This is precisely what I was getting at, although I disagree with the characterization that Boeheim would be a scarifice.
Based on what we know now, my perspective is that the scandal at Penn State is directly related to the University President believing that getting rid of Sandusky back in 1999 was the extent of his responsibilities. (Hence his phrase when the news broke about him supporting the actions of the AD in dealing with a matter of a "former university employee.") When the second incident came up in 2002, the institution put on blinders, and they are all paying the price now.
From what we know in the Syracuse case, there wasn't a very thorough investigation when this was first reported. And when the same allegations went public years later and more people supported the story of the accuser, Boeheim decided to attack the victim. And by doing that, he placed himself and the University at considerable risk if he turned out to be wrong.
My guess is that Cantor will do her job here. And given the rashness of his earlier statements, I don't see how Jim Boeheim comes out of this as the coach.
You may very well turn out to be right. I guess I'm trying to think of what wrong Boeheim committed here. Obviously, there's the chance that he's lying through his teeth and his outrage is mock outrage. If that's the case, then he deserves hellfire and brimstone.
But let's say my scenario is right - that Boeheim honestly had no idea what was going on, that 3 investigations which have already taken place uncovered no wrongdoing on Fine's part (the phone recording, for example, was never released or known until now), and this is being rehashed in the wake of the PSU scandal. If that's true, then one can certainly understand Boeheim's outrage. I think even Davis could understand it, since he himself said that Boeheim did not know what Fine had done. And Boeheim the other day said that if new information came out that changed things, then he would have to adjust to that accordingly. And now, obviously, he's realizing that his good friend is a massive criminal. Talk about a blindside hit.
Now if that scenario is right, what, exactly, did Boeheim do wrong? Yes, he lashed out at Davis. Ok fine. But he did so because (1) he had no knowledge of anything, (2) three investigations years ago had already cleared Fine, and (3) the timing is, to say the least, a bit suspicious. He had every reason, *given those things*, to be angry and to defend his friend of 50 years to the hilt.
Now it is pretty apparent that Boeheim was wrong about these things. That's fine. And he's already apologizing. Is it a CYA moment, or is it a, holy crap, I cannot believe that my buddy really *IS* a friggin' pedophile!!, type moment? I think all the evidence points to the latter. He committed no crime, he did not hide anything, he did not get in the way of any investigation, he did not withhold any facts or knowledge, he did not fail to cooperate to the fullest extent possible. All he did was initially defend his friend in the strongest terms possible, which, given what he knew, was understandable (not wise, but understandable).
So again....what wrong, exactly, did Boeheim commit here, if my scenario is correct?
