Penn State filing suit against the NCAA, should they get the Death penalty | The Boneyard

Penn State filing suit against the NCAA, should they get the Death penalty

Status
Not open for further replies.
They don't want to do this. They don't want an investigation and due process. An investigation and open books will turn up things that they don't want to see, and that the NCAA will have unquestioned jurisdiction over.
 
I was just over on the ESPN boards and this story is blowing up over there. This action by a few BOT members is creating a firestorm of hatred towards Penn State, and they may of just taken a step or two backwards in the court of public opinion. This proves that there are those who still just don't get it.... I wonder if Delaney will weigh in on this?
 
I hope they lose... lose badly.... and come out worse for it. Death penalty time.
 
This seems like a bad call by rogue board member who likely lacks the authority to act for the institution. It is publicity, nothing more. As tough as the sanctions were against Penn St. a NCAA investigation and subsequent severe more sanctions would worse. Part of me hopes they go for it. What they did was reprehensible.
 
.-.
Saw somewhere else that only 4 of 32 trustees filed, the others reiterated they would accept the sanctions. They likely have no recourse here, just like the Paterno family.
 
Honestly, can anyone provide any kind of logical justification for doing this? This so boggles my mind that I'm almost speechless.

The evidence of the entire NCAA process is right out in the public, including the fact that this plea bargain of a deal came instead of what the NCAA was VERY CLOSE to doing which is instituting a 4 YEAR BAN OF FOOTBALL.

"Oh this hornet's nest looks harmless, let's poke it with a stick, and then slam it with a sledge hammer and drop it off a skyscraper."

I hope the NCAA does one of the following in response: 1) okay, that deal doesn't count. you now have a 4 year ban; or 2) okay, you're out of the NCAA, good luck.
 
TRest said:
Saw somewhere else that only 4 of 32 trustees filed, the others reiterated they would accept the sanctions. They likely have no recourse here, just like the Paterno family.
Expand ...
-----------
I read that to, but just by those 4 BOT members actions they clearly show that the old guard still exists at Penn State. I personally think they got off easy, they shouldn't push this or someone may make a real example out of them.
 
This "lawsuit" will go nowhere. (Never mind that you can't sue the NCAA.) The PSU president had an easy choice, accept the Freeh Report and the NCAA sanctions, or get a 4 year shut down of the football program. The board should be thanking the president for making a deal that prevented a shutdown of the football program.

The real problem here is the size of university boards. How can a board greater than 10 people even function, especially in a crisis? Any large board will have a few loose cannons, and it looks like PSU's is not different.
 
.-.
- this is an action by one newly elected trustee. He was joined by three others. This is not a university deal.

- his action claims that the President overstepped his authority in dealing with the NCAA, and he is probably correct. His point is that a rogue president/administrator and an absent BoT was the cause of this mess and they repeated it in dealing with the NCAA.

- he claims the NCAA violated its own due process procedures in investigating and sanctioning the University and he is absolutely correct.

- he also claims that the Freeh report is flawed and its conclusions do not reflect what actually happened. He is off the reservation here. Whatever flaws or errors the report contains, the basic fact is that a person or persons in a position of authority with the responsibility to intervene, did not.

All that said, the lawsuit is not a good idea. At some point you can't fight city hall.



Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
 
The NCAA said that the Freeh Report was more intensive than anything the NCAA could have done. If they choose to endorse the Freeh Report (who commissioned that report exactly? Ahhh right) as their investigation, then the burden of proof is on the three trustees to show how the NCAA sloppily violated its own rules. Good luck with that.
 
IMO no BOT would take on this fight unless there was someone on the outside pushing for it. No disrespect intended, but there's probably a few lawyers looking to defend the lawsuit to get at a piece of that PSU endowment fund so they can pay off their student loans. :( As in many (though not all) things legal...follow the money.
 
From the sound of things this is an independent action by a couple of Trustees...I seriouslyy doubt whether they even have standing to appeal an NCAA decision. Probably be tossed without even being read. Now if the University as a whole takes some action, I hope the NCAA does indeed suspend the program for at least a season. Probably too late for 2012, but in 2013 I'd hope Beaver Stadium is the worlds largest intramural soccer arena.
 
Palatine said:
This is the ultimate proof that Penn State doesn't get it. It is absolutely shameful.
Expand ...

No, it's not. That would require that the University bring a suit. This is the equivalent of some internet posters presuming that they can act on behalf of UConn. Like TDH seeking an injunction preventing us from running the ball on 3rd and longer than 2.
 
.-.
businesslawyer said:
No, it's not. That would require that the University bring a suit. This is the equivalent of some internet posters presuming that they can act on behalf of UConn. Like TDH seeking an injunction preventing us from running the ball on 3rd and longer than 2.
Expand ...

Wow. I had no idea we Boneyarders wielded as much power as a BoT member at UConn.

Susan, Warde....can you please report to my office immediately? We need to discuss Mr. McNeal.
 
businesslawyer said:
No, it's not. That would require that the University bring a suit. This is the equivalent of some internet posters presuming that they can act on behalf of UConn. Like TDH seeking an injunction preventing us from running the ball on 3rd and longer than 2.
Expand ...
Well, bl, that's a little bit excessive...I mean these guys are members of the Board of Trustees after all. But I agree with your point. They are not acting as authorized representatives of the university, apparently
 
businesslawyer said:
No, it's not. That would require that the University bring a suit. This is the equivalent of some internet posters presuming that they can act on behalf of UConn. Like TDH seeking an injunction preventing us from running the ball on 3rd and longer than 2.
Expand ...
I'd pay money to hear RE's testimony in favor of this strategy.
 
I'm sick of Penn State. It's just like an infection that keeps returning, because it hasn't been completely killed off properly.
 
businesslawyer said:
No, it's not. That would require that the University bring a suit. This is the equivalent of some internet posters presuming that they can act on behalf of UConn. Like TDH seeking an injunction preventing us from running the ball on 3rd and longer than 2.
Expand ...

Somehow how I think think that a member of the BoT is slightly more closely tied to the university than an internet poster, them board members even more so. That said, while they aren't acting on behalf of the university, this does suggest that is a cadre at Penn State who "don't get it".
 
CL82 said:
Somehow how I think think that a member of the BoT is slightly more closely tied to the university than an internet poster, them board members even more so. That said, while they aren't acting on behalf of the university, this does suggest that is a cadre at Penn State who "don't get it".
Expand ...

1. I thought it was fairly obvious that I was being overdramatic. Apparently, it wasn't. So I apologize to anyone wasting time thinking it was meant as a literal statement.

2. That having been said, a minority of members of a board can not speak for an institution. So they have no standing to be requesting, on behalf of PSU, for anyone to do anything. No more so than the Paterno family has. Or, in fact, an internet poster.

3. They do have standing to challenge whether the school exceeded its authority by acting without the consent of the board. The fact that they make that challenge is not evidence of anyone "not getting it" about Paterno. You can think that the deal the school cut was in the school's best interest and still be furious that a decision that you are supposed to participate in wasn't brought to you. That happens on boards.

4. The thought that if any one single person with a PSU tie "doesn't get it" it means Penn State needs a harsher punishment is beyond silly. The institution has accepted its punishment and moved on. I dare one person to argue that the NCAA should ban our hoops team from the tourney for a second year because the majority of Boneyarders believe that the punishment was unfair and "don't get it." I dare you to start that thread. Goose, gander and all.
 
.-.
If it was the sinister triple-dog-dare, I'd do it. I'd go right ahead and start that thread.

Methinks that certain board members are having their threads pulled by the Paterno family at PSU. No matter what, i hold firm to my analogy, this whole PSU mess is like a nasty infection that just when you think it's gone, a new boil of pus surfaces. Disgusting.
 
businesslawyer said:
1. I thought it was fairly obvious that I was being overdramatic. Apparently, it wasn't. So I apologize to anyone wasting time thinking it was meant as a literal statement.

2. That having been said, a minority of members of a board can not speak for an institution. So they have no standing to be requesting, on behalf of PSU, for anyone to do anything. No more so than the Paterno family has. Or, in fact, an internet poster.

3. They do have standing to challenge whether the school exceeded its authority by acting without the consent of the board. The fact that they make that challenge is not evidence of anyone "not getting it" about Paterno. You can think that the deal the school cut was in the school's best interest and still be furious that a decision that you are supposed to participate in wasn't brought to you. That happens on boards.

4. The thought that if any one single person with a PSU tie "doesn't get it" it means Penn State needs a harsher punishment is beyond silly. The institution has accepted its punishment and moved on. I dare one person to argue that the NCAA should ban our hoops team from the tourney for a second year because the majority of Boneyarders believe that the punishment was unfair and "don't get it." I dare you to start that thread. Goose, gander and all.
Expand ...
I agree on all this, though on the 3rd point I'm not sure they have much ability to make that challenge anywhere but at the Board of Trustees meeting. I think for sure they would need to raise it there first before making the challenge anywhere else. I can't think of an instance where an individual board member successfully tried to overturn an action other than by an action of the Board. Could be some, but it is rare at least.

On the 4th point, I think the argument is more that if the University somehow decides to renege on its agreement and challenge the NCAA's authority, for example, as these 4 guys are doing independently, then it has opened itself to a stronger NCAA reaction, possibly even returning to the original 4 year ban. Say for example they could convince the entire board to vote to take up this cause, then the NCAA would be within its rights to re-open the penalty and could well implement harsher terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,305
Messages
4,562,308
Members
10,455
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom