Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Penn State’s Appeal Smacks of Defiance
Come on, admit it. You thought the Penn State administration would take their punishment from the NCAA like contrite little boys, lick their wounds, and say, "we're sorry, we won't do it again," and start trying to repair the damage. Right?
I admit it. I did, too. After all, don't they just want to start putting the nightmare of the past few months behind them and move forward? Don't they realize the rebuilding of their shattered image will probably take longer to rebuild than the years of NCAA sanctions given them? Aren't they glad that they escaped the dreaded death penalty?
Not so fast, my friend. Several university trustees have decided the game isn't over yet, the clock hasn't quite wound down to zero. An appeal was filed Aug. 6 with the NCAA over the sanctions levied against them for their role in the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse coverup. In the appeal, the trustees claim the consent decree school president Rodney Erickson agreed to and signed is "null and void." According to the appeal, Erickson had neither the legal authority nor the board's approval to enter into such an agreement. The appeal is most likely the first step toward a federal lawsuit attempting to overturn the sanctions, since the NCAA has already stated the Penn State sanctions are not subject to appeal.
The trustees also claim the NCAA didn't give the school due process, since it declined to follow its usual course of investigation and enforcement procedures, relying instead on the Freeh Report to reach its decision.
Another point of contention is the Freeh Report itself, that its findings were contrary to the evidence presented. The NCAA's punishment was deemed "excessive and unreasonable" and inflicts "permanent damage to an entire generation of student-athletes and coaches who were innocent of any wrongdoing during their time on campus."
Don't get me wrong. I've long been critical of the NCAA's heavy-handed policies and out-of-touch regulations. When a coach can't even buy a player dinner on a road trip, or a plane ticket to go see his sick mom without facing the crack of the NCAA's mighty whip, something's wrong with that picture. But I digress.
If Erickson violated university policy by failing to bring the decree to the entire board before signing it, that's not the NCAA's problem; it's an internal issue. Erickson did consult with board chairwoman Karen Peetz and the university's legal counsel about the decree before signing it, but didn't bring it up to the entire board.
While it's true the NCAA did not follow its usual protocol of conducting its own investigation before handing down punishment, it was determined the Freeh Report contained sufficient enough evidence to make a decision. Plus, an additional investigation would probably take several months or longer, time the NCAA apparently felt it didn't have given the severity of the situation.
The school's contention that the Freeh Report was flawed in its findings is puzzling. The investigation for the report was backed by the university, and they signed off on its findings. Deciding after the fact it wasn't sufficient makes them look rather foolish. Can you say "sour grapes?"
The trustees' claim the NCAA's punishment was excessive and damaging to innocent players and coaches may be their strongest case, but even that is questionable. The vacating of wins from the books is something I have never endorsed. Once you play the game, you can't just magically rewind the clock and erase the experience. Try telling quarterbacks they didn't really throw those touchdowns, running backs or receivers they didn't score, or the defensive players they didn't actually sack or intercept all those quarterbacks. Good luck convincing players who injured hamstrings or tore knee ligaments they didn't really injure themselves (although I'm sure they wish it were true).
It's hard to argue the point the sanctions will affect players and coaches, past and present, who had nothing to do with what Jerry Sandusky was up to. But, as I often told my kids when they were younger, sometimes the consequences of your behavior will affect others, and it can't always be undone. A number of totally innocent boys who didn't ask to be abused are now scarred forever because of Sandusky's actions and Penn State's leaders looking the other way. Now their latest decision to keep up the fight against the punishment given them with possible lawsuits will only further damage their image. The only winners will be the attorneys raking in handsome fees if that happens.