NCAA Meeting

Please Note:  This video is RATED R (sexual language.)  Don't blame me.  I didn't make the video.  But I really enjoyed it!

NCAA Takes Umbrage at Paterno Suit

No surprise here.

I've sentenced programs younger than you to the gas chamber.
Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
How about a Fresca?

The NCAA seeks to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Paterno Estate, and a handful of trustees, faculty members, former playrs and former coaches.  The NCAA calls the suit "misdirected."

The filing in Centre County court said the suit contains "sundry misdirected complaints" and argued that the plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge the consent agreement between the NCAA and Penn State over the child molestation scandal involving ex-assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

"Plaintiffs resort to tortured interpretations of the NCAA bylaws and the case law in an effort to obscure two inescapable facts: they are the wrong plaintiffs and they have sued the wrong defendants," the NCAA wrote.

"Plaintiffs are obviously deeply disappointed with the consent decree and its effect on the legendary football program that they love," the NCAA wrote. "But plaintiffs cannot cobble together a sustainable lawsuit from their sundry misdirected complaints, however sincere their disagreement with the agreed resolution of the Jerry Sandusky matter."

If the lawsuit succeeds, the NCAA said, it would make it impossible for the organization to ever enter into a consensual resolution of a rules infractions matter, even if the university and the NCAA agreed on it.

Where do we even begin?

In saying that the plaintiffs are disappointed by the effect the consent decree has had on the football program, aren't they in essence admitting that the consent decree has had an adverse effect?  Wouldn't that effect harm former players, current faculty, and ex-coaches?  How does it not affect the estate and reputation of Joe Paterno?

And they are worried that it would make it impossible for the NCAA to enter into consent decrees in the future?  Is that a bad thing?  This Consent Decree did not deal with a rules infraction matter, so how would that impact future consent decrees that actually DO deal with infractions?

Let's examine what a CONSENT DECREE is?

According to Wikipedia: 

A consent decree (also referred to as a consent order or stipulated judgment or agreed judgment) is a final, binding judicial decree or judgment memorializing a voluntary agreement between parties to a suit in return for withdrawal of a criminal charge or an end to a civil litigation. In a typical consent decree, the defendant has already ceased or agrees to cease the conduct alleged by the plaintiff to be illegal and consents to a court injunction barring the conduct in the future.  Consent decrees are used most commonly in criminal law and family law. They are frequently used by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. They are sometimes used in antitrust law and labor law.

So I am a little confused here.  No criminal charges were withdrawn, and no civil suits against Penn State were ended (see red text above.)  Even if we interpret criminal activity to be NCAA infractions, we still don't have a case here, since Penn State did not violate any NCAA rule.  Apparently this interpretation of a "consent decree" has been construed above and beyond a normal legal definition to suit the purposes of the NCAA.

Let's be perfectly honest here.  The NCAA basically had no jurisdiction in this matter, created a punishment to which Penn State agreed (at the time based on mis-information in the form of public opinion and the Freeh Report), and now relies soley on this consent decree document to justify the continued punishment.

The courts must allow outside parties to contest this, because outside parties are affected by the outcome of this document.

For instance, if you sign a "consent decree" with your neighbor to absolve him of killing your spouse (hiring a hit man so to speak) and both parties agree, that does not make it legal.  The NCAA had no authority to absolve Penn State of any litigation or criminal conduct, and they certainly weren't absolving them of any infractions--in fact they were punishing them when no infraction had occurred.

Can the governor of a state enter into a consent decree with the president and agree to fine the state's taxpayers for a potential violation of a federal statute?

I'm sorry, but the fact that Penn State--and in particular a few members of the administration acting on behalf of the institution--and the NCAA entered into this agreement, does not mean that it should not be analyzed in a court of law.

State College businesses are suffering because of the bowl ban, particularly travel related industries.  Former coaches are having trouble finding jobs because of the stigma of implied guilt due to acceptance of this decree.  Professors may also find employment opportunities vanish because of this stigma.  And no matter what anyone does, the damage to Joe Paterno's reputation is permanent.  Writers/journalists/reporters are never going to retract the vile commentary or public perception of Paterno they created.

And the NCAA does not care, as evidenced by the trite comment about Paterno's family being unable to unload some signed footballs after his death.  Such comments are insensitive and certainly do not belong in a legal brief.

Maybe the Paterno lawsuit isn't the best way to correct this injustice.  But right now, it appears to be the only way.  Let's move this to discovery and let the courts decide whether the NCAA was acting in good faith when it circumvented it's on protocols, punished a memeber school for no actual infractions, and then hides behind a consent decree that is not the normal legal standard for this type of situation.

Did Erickson Sell-Out Penn State?

Just when you think the whole catastrophe couldn't get any worse, you read something like this from the Sun Sentinel . . .

Ameen Najjar, the NCAA enforcement director until his May 2012 firing, sent multiple emails to Shapiro's jail account to explain why the case against UM was crumbling, according to documents obtained by the Sun Sentinel. Najjar also criticized the NCAA's handling of Penn State's unprecedented sanctions relating to the Jerry Sandusky child sex scandal, but focused on the governing body's handling of the Miami case.

An Aug. 7 email from Najjar to Shapiro addressed the Penn State sanctions.

"The Penn State deal is a travesty," he wrote. "The NCAA did not impose anything. Penn State agreed to and self-imposed the penalties, waved all due process and waived any right to appeal. The NCAA had/has NO authority to impose any penalties in that situation and PSU's president sold the school down the river!"

Granted, this is an email from a disgruntled former employee, but it does throw Erickson's actions into a new light.  I always wondered why Penn State was so quick to accept a punishment that wasn't warranted.  Maybe we didn't accept it.  Maybe we created it, and I use the term "we" loosely.  It will be very interesting to see how this new revelation plays out.

Sign of the Times

From Fight on State Audibles Board:

Who Lacks Institutional Control?

Does the NCAA even know what it is doing?

According to the NCAA website, their mission statement says:

“Our mission is to be an integral part of higher education and to focus on the development of our student-athletes.”

Another site, covering UW sports and which coincidentally questions the jurisdiction of the NCAA in the Penn State case, quotes another mission statement of the NCAA:

The NCAA's mission statement reads: "Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so the that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."

What happened at Penn State is unspeakable, beyond belief, words can not describe how horrible the actions of Jerry Sandusky and everyone who covered up his actions were. Everyone involved should be punished to the absolute fullest extent of the law. That being said, punishing the football program does not fall within the NCAA's jurisdiction and would only serve to punish the fans, the new coaching staff, the players and possibly even many other Penn State student-athletes in other sports. All of which, had nothing to do with a scandal that happened 14 years ago and was covered up by people who are being prosecuted for their crimes.

My God!  Doesn't that make sense?  Let the courts punish the school for crimes, and let the NCAA mete out punishment for rules violations.

But apparently, the NCAA is confused about their role in all this.

Take this article in the USA Today about UCF's recent sanctions for instance:

The NCAA report notes, "A head coach is not required to investigate wrongdoing, but is expected to recognize potential NCAA violations, address them and report them to the athletics administration."

Doesn't that make sense?  A football coach is a coach, not a criminal investigator.  IF only Joe Paterno had reported the incident to the athletic administration, then the NCAA wouldn't have had a problem with how things were handled.  Wait?!  He did report it.  That was even in the Gospel According to Freeh.  Now I'm confused.  Is the coach supposed to report it or not?  But at least UCF was still sanctioned.

Unlike UNC, where a case of academic fraud is going to be swept away because--get this--the NCAA doesn't have any jurisdiction?  Read about that baloney here:

The University of North Carolina has essentially admitted that dozens of courses taught by African-American studies professor Julius Nyang'oro were, to use non-academic parlance, baloney.

The school has not argued that athletes made up a high percentage of the students enrolled in those baloney courses.

Going a step further, a report engineered by a faculty committee concluded -- though not yet fully endorsed by the university -- that academic counselors assigned to specific teams perhaps pushed athletes to those baloney classes.

And the NCAA apparently has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Which is why, dear folks in Indianapolis, people just don't get you sometimes.

It would seem to the layman that the intersection of athletics and academic dishonesty is exactly the right spot for the NCAA to step in.

The NCAA has no problem telling high schools -- where it has zero jurisdiction -- what qualifies as a core course and what doesn't. It has no problem telling high school athletes whether their coursework is legitimate enough to pass the NCAA eligibility smell test or is subject to review.

Yet when it comes to the legitimacy of classwork done on a college campus, where technically the NC(as in collegiate)AA has some sway, it lets the individual institutions police themselves.
That is not only hypocritical; it is illogical.

And believe it or not, that is ESPN calling out the NCAA for their baloney.

So in cases of academic fraud-which is okay as long as everyone, not just athletes, are involved--the NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction.  But in cases where a school has been a role model for academic integrity and sportsmanship, they nearly destroy the program because of legal actions beyond the scope of their mission.  Don't forget, their mission is for the development of student athletes.  Does the penalty at Penn State serve that mission?  More likely, it will hurt the student athletes at Penn State in the long-term, but apparently, that is no longer important to the NCAA as long as they can enforce laws without involving the court system.  And maybe a coach should report a crime in certain circumstances, but not others.  It all depends on how Mark Emmert is feeling when he gets up that morning.

And how does allowing athletes to take bogus courses at UNC, for whatever reason (it's okay if EVERYONE does it!) help development of student athletes?  Isn't that your bleeping mission, Mark?????

So I ask you . . . who lacks institutional control?  Penn State or the NCAA?

Maybe both.  And we all know that two wrongs make a right (and three rights make a left!)

Don Emmert Made Us An Offer