Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Friday, November 18, 2011
 
The Penn State Debate: Are NCAA Sanctions Inevitable?

Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) has always been an institution of great prestige and moral character, but within a few short days, the institution where the patriarchal football coach preached, “success with honor,” had been utterly shamed and dishonored. Now, it appears that the NCAA may be piling on. 

By now, we’ve all heard the disturbing allegations against former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, and details continue to emerge regarding the indefensible cover up of these egregious acts. Penn State has already taken steps towards remedying this situation by firing Coach Joe Paterno and President Graham Spanier, and accepting the resignations of Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz. These actions taken by the Board of Trustees have elicited mixed emotions from the community. Penn State students rioted in response to Paterno’s firing, yet just a few days later, a moment of silence for the victims was held at the outset of the Penn State Nebraska game. As evidenced by their tweets, Penn State players expressed empathy for the victims, but were also saddened by the loss of their coach. In a situation such as this, with so many details yet to be uncovered, it seems as though no one really knows how to act. One thing is certain, however, and that’s that those responsible will be punished.

The criminal and civil consequences notwithstanding, the question has been asked: what would the NCAA do? On Friday, NCAA President Mark Emmert provided an answer. Emmert announced in a letter to new Penn State President Rod Erickson that the NCAA will conduct an investigation into whether Penn State failed to exercise institutional control over its intercollegiate athletics programs. The NCAA may look into numerous provisions in its investigation. Bylaw 10.1  lists examples of what the NCAA considers unethical conduct. The bylaw states that the unethical conduct is “not limited to” the conduct provided in the examples. The NCAA could use this non-exhaustive clause to find the conduct of Sandusky and others to be unethical, and therefore, punishable by the NCAA. Furthermore, bylaw 11.1 details the conduct of athletics personnel and states that coaches must act with honesty “at all times.” Certainly the requirement of forthrightness is not limited solely to the field of play or the purely athletic context. Moreover, bylaw 11.1.2.1 states that it is the responsibility of the head coach to monitor the conduct of all assistant coaches and administrators to ensure an atmosphere of compliance. Overall, if it is discovered that administrators knew of these acts and either ignored or deliberately concealed the heinous conduct, Penn State could face the dreaded charge of “lack of institutional control.”

To be sure, any NCAA sanctions that may stem from this incident are of tertiary concern in comparison to bringing those responsible to justice and attaining some semblance of retribution for the victims, but Penn State administrators have undoubtedly been cognizant of this possibility. There are no provisions that specifically prohibit Sandusky’s alleged conduct or the covering up of such conduct, as such should simply be a matter of human decency, but if the NCAA does decide to issue sanctions against Penn State, no one will question its justification for doing so.

Yet, it is conceivable that the NCAA will do nothing here, and it is likely to let law enforcement run its course before making any definitive conclusions. It is worth noting that this case does not involve any violations on the part of the student-athletes, and the NCAA may be reluctant to impose sanctions because ultimately, the student-athletes will be most affected. Additionally, the NCAA has been historically leery to take action when a serious criminal investigation is at issue, with the Duke Lacrosse case being a recent example of this approach. The NCAA, though, may simply be waiting for the full array of facts before taking action.

Even in the wake of the recent slew of scandals transpiring in collegiate athletics, this scandal is beyond shameful when one considers the innocent lives affected and the misdeeds of the adults who were entrusted with their care. Ironically, in August 2011, former Penn State President, Graham Spanier commented on the U’s violations stating“We absolutely must put this climate of rule-breaking behind us.” On November 11, Penn State’s Board of Trustees created a Special Committee for the sole purpose of investigating this scandal. According to the Board, the Committee will be given whatever resources necessary to make sure that an incident like this never happens again, and the Committee will be charged with holding those responsible fully accountable. It seems as though Penn State will have to heed the advice of its former President and mend its reputation. A reputation that is undoubtedly far more tarnished than any stain that could be caused by NCAA sanctions.

Hat tip to law clerks Brian Konkel and Gabriela Schultz for their work on this piece.





2 Comments:

You missed By law 19, which is the strongest base for NCAA action; see posting at brewonsouthu.wordpress.com

Anonymous Wm Wilson -- 11/18/2011 8:52 PM  


Great post! Certainly a thorny situation for the NCAA. And as difficult as it might be to impose sanctions that would ultimately affect the players, that' a possibility administrators take on as part of their role at the U; for players, the very likely reality is simply a risk inherent to their choice of institution.

Blogger Kellen W. Bradley -- 11/21/2011 5:58 PM  


Post a Comment