Get all of Michael McCann’s columns as soon as they’re published. Download the new Sports Illustrated app (iOS or Android) and personalize your experience by following your favorite teams and SI writers. 
 
 Did Joe Paterno learn in 1976 that Jerry Sandusky molested children? 
 
 An order by Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary Glazer on Thursday contained this damning accusation against Paterno, who coached Penn State from 1966 to 2011. In 2012, a jury found Sandusky, a longtime defensive coordinator for Paterno, guilty on 45 charges of sexually abusing children. 
 
 Judge Glazer is presiding over a lawsuit between Penn State and the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Co. (“PMA”) over whether the school or its insurer, PMA, should pay for settlement agreements between Penn State and Sandusky’s victims that total approximately $59.7 million. The key legal issue for purposes of whether Penn State has a right to collect on its insurance policy with PMA is whether Penn State expected or intended the bodily injuries that Sandusky inflicted upon his many victims. In order to assess that issue under the terms of the Penn State-PMA contract, Judge Glazer must consider whether any Penn State officers, trustees or shareholders—a category of Penn State officials that does not include Paterno—knew of Sandusky’s conduct. 
 
 In exploring that topic, Judge Glazer referenced several victims’ depositions, which are sworn testimonies, made out of court, that are recorded and/or transcribed. According to Judge Glazer, those depositions reveal that in 1976, “a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky” and that in 1987 and 1988 an assistant coach witnessed Sandusky committing sexual acts or having inappropriate contact with a child. Judge Glazer reasoned that while Paterno and the unnamed assistant coaches might have known about Sandusky’s acts, available evidence did not indicate that any Penn State officers, trustees or shareholders had such knowledge. As a consequence, Judge Glazer determined that Penn State is eligible to seek certain types of coverage payments from PMA (Judge Glazer also found that Penn State is not eligible for other types of coverage payments). 
 
 The topic of insurance coverage and who pays the $59.7 million in settlements is an important topic in its own right. Penn State has insisted that the $59.7 will not be paid through tuition, taxpayer or donation dollars. Instead, Penn State maintains, this sizable figure will be funded through Penn State’s insurance polices, including the university’s policies with PMA. 
 
 • SI VAULT: Where is Penn State three years after Sandusky scandal? 
 
 Despite the importance of Thursday’s ruling as it relates to the funding of victim settlements, Judge Glazer’s order is primarily newsworthy because it contains a previously unknown accusation against Paterno. If this accusation were true, it would contradict Paterno’s assertions that he was unaware of Sandusky’s crimes. Paterno died in 2012 at age 85 and his family has steadfastly maintained his innocence. Wick Sollers, an attorney for the Paterno family, issued a statement tonight to Penn Live that categorically rejects the accusation. 
 
 For at least four reasons, it will likely never be known if the allegation against Paterno is true, false or somewhere in between. 
 
 First, it’s unlikely that corroborating or disproving information about the allegation will surface. According to Penn Live, the record containing the deposition transcript is sealed. Also, the victim who made the allegation against Paterno has apparently reached a confidential settlement with Penn State. Odds are this victim will not make his identity known or ever talk about his claim about Paterno. In addition, Paterno’s death obviously makes it impossible for Paterno to rebut the allegation. 
 
 Second, it’s unknown how much time elapsed between the victim’s alleged conversation with Paterno in 1976 and the date the victim’s deposition was taken. This is an important point given that memories tend to erode over time and become less reliable. Along those lines, it’s unknown if the victim created any records of his alleged conversation with Paterno, such as personal journal entries or diaries, that would help to corroborate if it occurred and in the manner in which he testified. 
 
 Third, it’s unknown how old the victim was when he allegedly spoke with Paterno and what exact words he says he told Paterno. Was the victim sufficiently clear in talking to Paterno that Paterno knew or should have known that Sandusky was molesting the victim? This is where knowing what words were allegedly used becomes important. 
 
 • SI VAULT: As Penn State returns to normalcy, will it remember its past? 
 
 Fourth, it’s unclear what circumstances would have led to a child directly telling Paterno about sexual abuse or other inappropriate conduct. It might strike a reader as somewhat unusual that a child would have an opportunity to speak directly with a Division I head football coach and about such a sensitive topic. Although such a scenario is by no means unimaginable, it would be interesting to know if others were present while the victim allegedly spoke with Paterno. It would likewise be revealing if the victim’s claim was ever communicated to guardians, teachers or law enforcement or if any police investigation took place. 
 
 To be sure, this allegation against Paterno is deeply troubling, especially given that it arose during sworn testimony. At the same time, it is an allegation and has not been proven in court. Judge Glazer’s examination of the allegation was as part of a legal analysis related to insurance coverage and whether any Penn State officers, trustees and shareholders knew about Sandusky’s crimes. Judge Glazer observing that Paterno “apparently neglected to inform” an appropriate supervisor in 1976 certainly raises disturbing questions about Paterno, but it doesn’t prove or refute the underlying assertion against Paterno. In all likelihood, neither proof nor refutation of the assertion will ever be found. 
 
 Michael McCann is a legal analyst and writer for Sports Illustrated. He is also a Massachusetts attorney and the founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. He also created and teaches the Deflategate undergraduate course at UNH, serves as the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law and is on the faculty of the Oregon Law Summer Sports Institute.​ ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
 
 / Updated By Alex Johnson and Tom Winter 
 
 The late Penn State University football coach Joe Paterno knew about sexual abuse allegations against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky as early as 1976, according to an assertion in a Philadelphia court order made public Thursday. 
 
 The claim emerged in a dispute over who should pay Penn State's share of about $60 million in settlements with 26 men who say Sandusky abused them when they were children — the university or its insurance company. 
 
 Previously, the abuse was widely thought to have occurred from 1994 through 2008, when Sandusky ran a youth charity called Second Mile. 
 
 But in the new order, dated Wednesday, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary S. Glazer wrote in passing that the insurance company, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance, had claimed that "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky." 
 
 According to the order, the insurance company further claims that in 1987 and 1988, other assistant coaches witnessed "inappropriate" or "sexual" conduct between Sandusky and children, and that in 1988, a similar allegation was referred to Penn State's athletic director. 
 
 The order was first reported by the Patriot-News of Harrisburg. 
 
 The Paterno family told NBC News that it wants "a full public review of the facts." 
 
 "Because of a single sentence in a court record of an insurance case, Joe Paterno's reputation has once again been smeared with an unsubstantiated, forty year old allegation," the family said in a written statement. "Over the past four and a half years, numerous allegations that were taken as fact when they were initially communicated have been proven false. It is in this context that the latest claim should be viewed." 
 
 A spokesperson for Penn State told NBC News that it was aware of the allegations, "but the legal case and confidentiality commitments that govern our settlement agreements preclude us from discussing these matters at all." 
 
 Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky in Centre County Court in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, on Monday. Gene J. Puskar / AP 
 
 Glazer was careful to note that the claims are allegations, not proven facts, and that "since this is obviously not a criminal matter, this court is not governed by the higher standards of proof required in criminal prosecutions." 
 
 On the larger question, the judge ruled that both sides could still be on the hook for paying judgments in various cases depending on when they occurred. 
 
 NBC News has previously reported that Penn State could still face legal action by at least six other alleged victims not included in the settlement agreement. And it has also reported that some allegations against Sandusky date to the early 1990s and perhaps even the late 1980s, raising questions about what Penn State knew and when it knew it. 
 
 Sandusky was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison in October 2012 for abusing 10 boys he met through Second Mile. He filed a petition this week for a new trial. 
 
 Paterno, a revered figure who many proclaimed represented integrity in college football, was fired amid allegations that he didn't properly report concerns about Sandusky to authorities. He died in January 2012 at age 85 and was never charged with any crimes. 
 
 At the time the criminal charges were filed against Sandusky in 2011, Paterno told reporters, "In hindsight, I wish I had done more." 
 
 University President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley and Senior Vice President Gary Schultz were all forced out of their jobs. They still face charges that they failed to report one of the allegations. ||||| This post was updated at 9:18 p.m. Thursday to add some new information. 
 
 A new bombshell dropped in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal Thursday. 
 
 It came in the form of a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case involving Penn State, and its full ramifications can't immediately be gauged. 
 
 But that line was eye-popping in itself. 
 
 The line in question states that one of Penn State's insurers has claimed "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky." 
 
 The order also cites separate references in 1987 and 1988 in which unnamed assistant coaches witnessed inappropriate contact between Sandusky and unidentified children, and a 1988 case that was supposedly referred to Penn State's athletic director at the time. 
 
 All, the opinion states, are described in victims' depositions taken as part of the still-pending insurance case, but that, according a PennLive review of the case file, are apparently under seal. 
 
 "There is no evidence that reports of these incidents ever went further up the chain of command at PSU," Judge Gary Glazer wrote, in determining that because Penn State's executive officers - its president and trustees - weren't aware of the allegations, he would not bar claims from that time frame from insurance coverage. 
 
 The insurance case involves big money for Penn State, which hopes to be reimbursed for most of the $60 million-plus it has paid in recent years to settle nearly 30 civil claims pertaining to abuse by Sandusky. 
 
 Other sections of Glazer's pre-trial order Thursday held that the university cannot claim coverage for Sandusky settlements for abuses started between 1992 and 1999 because of specific provisions in policies written in those years excluding claims of sexual abuse. 
 
 But it is the Paterno allegation that is eye-popping, because of the unending national conversation and curiosity over how much the late and legendary Penn State coach may have known about Sandusky's actions during their lengthy careers together. 
 
 Sandusky, who was convicted in 2012 of the serial sexual abuse of 10 different boys he came to know through his Second Mile youth charity between 1994 and 2008, was a key part of Paterno's coaching staff from 1969 through 1999. 
 
 Parts of Penn State nation still are deeply divided over questions like whether Paterno was wrongly fired in the wake of Sandusky's November 2011 arrest, and whether the coach's Beaver Stadium statue - taken down in the summer of 2012 - should be reinstalled there or somewhere else on the campus. 
 
 Paterno's family, and by extension its legions of loyalists, have argued vehemently that Joe Paterno and the larger Penn State community were deceived by the Sandusky, whom they have argued - with a consultant's help - was a master deceiver and manipulator. 
 
 And they also disputed the claim in the current case Thursday evening in the strongest possible terms. 
 
 "Over the past four-and-a-half years Joe Paterno's conduct has been scrutinized by an endless list of investigators and attorneys," the Paterno family's attorney, Wick Sollers, said in a statement. 
 
 "Through all of this review there has never been any evidence of inappropriate conduct by Coach Paterno. To the contrary, the evidence clearly shows he shared information with his superiors as appropriate. 
 
 "An allegation now about an alleged event 40 years ago, as represented by a single line in a court document regarding an insurance issue, with no corroborating evidence, does not change the facts. Joe Paterno did not, at any time, cover up conduct by Jerry Sandusky." 
 
 PennLive reached out to Steven Engelmyer, the lead attorney for Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Co., which is arguing in the current case in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas that it has no duty to reimburse Penn State for more than $60 million in Sandusky-related civil settlements that the university has paid to date. 
 
 Engelmyer declined comment when reached Thursday. 
 
 Others, most notably Penn State's independent Sandusky investigator Louis Freeh, have alleged that, at least from 1998 on, Paterno, then-Penn State President Graham Spanier and two of Spanier's top managers were aware of complaints against and about Sandusky. 
 
 In a pending criminal case, Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley and former vice president for business and finance Gary Schultz are accused of failing to report a specific allegation of abuse by Sandusky in 2001 that a then-graduate assistant had reported directly to Joe Paterno. 
 
 Paterno, who died in January 2012, was never charged with any crimes. 
 
 As Sollers pointed out in his statement, however, it was Paterno who actually referred the graduate assistant in the 2001 case, Mike McQueary, to Curley and Schultz. 
 
 But Freeh's report also cited emails from that time frame that raised the suggestion Paterno may have been part of a later decision not to take the McQueary report to police or child welfare authorities. 
 
 A source who had worked on the state's Sandusky probe but who asked not to be identified told PennLive Thursday night he knew of no cases, aside from the 2001 case, in which there was a direct report to Joe Paterno about Sandusky. 
 
 Many of the people who presented civil claims to Penn State only started to come forward after the completion of Sandusky's criminal trial in June 2012. Freeh's report was issued the following month. 
 
 The allegation contained in Glazer's ruling drew immediate puzzlement and uncertainty from some of Paterno's most loyal supporters at Penn State Thursday, and a muted reaction from the university itself. 
 
 Trustee Anthony Lubrano, a Paterno loyalist who has worked tirelessly with alumni allies to try to "correct the record" in the Sandusky case, said he was "not even peripherally aware" of the 1976 claim about Paterno. 
 
 But, he added, "I am highly doubtful about the veracity of the allegation." 
 
 Penn State spokesman Lawrence Lokman said university officials who have worked on the legal cases radiating from the Sandusky scandal were aware of the allegations, broadly, contained in the insurance case. 
 
 "Many, many people, potential victims and victims have come forward to the university as part of that (settlement) process," Lokman said. "We do not talk about their specific circumstances." 
 
 Lokman also would not say whether the 1976 incident raised in the PMA case was one of the 30 or so that have resulted in monetary settlements. 
 
 As to Glazer's ruling in the insurance reimbursement case, Lokman noted it is not the last word in the case. 
 
 "We are analyzing the decision," Lokman said. "It does not mean the university will not recoup amounts spent in responding to the Sandusky victims. It is a complicated process that is not complete." 
 
 UPDATE: The court document referenced: 
 
 Court documents: Joe Paterno heard about sex abuse in 1970s
– One line in a court order has revealed what PennLive calls a "bombshell" in the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary S. Glazer wrote than an insurer—involved in a dispute over whether it should cover the $60 million in settlements Penn State has paid to 26 men who said they were abused by Sandusky, per NBC News—claims that "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he [the child] was sexually molested by Sandusky." The detail comes from a deposition, ostensibly with that victim, taken as part of the insurance case. If the allegation about Paterno is true, it would mean he knew about Sandusky's crimes 22 years earlier than stated in special investigator reports, which alleged that Paterno knew in 1998. Before his death, Paterno said he became aware of allegations in 2001. "An allegation now about an alleged event 40 years ago, as represented by a single line in a court document regarding an insurance issue, with no corroborating evidence, does not change the facts. Joe Paterno did not, at any time, cover up conduct by Jerry Sandusky," the Paterno family's lawyer says. Sports Illustrated outlines four reasons why "it will likely never be known if the allegation against Paterno is true, false or somewhere in between."