No problem with the long post. People who stay around after the initial brief responses are usually willing to read them. Otherwise they would have moved on. There’s no way to get into the details without writing long posts.
I don’t think the first accusation alone (1998) was enough to prove that Sandusky was guilty. That one was just for inappropriate touching, which could have been misinterpreted (or it could simply have been a false accusation, though in retropect I think it was true. I recall that a bishop or archbishop in Chicago was accused, and later his accuser admitted that he made it up.) “Horseplay” with a naked boy in a shower is irresponsible behavior at best, though, so he was in a position in which he should have been willing to agree to anything the university demanded.
You’re right that banning him outright would have been difficult to explain without creating a scandal. You mentioned a publicly acceptable reason for not bringing boys there, though, the liability one. As for Sandusky himself, if he wanted to keep his good reputation, he should have thought of a reason for not being on campus — a personal conflict, whatever. Especially after the second accusation (the one from the graduate assistant McQueary in 2002), he was in a position in which his alternatives should have been nothing but bad or worse. Here Sandusky was, again in a shower with a naked boy. No innocent person with a grain of sense would put himself in that situation again after the first accusation.
‘In retropect’ should be ‘in retrospect’. Sorry for the sloppy writing. I should have taken more time and gotten things right.