are made. I get it.

Also this

Denial: This can't be true. JoePa can't be responsible for any of this.
Anger: Let's riot
Bargaining: Okay, JoePa made a mistake but it can't define his entire career.
Depression: lolPSU.
Acceptance: some already lit up their PSU diplomas.

Seems to me that you were intimating that Bradley is guilty because he said a couple of nice things about Joe. Solid logic.

I can't just attribute this to cowardice, confusion or stupidity.

This whole thing just screams cover-up that kept getting bigger and bigger because Sandusky could not stop himself and nobody else tried.

I agree, but man is it tough to find that solution with the harsh judgments by the public at even an accusation and the legal system set up to keep those accused of these crimes in jail as long as possible (I'm talking about holding them after arrest but before trial, not after theyre found guilty).

I don't know how old you are, but as a recent college graduate I feel pretty confident in saying that its not about the reason behind the gathering as much as it is about the experience of being a part of it. Once it reaches a critical mass, which I estimate is probably no larger than 100 kids, it just snowballs. Most college kids are gonna want to be there. Its a bonding experience. Its the story to tell in class, all weekend, and for years after graduation. Its ****ing fun. The people damage property are in the wrong for sure, but how many people did that? Surely not more than 5-10%, right?

Now people make a lot of regrettable and straight up bad decisions in college, but I really doubt any of the ones that were just in the middle of it yelling and doing no damage are ever going to think of it as a mistake. Its just a party to them, not everything has to have a deeper meaning attributed to it.

Or you know... you could work on your reading comprehension skills.

i dont think anyones ever gotten the haters mad quite like joe paterno. maybe bron, but no one else rly close

Ok, then explain to me why Bradley wouldn't make it through the year due to what he said in the quote you originally posted.

What Sandusky did is as despicable as it gets. I understand the anger. What I don't understand is the 'shoot first ask questions later' approach to everyone else in any way associated with Penn State University.

Here's one recap you may be interested in:

Turns out you were right about McQeary having a close relationship with Sandusky. Went to school with his adopted son and Sandusky and McQueary's dad went to school together, too.

Because he is undermining what the board wants the message to be, basically pissing in their faces. That ended well for Joe Pa right?

It's far more than guilt by association. The abuse was so widespread over such a long period there is virtually no chance someone in the PSU organization for 30+ years, most of which directly under Sandusky as assistant coach and 10+ years as DC under JoePa.

The probability he knew nothing is something in the neighborhood of zero.

The BoT is probably trying to fire as many as they can and still keep a semi-functioning football team. I'll be shocked if they don't replace the whole staff after the season.

Cover-ups make people mad.... people need to pay for covering up and enabling further child rape. There are still a few people that need to be fired (including McQ).

Also remember how Bradley said that McQ would be coaching on Saturday?

Wow, this isn't "shoot first ask questions later." Plenty of questions have been asked, and the facts that we have are all showing that the Penn State football culture and chain-of-command have been HELPING Sandusky cover-up and CONTINUE his behavior, behavior that you rightly said is as "despicable as it gets." Plenty of anger to go around.

No point saying anything else. Decision wasn't his.

The board wants the message to be that Joe Paterno is a bad person?

Again, my problem is not with the firings and the administrative actions taken by the board. My problem is mostly with the "ZOMG let's shut down the football program and the university" types in the media and from the upper echelon of the drama queen message board grinder society.