Okay, first, the Big 4 did not "seek" cover. This was reported to both DPW and the DA's Office before they knew about it.
These were there findings that the Big 4 were faced with in 1998.
DPW had three choices for findings, founded, indicated, or unfounded. "Founded" would mean that DPW thought that Sandusky abused a child. This required a lower standard than a criminal prosecution. "Indicated" means, in effect, that maybe something happened, but they really couldn't be sure. Both of these would have landed Sandusky on a child abuse list.
DPW determined that the the charge was "unfounded," beaning that nothing happened, not even a maybe answer. This finding was reached after a "psychologist," supposedly an expert, said nothing happened.
Then we move to the DA's Office. A hard charging DA, who never cut Penn State a break, looked at the case and said, no charges. In this case, Gricar was known to the Big 4, and frankly to Schreffler, and respected.
If, not being an expert in child abuse, I was faced with that, I'd reach the conclusion that nothing happened, that whatever Sandusky did, it wasn't abuse or perversion.
[And I will concede the possibility that Gricar warned Penn State that something was wrong. Even then, he didn't further investigate, nor keep an eye on Sandusky.]
2001 is different. The Big Four wouldn't look bad if they had reported 2001 and even said, **There was this thing in 2001, though Sandusky was cleared,** and given them a copy of their files. DPW and the DA's Office would have looked bad.
I think at this point, J. J., we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just one more post on this subject to point out that the Freeh Report and most commentators recognize the validity of what I have posted and why the win record (the original question) was taken away from Paterno beginning in 1998 due to his lack of action to stop Sandusky after his knowledge of that report:
http://espn.go.com/college-football...senior-officials-disregarded-children-welfare
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162...-sex-abuse-scandal/?google_editors_picks=true
Sexual abuse might have been prevented if university officials had banned Sandusky from bringing children onto campus after a 1998 inquiry, the report said. Despite their knowledge of the police probe into Sandusky showering with a boy in a football locker room, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz took no action to limit his access to campus, the report said.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...nsequences-penn-state-devastating-many-levels
Page after page, damning conclusion after damning conclusion, the Freeh report lays out the story of a stunning and systemic failure of leadership. The evidence contained in the report, including emails from 1998 and 2001 when Spanier, Paterno, Schultz and Curley concealed the Sandusky allegations, is devastating to the reputations and legacies of each.
"In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity," the report states, "the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse."
http://espn.go.com/college-football...enabled-jerry-sandusky-lying-remaining-silent
Joe lied. It's that simple. And that heartbreaking.
Joe Paterno, who for so many decades represented all that was good and honorable in college athletics, lied. Through his teeth.
According to the 267-page Freeh report, Paterno lied -- to a grand jury, no less -- about his knowledge of a 1998 assault of a young boy (Victim 6) by longtime Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky in a football facility shower.
His lies and, worse yet, his silence from the time of that first reported assault in 1998 helped empower a sexual predator for the next 13 years. Paterno did nothing to stop Sandusky. He was, said former FBI director Louis Freeh, who wrote the report, "an integral part of this active decision to conceal."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ll/13pennstate-document.html?ref=ncaafootball
Neither Harmon nor Schultz's emails set forth, or suggest, that they planned to discuss the [1998] incident with Sandusky, to review or monitor his use of University facilities, to discuss his role at the Second Mile and his involvement in Second Mile overnight programs operated in Penn State facilities, or to consider the propriety of a continuing connection between Penn State and the Second Mile. There also is no mention of whether Sandusky should receive counseling.l
Me: What they could have done according to Freeh:
Further, the emails do not indicate that any officials attempted to determine whether Sandusky's conduct violated existing University policy or was reportable under The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. ? 1092(f) ("Clery Act").
The emails also do not indicate if any person responsible for Penn State's risk management examined Sandusky's conduct. A risk management review might have resulted in the University providing contractual notice to its insurers about the incident, imposition of a general ban on the presence of children in the Lasch Building, or other limitations on Sandusky's activities.m
After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno. 166 Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew "everything that was going on." 167
As Head Coach, he had the authority to establish permissible uses of his football facilities. Nothing in the record indicates that Curley or Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky.
Nothing in the record indicates that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno or Curley spoke directly with Sandusky about the allegation, monitored his activities, contacted the Office of Human Resources for guidance, or took, or documented, any personnel actions concerning this incident in any official University file. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that no effort was made to limit Sandusky's access to Penn State. 168
When Penn State officials considered meeting with Sandusky in 2001 in response to allegations that he brought children into the Lasch Building showers, Curley wrote "I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help." Exhibit 2-F (Control Number 00679428). m
Penn State officials were familiar with the issues of liability that could arise from Sandusky bringing minors to the Lasch Building. For example, notes maintained by Paterno reflect that Sandusky proposed several continuing connections with Penn State when he retired in 1999. Among these connections was that he would have continuing "[a]ccess to training and workout facilities."
A handwritten note on this proposal reads: "Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile kids. No to 2nd Mile. Liability problems." Exhibit 2-G (Control Number JVP000027). l 
The team still has a huge fan base, and is hugely popular.