I am seeing a lot of the same patterns here as in other schools

1. Brand protection is a priority
2. Process for handling potentially criminal behavior is not transparent
3. Departments often handle internally, try to keep things from getting out, beyond their control
4. Campus Police lack independence to investigate, take action (departments, University administration in the way)
5. Local Police and Prosecutors Office compromised by University influence, often try to avoid arrests and prosecutions

These are not unique to Penn State or Michigan State. Montana has had similar issues at FCS level. Frankly I suspect this is the case at the majority of major programs in the NCAA. The above conditions and "processes" are more likely in place than not at most P5 and even G5 and FCS schools. The bigger the program, the more likely, but as Montana shows it pushes down to at least FCS level.

The problems are driven by human nature. Nobody wants their boss to get involved in their problems, so departments, and below that coaching staffs try to keep things within their control and not get beyond that. "Handle it in-house" or "internally" is a common phrase. This leads to behaviors such as leaning on the campus police, and using influence on local city officials. And Administrations have the same attitude, not wanting any hits on the school's reputation. So these department and administration interventions have decades of momentum behind them, and only a clean break in process can fix it. Low ranking officials learn the culture, so the practice shave to change.

Part of what is needed is for the public and NCAA and school officials to recognize and accept a certain number of criminal level actions will occur when you bring a bunch of lower socioeconomic individuals onto campus because of only athletic ability. It should not end a coaches employment if some go rogue, so long as the number and frequency of incidents is within norm. To have a top program risks are going to be taken, it's the nature of the beast. We don't want to be a society that gives no second chances and that takes no risks.

Now the flip side. Power to make decisions on discipline needs to be independent of pressure form the Department and administration. And this probably goes for all issues of Title IX and student safety. The campus police need to be independent of influence. And there should be strict enforcement of that should any officials make contact or ask for favors. This goes doubly when dealing with local police and prosecutors. Essentially when an incident occurs the athletic staff's responsibility should be to report it and then take actions required by rule. And otherwise be out of the process. Same for the Chancellor's or President's office.

How many schools operate under the "in-house" model? Clearly the majority at the highest level of college athletics. In a couple years another case will likely break somewhere else. The NCAA should work on recommending processes to replace those of many schools.

In the meantime, you may see a number of heads roll at MSU, as the spotlight and investigations unfold.