Going back to ’95 with allegations of Mike McQueary betting on football

The ending to Penn State’s blowout victory over Rutgers nearly 20 years always felt odd, and that’s why it became discussion fodder from time to time.

Could there be even more to it now?

Miike McQueary, Joe Paterno being examined for a TD pass nearly 20 years pass thrown 19 years ago

Miike McQueary, Joe Paterno being examined for a TD pass nearly 20 years pass thrown 19 years ago

Surprisingly enough, backup quarterback Mike McQueary threw a long touchdown pass to a streaking backup receiver Chris Campbell with a minute left. The Lions already led by 18.

Rutgers’ coaches threw their arms out and looked to the Penn State sideline, as if to say, ‘Why?’
Joe Paterno even shook his head at the outcome, as if that was not intended. Of course, Rutgers head coach Doug Graber even confronted Paterno on the field after it was over.

Most in the Meadowlands that night expected a running play up the middle — or maybe a short, first-down pass to a tight end, as Paterno intimated should have happened.

But, two years later, McQueary said the long pass was exactly the play called in to him.

Fast forward to this week, with ESPN The Magazine releasing a long, profile piece on McQueary and his controversial role in the Jerry Sandusky scandal. One of the bombshells dropped was that McQueary was known around the team and beyond for betting on college football games as a player, including Penn State, according to unnamed sources.

So that Rutgers’ game in ’95?

The Lions were favored by 20 points. They were ahead by 18 with a minute left.

And McQueary’s TD pass covered the spread.

What do you think of the ESPN piece?

What do you think about the end of that Rutgers game?

This entry was posted in coaching staff, Fans, Football, Jerry Sandusky, Penn State and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Going back to ’95 with allegations of Mike McQueary betting on football

  1. John Fishburne says:

    I think the ESPN article is just like their earlier articles–poorly researched, with no documentation. It is not difficult to obtain copies of his “testimonies” on the Internet. One can easily see the discrepancies. McQueary never testified that he saw anal intercourse–he said so during the trial. Sandusky was not found guilty on the shower incident. In fact, that victim wrote a letter to the editor of several newspapers that nothing happened that night. He was not called to testify, but did jump in on the lawsuits after lawyers got to him. McQueary even got the date wrong.

    If I can find this data, ESPN should have no problem. ESPN has gotten their narrative wrong from the beginning. Their first article on the incident contained one photo of Sandusky and numerous photos of Paterno. Why??

    I am not defending Sandusky and I am not a Penn State grad. I dislike inaccuracies in media coverage. There is no excuse for it.

    • Frank Bodani says:

      John, I understand your perspective, coming from someone who has followed the situation closely since Nov. 2011. I do think a national audience that reads the ESPN article may not have paid much attention to Mike McQueary’s changing testimony before, and that this piece does highlight that.
      However, I also agree about the sourcing of the story. I want named sources, especially McQueary, to drop the bombshell that he was abused. And I want more details. Almost have to have more details on that to run with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *