Part of what you say is true

and part of it needs more thought. Paterno was fired because he was the head of the football program, and the public face of the university. How many sports fans could name the president of their favorite team's school?
But you know the coach.
One of his primary tasks is the avoidance of scandal, or, as the politicians like to say: "Not only to avoid evil but to avoid the appearance of evil."

You are looking at it from the point of view of a child lover, which is understandable. I am looking at it from the point of view of someone who wondered why the school did nothing for nine years after it was first reported, and why Paterno still allowed the man not only to have access to the shower rooms but also to have an office in his building.

Did Paterno even once ask: "Why is this guy still hanging around? Didn't we get rid of him years ago?" Obviously not.

I'm as much a child lover as anyone here, maybe more than most, but there comes a time when you must look at the larger picture. Sandusky ran a charity, of whose board of directors Joe Paterno was a member, and used that charity seemingly as a front to entice young boys into sex. First accused in 1988, and admitting to the charges in the home of the boy's mother with university police listening in another room, Sandusky remained part of Paterno's coaching staff for another 11 years before retiring, then continued using school facilities for another 12 years.
Why was he not prosecuted in 1988? Could it be that the university police did not want to bring scandal to a member of the university coaching staff?
Why did he remain on the staff for more than a decade after admitting his abuse (and that is the correct word; the boy was crying and did NOT want the man's advances), and why was he still hanging around more than a decade after retiring, and nine years after the school told him to take his antics somewhere else?

As head of the football program, Paterno was directly and immediately responsible, but he did what was expedient, not what was right.

Honestly, how many of you, as orphaned or "at-risk" little boys, would have resisted the advances of a grown man to whom you looked as a father figure and protector?

Put it back in your pants and look at the big picture, all of you.