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.

Comments and Conversation

August 16, 2012

John Delfield:

The NCAA action against Penn State was not only unprecedented but ridiculously severe and smacks against the constitutional rights and due process that all Americans are entitled to. What is next, sanctions against Notre dame because the NCAA does not like a priest’s stance on abortion?

August 17, 2012

Daniel Morgan:

The contention that Erickson didn’t have authority to sign is valid as it violated the Board of Trustees’ By-Laws, that is not internal, if an officer doesn’t have authority, they can’t bind the university anymore than a janitor can.

The Freeh Report is Tripe. Their “smoking gun” are 3 emails that are vague at best and unexplained. Most importantly THE FACT that they did not investigate both sides of the argument is a fundamental error in any investigation. The findings are based primarily on opinion and inference.

And to try to get back at Joe Paterno??? There is NO EVIDENCE that he attempted to cover up anything!!! QUITE THE CONTRARY, he reported the incident, which was then reported to the Second Mile, which is STILL LISTED as a licensed “OFFICE OF CHILDREN YOUTH & FAMILIES PRIVATE CHILDREN & YOUTH FACILITIES”. Why didn’t the Second Mile, a licensed provider with the State of PA, have the majority of the responsibility?? Why should it be Penn State?

Part of our American Ideals is that we don’t jump to conclusions and draw and quarter an innocent person. Severity has never been a reason to push forward without fully investigating and giving all parties their time in court.

August 18, 2012

Jason Quintana:

Claiming that Erickson’s accepting of the punishment without consulting the Board of Trustees is by no means an internal issue. You cannot simply skip over the due process that is required. The NCAA clearly acted irrationally and president Emmert became a power-hungry tyrant. Giving one man so much power in a situation as “unprecedented” and unique as this, is completely outrageous. And the fact that the NCAA acted so quickly and did not conduct their own investigation because “apparently felt it didn’t have [time] given the severity of the situation,” is not an excuse. In such a severe unique case, more time should be take to make sure the punishment is proper and appropriate for the crime. Unfortunately, the NCAA’s punishment is really not appropriate for the crime. This truthfully, is so much bigger than a Penn State or NCAA issue this is more of a legal issue. The NCAA should have taken more time to conduct their own investigation, followed the due process that is supposed to be required, and then considered (as a unit) laying down a punishment fit for the actions.

Leave a Comment

Featured Site