Just wanted to poll the fanbase to see if people's perceptions have changed or stayed the same with regards to how the university handled Paterno during the initial frenzied calls for his firing following the leak of the Grand Jury presentment of the Sandusky investigation.
If you would also respond in the comments section with your believes both now and before that would help serve two purposes:
1) It will help compare the poll results with the poll results of the "active" community. This is important to determine if it is just a very vocal minority that holds certain stances, or if they echo the feelings of the masses.
2) It will somewhat help determine which responses are "real", just in case there are some trolls out there who are going to try to skew the results in a certain direction to make the fanbase look bad or crazy or whatever.
Also, if there are suggestions for other stances, let me know. I identified what I thought were the four major stances, but I could be missing something either due to prejudice or just forgetfulness. The poll cycles through these 4 stances, for both initial and current opinion, for a total of 16 fairly wordy options, but you can probably just skim through to find your stance based on how the cycle repeats. (it looks like only so much text could go into each option, but I think it is fairly obvious which response means what)
Here are the 4 stances:
1) Paterno deserves to dictate his own terms of retirement no matter what.
2) Paterno should have been afforded the benefit of the doubt until more facts were known.
3) Paterno needed to be fired because he had to have known what was going on with Sandusky and/or he didn't do enough to stop him after McQueary told him what he saw.
4) The whole situation was toxic, and Penn State needed to clean house, even if that meant firing Paterno (justly or unjustly).