PSU SANCTIONS AND PATERNO

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Wow, you can look into my heart and truly read it. Quite a skill. If you had it.

People are going to have differing opinions, you can either work with that or not. I'm good.

Figures. 

I don't hide, as you so kindly first posted then changed. I owe you no explantion for anything I have as an opinion or anything else for that matter. You can be happy with what I've posted or not. A wise man once said, " A man is mostly as happy as he makes up his mind to be." You can choose anything you like. It never ceases to amaze me the reponse of some on this board when others have a differing opinion.

No one is under any agreement of any kind to only consider your version of a "right" NCAA decision the right one. It is simply your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wasn't rude to you, wasn't condescending to you and your thinking it is the only thing that makes it so in your world. I'm unconcerned with your opinion of that.

Go away !  You bother me.  I've been addressing the issues of this thread, offering suggestions, stating concerns and all you do is act offended  Throughout this thread you deflect and obfuscate rather than offering real insight.  I'll take your motto for fact, "Cynical, jaded and sarcastic bloviating available with or without request."  That aptly describes your responses in this thread.

You know tt, often I read your comments and am sometimes persuaded to reconsider and even on occasion I do change my opinion but you've really disappointed in this thread.

[dpwspringer 0]

Does everyone that doesn't agree with you have to leave?

[AUGoo 2,664]

The simple fact that PSU accepted what was handed down to them should demonstrate how much they thought the sanctions were appropriate and want to move on.  How many innocent people accept punishment? How many guilty for that matter? Life in prison beats the death penalty and the guilty usually realize this.

From what the PSU Pres. has said, Emmert threatened him with "If you don't sign off on this, with no appeal, I could give you up to four years of the death penalty". It sounds like the PSU Pres. was strong armed by Emmert on this one.

Good.

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

Well, this is certainly interesting...

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

Highlights:

1. PSU was facing a 4 year Death Penalty

2. PSU's president signed the papers that gave up PSU's right to fight the penalties

3. PSU's president did not consult with the board of trustees

4. Some board of trustees members are now contending PSU's president did not have the authority to sign the papers essentially agreeing to the penalties and giving up PSU's right to challenge them. They are looking at options to overturn and potentially fight back.

So, PSU did not really agree to the Freeh report findings or the NCAA penalties. Their president did, but only due to the threat of a 4 year death penalty and much larger fines. And he did not consult the majority of the board of trustees either.

Exactly.  ONE person, the president, cast his vote against PSU and did not even consult the board.

You certainly have a flare for words. The PSU president is in a tough spot and is doing what he thinks is best, he is not trying to sell PSU down the river without a paddle. FWIW, the PSU board of trustees is considered to be part of the problem/culture that was in place that did not enough by some, including the Freeh Report... I think.  I believe the chairman of the board resigned and it would not be too surprising if the rest of the board was forced out before too long.

This is sorta an interesting situation regarding the board. In the Freeh report, the board was blasted for being in the dark and not being privy to the Sandusky issue. Now they are in the dark again although transparency to the board and their involvement was supposed to be something that needed to be addressed and rectified in the first place. Sorta damned if we do, damned if we don't for the board.

[Weegle777 78]

[telling tiger 156]

If I didn't disappoint some people on this planet, I would be disappointed in myself. I'm not.

I've had several interactions with people who disagree with me on this thread.

Like I posted this morning, all the ranting on anyone's part isn't going to change a thing. your posted opinion is just that, an opinion. It holds no more merit than anyone else's does.

The quote is a joke and the joke recepient knows all about it. You can like it or not too.

I disagree with you and you do not like the way I do it or have done it. Feel free to skip my post at any or all the time.

I've not engaged you or quoted you in this thread until you have me. There is a reason for that. As seen now.

You are hypersensitve over anything I've posted and that is nothing but your issue. I don't have a problem with it at all.

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

How about you guys quit with the lil back and forth bickering at some point here soon.

[rockfordpi 91]

How about you guys quit with the lil back and forth bickering at some point here soon.

Yeah, I can't believe they have gotten into one of those and left ME out  :'(  :'( :'( :'( :'(

Then again, others have made my points much better than I could have, so in a way, it is nice to just get to sit back and watch for a change and let someone else defend truth, justice, and the American Way. 

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

Apparently, two very prominent anti-trust lawyers have stated today that PSU had a very good case and likely could have gotten all the penalties by the NCAA removed had they chosen to fight them.

Goes back to my first thoughts on the matter that the NCAA had no jurisdiction or authority to penalize PSU and PSU should not have accepted them, IMO.

[rockfordpi 91]

Apparently, two very prominent anti-trust lawyers have stated today that PSU had a very good case and likely could have gotten all the penalties by the NCAA removed had they chosen to fight them.

Goes back to my first thoughts on the matter that the NCAA had no jurisdiction or authority to penalize PSU and PSU should not have accepted them, IMO.

Not sure how/why this particular thing is an anti-trust issue. I do know the NCAA is very aware and concerned about anti-trust issues in some other areas.

However, I do think this thing may result is all sorts of litigation for years to come, especially if the NCAA continues in this direction with other schools.

As I said earlier, I can't think of any example where a "NON-GOVERMENT" entity ever levied a fine this large, or even close, on anyone, especially not a public state owned entity.

In this case, we had a non government entity essentially fining the state*.  The NCAA levied what is, in essence, a $60 million tax on the people of PA for the criminal activity of three people.

This was agreed to by one man without even a vote of the BOT. 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Apparently, two very prominent anti-trust lawyers have stated today that PSU had a very good case and likely could have gotten all the penalties by the NCAA removed had they chosen to fight them.

Goes back to my first thoughts on the matter that the NCAA had no jurisdiction or authority to penalize PSU and PSU should not have accepted them, IMO.

Penn State president Rodney Erickson screwed up for not consulting the PSU board as rockfordpi mentions and would think his job is under review for his unilateral action.

As I said earlier, I can't think of any example where a "NON-GOVERMENT" entity ever levied a fine this large, or even close, on anyone, especially not a public state owned entity.

In this case, we had a non government entity essentially fining the state*.  The NCAA levied what is, in essence, a $60 million tax on the people of PA for the criminal activity of three people.   

The fine will be paid from athletic department revenues, so no taxes involved. 

When has the NCAA ever levied cash fines ?  Might UMiami be fined ?

Emmert has lost his mind.

[WarEagle10 77]

Apparently, two very prominent anti-trust lawyers have stated today that PSU had a very good case and likely could have gotten all the penalties by the NCAA removed had they chosen to fight them.

Goes back to my first thoughts on the matter that the NCAA had no jurisdiction or authority to penalize PSU and PSU should not have accepted them, IMO.

Penn State president Rodney Erickson screwed up for not consulting the PSU board as rockfordpi mentions and would think his job is under review for his unilateral action.

As I said earlier, I can't think of any example where a "NON-GOVERMENT" entity ever levied a fine this large, or even close, on anyone, especially not a public state owned entity.

In this case, we had a non government entity essentially fining the state*.  The NCAA levied what is, in essence, a $60 million tax on the people of PA for the criminal activity of three people.   

The fine will be paid from athletic department revenues, so no taxes involved. 

When has the NCAA ever levied cash fines ?  Might UMiami be fined ?

Emmert has lost his mind.

I do agree with this. I just wonder how long he will be the NCAA pres. after this.

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

I caught the discussion on the Dan Lebatard radio show on the way home today. By the way, the Lebatard show is an excellent talk show. They get off on tangents that are not sports related and act goofy sometimes, but Lebatard is the real deal as far as being a journalist goes and extremely intelligent.

Anyways, on to the PSU stuff...

I looked up what they were talking about and according to the Supreme Court, the NCAA is subject to anti-trust laws.

The NCAA's legal authority to punish its members is somewhat murky. In NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA was subject to antitrust law. That ruling reversed more than 30 years of college football TV policy. Conferences—not the association—could now sell television rights. The NCAA had derived much of its early authority (and funding) from a 1952 dispute in which two schools, Notre Dame and Pennsylvania, briefly fought an association-wide fiat that only the NCAA-approved "Game of the Week" could be televised.

Market research showed that too much television would hurt attendance, so a large majority of NCAA members sided with the proposal. But Penn and Notre Dame wanted to keep their home games on TV. The NCAA threatened both schools with a contamination notice, which meant that opponents who played both schools would face punishment, too. Eventually they relented, and the NCAA took charge of selling all colleges' TV rights, skimming off the top.

That changed in 1984, when the court ruled that college football was big business and that the NCAA couldn't restrict it. Power shifted heavily in the conferences' favor, since the NCAA had no more football to sell.

However, the NCAA is not subject to due process laws:

But a 1988 decision, NCAA v. Tarkanian, affirmed the NCAA's power to punish schools without regard for due-process standards. Even though the association included state universities—governmental organs—as its members, and even though it held a great deal of authority over those members, the court ruled that the NCAA was not a state actor itself.

Since then, we've been left with two different standards for NCAA punishment: The organization can intervene in matters concerning individuals—eligibility and the like—but mostly cannot in big financial matters

But if PSU had decided to fight:

So let's imagine a counterfactual in which Penn State says no to Emmert's offer. What happens? The 2012 football season probably goes off as planned. The NCAA either commissions an investigation of its own or uses the Freeh report to drag the school before the infractions committee, and Penn State faces hearings at the end of the year. The punishment comes swiftly in early 2013, with the death penalty—for as many as four years—on the table. Penn State likely faces even greater cuts in scholarships, a larger fine, and more postseason sanctions.

Mitten says Penn State could then sue the NCAA on antitrust grounds with a good chance to win. Case law has given the NCAA broad authority to restrain economic competition when it comes to furthering the causes of amateurism, competitive balance, and the education of student-athletes. But Penn State's transgressions, wretched though they were, didn't jeopardize competition or scholarship.

So Penn State's lawyers could make the case that the NCAA's sanctions constitute an unfair restraint on economic competition. Bowl bans, scholarship cuts, and a $60 million fine mean broad economic trouble for the school, not just for its football team. Penn State could argue that a wounded Nittany Lions would hurt the university's ability to recruit students and faculty. The vacated wins would stay vacated, Mitten says, but everything else would probably fall in court. The NCAA's usual authority would survive, but its expanded authority would be no more.

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

Here is the link to the entire article (on deadspin).

http://deadspin.com/5928267/penn-state-could-have-fought-the-ncaa-and-won

It is long but a very interesting read, I tried to just pull the most relevant parts for those challenged with ADD.

And the opinion comes primarily from consulting with the following anti-trust lawyers:

Two sports antitrust lawyers—Jeffrey Kessler, the Winston & Strawn partner who represented the NFL and NBA players' unions in their recent lockout negotiations, and Matt Mitten, director of the National Sports Law Institute—told me Penn State would have had a good case to beat most of the sanctions if it had sued the NCAA. Rodney Erickson could have told Mark Emmert, "Thanks but no thanks, we'll keep playing," and he could have won.

[rockfordpi 91]

Apparently, two very prominent anti-trust lawyers have stated today that PSU had a very good case and likely could have gotten all the penalties by the NCAA removed had they chosen to fight them.

Goes back to my first thoughts on the matter that the NCAA had no jurisdiction or authority to penalize PSU and PSU should not have accepted them, IMO.

Penn State president Rodney Erickson screwed up for not consulting the PSU board as rockfordpi mentions and would think his job is under review for his unilateral action.

As I said earlier, I can't think of any example where a "NON-GOVERMENT" entity ever levied a fine this large, or even close, on anyone, especially not a public state owned entity.

In this case, we had a non government entity essentially fining the state*.  The NCAA levied what is, in essence, a $60 million tax on the people of PA for the criminal activity of three people.   

The fine will be paid from athletic department revenues, so no taxes involved. 

When has the NCAA ever levied cash fines ?  Might UMiami be fined ?

Emmert has lost his mind.

Well technically yes, PSU athletic department will write the check. However, when money is taken from a state institution, money is taken from the people of the state as it is the people of the state who, in essence, own PSU.

For example, PSU is considered the state when it comes to 14th amendment litigation and also in terms of Sovereign Immunity.

Actually, I had not thought about Sovereign Immunity. For the most part, Citizens are barred from suing PSU under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity (yes there are exceptions). However, even though a citizen of PA can't sue PSU, the NCAA is able to fine PSU $60 million.

Of course PSU did agree to the fine, at least to the extent that one man has the authority to agree that PSU pay that fine.

[rockfordpi 91]

I caught the discussion on the Dan Lebatard radio show on the way home today. By the way, the Lebatard show is an excellent talk show. They get off on tangents that are not sports related and act goofy sometimes, but Lebatard is the real deal as far as being a journalist goes and extremely intelligent.

Anyways, on to the PSU stuff...

I looked up what they were talking about and according to the Supreme Court, the NCAA is subject to anti-trust laws.

The NCAA's legal authority to punish its members is somewhat murky. In NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA was subject to antitrust law. That ruling reversed more than 30 years of college football TV policy. Conferences—not the association—could now sell television rights. The NCAA had derived much of its early authority (and funding) from a 1952 dispute in which two schools, Notre Dame and Pennsylvania, briefly fought an association-wide fiat that only the NCAA-approved "Game of the Week" could be televised.

Market research showed that too much television would hurt attendance, so a large majority of NCAA members sided with the proposal. But Penn and Notre Dame wanted to keep their home games on TV. The NCAA threatened both schools with a contamination notice, which meant that opponents who played both schools would face punishment, too. Eventually they relented, and the NCAA took charge of selling all colleges' TV rights, skimming off the top.

That changed in 1984, when the court ruled that college football was big business and that the NCAA couldn't restrict it. Power shifted heavily in the conferences' favor, since the NCAA had no more football to sell.

However, the NCAA is not subject to due process laws:

But a 1988 decision, NCAA v. Tarkanian, affirmed the NCAA's power to punish schools without regard for due-process standards. Even though the association included state universities—governmental organs—as its members, and even though it held a great deal of authority over those members, the court ruled that the NCAA was not a state actor itself.

Since then, we've been left with two different standards for NCAA punishment: The organization can intervene in matters concerning individuals—eligibility and the like—but mostly cannot in big financial matters

But if PSU had decided to fight:

So let's imagine a counterfactual in which Penn State says no to Emmert's offer. What happens? The 2012 football season probably goes off as planned. The NCAA either commissions an investigation of its own or uses the Freeh report to drag the school before the infractions committee, and Penn State faces hearings at the end of the year. The punishment comes swiftly in early 2013, with the death penalty—for as many as four years—on the table. Penn State likely faces even greater cuts in scholarships, a larger fine, and more postseason sanctions.

Mitten says Penn State could then sue the NCAA on antitrust grounds with a good chance to win. Case law has given the NCAA broad authority to restrain economic competition when it comes to furthering the causes of amateurism, competitive balance, and the education of student-athletes. But Penn State's transgressions, wretched though they were, didn't jeopardize competition or scholarship.

So Penn State's lawyers could make the case that the NCAA's sanctions constitute an unfair restraint on economic competition. Bowl bans, scholarship cuts, and a $60 million fine mean broad economic trouble for the school, not just for its football team. Penn State could argue that a wounded Nittany Lions would hurt the university's ability to recruit students and faculty. The vacated wins would stay vacated, Mitten says, but everything else would probably fall in court. The NCAA's usual authority would survive, but its expanded authority would be no more.

Excellent outline of the legal history to explain where we are and how we got  here.

So many legal issues here. I think PSU has a lot of legal options/routes they can take, the problem is that, to fight it, will be a PR nightmare.

Given the risk/reward and the harshness of the penalty they got, PSU might have been better off to call the bluff and see if they really had  the nerve to impose the death penalty. It would not have been much worse.

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

I also think the PSU Board may have some options in nullifying what Erickson signed if he acted on his own and not in a fiduciary capacity with board consent. However, I read somewhere that some board members were privy to the conversations I believe. I would think the NCAA did their due diligence there in making sure that Erickson's actions were binding, but who knows.

Also, as you point out, fighting would be a PR nightmare. HOWEVER, IMO, it all depends on public perception. If PSU believes it has enough public support insofar as the NCAA overstepped its bounds, they might deem a fight worthwhile and the PR hit somewhat mitigated.

By the way, if PSU fought, the NCAA went through its process and hit PSU with a death penalty, and PSU sued and won, the NCAA could be looking at a monsterously expensive judgement for damages. Anti-trust violations are generally triple actual damages to try to deter them in the first place (the anti-trust violations). This would hurt all schools however as much of what the NCAA makes goes back to the schools as the NCAA is a not-for profit organization for tax purposes anyway.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I also think the PSU Board may have some options in nullifying what Erickson signed if he acted on his own and not in a fiduciary capacity with board consent. However, I read somewhere that some board members were privy to the conversations I believe. I would think the NCAA did their due diligence there in making sure that Erickson's actions were binding, but who knows.

Also, as you point out, fighting would be a PR nightmare. HOWEVER, IMO, it all depends on public perception. If PSU believes it has enough public support insofar as the NCAA overstepped its bounds, they might deem a fight worthwhile and the PR hit somewhat mitigated.

By the way, if PSU fought, the NCAA went through its process and hit PSU with a death penalty, and PSU sued and won, the NCAA could be looking at a monsterously expensive judgement for damages. Anti-trust violations are generally triple actual damages to try to deter them in the first place (the anti-trust violations). This would hurt all schools however as much of what the NCAA makes goes back to the schools as the NCAA is a not-for profit organization for tax purposes anyway.

This is the part I kept thinking also until I considered the effect upon the team's scholarship count.  To me that makes the least bit of sense and it affects the players for the next decade.  This whole issue was not about skirting recruiting rules or enabling ineligible players, but rather a crime(s).  This issue was best resolved in the courts.  This was not equitable.  If the NCAA had left out the effects upon the team I believe this issue would have been settled but they are very likely in for a fight.

The PR to me would have been the crux of the decision making and probably hastened Erickson, but in reading just one page of PSU comments I find that they are angry, very angry at the decision and those who made it, that it is unjust.  Many of the players are willing to stay and play on in spite of what has happened.  The fight in the PSU fan base is swelling.  We'll probably see more from them.

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

I also think the PSU Board may have some options in nullifying what Erickson signed if he acted on his own and not in a fiduciary capacity with board consent. However, I read somewhere that some board members were privy to the conversations I believe. I would think the NCAA did their due diligence there in making sure that Erickson's actions were binding, but who knows.

Also, as you point out, fighting would be a PR nightmare. HOWEVER, IMO, it all depends on public perception. If PSU believes it has enough public support insofar as the NCAA overstepped its bounds, they might deem a fight worthwhile and the PR hit somewhat mitigated.

By the way, if PSU fought, the NCAA went through its process and hit PSU with a death penalty, and PSU sued and won, the NCAA could be looking at a monsterously expensive judgement for damages. Anti-trust violations are generally triple actual damages to try to deter them in the first place (the anti-trust violations). This would hurt all schools however as much of what the NCAA makes goes back to the schools as the NCAA is a not-for profit organization for tax purposes anyway.

This is the part I kept thinking also until I considered the effect upon the team's scholarship count.  To me that makes the least bit of sense and it affects the players for the next decade.  This whole issue was not about skirting recruiting rules or enabling ineligible players, but rather a crime(s).  This issue was best resolved in the courts.  This was not equitable.  If the NCAA had left out the effects upon the team I believe this issue would have been settled but they are very likely in for a fight.

The PR to me would have been the crux of the decision making and probably hastened Erickson, but in reading just one page of PSU comments I find that they are angry, very angry at the decision and those who made it, that it is unjust.  Many of the players are willing to stay and play on in spite of what has happened.  The fight in the PSU fan base is swelling.  We'll probably see more from them.

Totally agree. I looked at their boards last night as well (from the link in the other thread), and they are becoming angry and feel both railroaded and poorly represented by Erickson. I cannot say I disagree. This is not over.

[cooltigger21 0]

This whole thing should make every school in college athletics think long and hard. The NCAA has  essentially stated that their authority is unilimted and they can do what they want to a school and for any reason they want to. They can and will make up the rules as they go along. I for one hope they get sued. Their track record is not good when they go to court. I think they'd lose this one as well.

[WarEagle10 77]

This whole thing should make every school in college athletics think long and hard. The NCAA has  essentially stated that their authority is unilimted and they can do what they want to a school and for any reason they want to. They can and will make up the rules as they go along. I for one hope they get sued. Their track record is not good when they go to court. I think they'd lose this one as well.

and if you don't sign off, that you can't appeal, before the sanctions are made public, the NCAA might shut down your program for up to four years. That it was tinkle's me off the most about the whole thing. Just absurd IMO.

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

I also think the PSU Board may have some options in nullifying what Erickson signed if he acted on his own and not in a fiduciary capacity with board consent. However, I read somewhere that some board members were privy to the conversations I believe. I would think the NCAA did their due diligence there in making sure that Erickson's actions were binding, but who knows.

Also, as you point out, fighting would be a PR nightmare. HOWEVER, IMO, it all depends on public perception. If PSU believes it has enough public support insofar as the NCAA overstepped its bounds, they might deem a fight worthwhile and the PR hit somewhat mitigated.

By the way, if PSU fought, the NCAA went through its process and hit PSU with a death penalty, and PSU sued and won, the NCAA could be looking at a monsterously expensive judgement for damages. Anti-trust violations are generally triple actual damages to try to deter them in the first place (the anti-trust violations). This would hurt all schools however as much of what the NCAA makes goes back to the schools as the NCAA is a not-for profit organization for tax purposes anyway.

I'm gonna go ahead and quote myself because here we go...

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8240385/penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-file-appeal-federal-lawsuit-denial

As I said when this all went down, the PSU board could attempt to nullify what Erickson signed if he did not have the authority and acted outside of his fiduciary capacity.

Now the PSU board is saying exactly that and looking to appeal the sanctions. They have a new board member who is a former Navy Seal and does not appear to like being bulllied by the NCAA. The NCAA will deny the appeal, and PSU will sue IMO (assuming what Erickson signed is nullified).

This has the potential to get real ugly for the NCAA. PSU will win this in the courts and get practically all the sanctions overturned and can sue the NCAA for triple damages (the typical anti-trust award) if it goes that far IMO.

So, the question now is will the rest of the PSU board join the board members that are wanting to fight. I still believe the PR part will play a big role. Some of the board members may not want to fight because of it even though they can win.

But if enough of them have the guts to stand up and fight, I think it could mean big trouble for the NCAA. We will see.

[The Prowler 1]

I also think the PSU Board may have some options in nullifying what Erickson signed if he acted on his own and not in a fiduciary capacity with board consent. However, I read somewhere that some board members were privy to the conversations I believe. I would think the NCAA did their due diligence there in making sure that Erickson's actions were binding, but who knows.

Also, as you point out, fighting would be a PR nightmare. HOWEVER, IMO, it all depends on public perception. If PSU believes it has enough public support insofar as the NCAA overstepped its bounds, they might deem a fight worthwhile and the PR hit somewhat mitigated.

By the way, if PSU fought, the NCAA went through its process and hit PSU with a death penalty, and PSU sued and won, the NCAA could be looking at a monsterously expensive judgement for damages. Anti-trust violations are generally triple actual damages to try to deter them in the first place (the anti-trust violations). This would hurt all schools however as much of what the NCAA makes goes back to the schools as the NCAA is a not-for profit organization for tax purposes anyway.

I'm gonna go ahead and quote myself because here we go...

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8240385/penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-file-appeal-federal-lawsuit-denial

As I said when this all went down, the PSU board could attempt to nullify what Erickson signed if he did not have the authority and acted outside of his fiduciary capacity.

Now the PSU board is saying exactly that and looking to appeal the sanctions. They have a new board member who is a former Navy Seal and does not appear to like being bulllied by the NCAA. The NCAA will deny the appeal, and PSU will sue IMO (assuming what Erickson signed is nullified).

This might get real ugly for the NCAA. PSU will win this in the courts and get practically all the sanctions overturned and can sue the NCAA for triple damages (the typical anti-trust award) if it goes that far IMO.

We will see. Like I said, not over.

I agree, it's not over by a long shot...Also, Coach sabbin's little buddy, Mark Emmert, his job will be on the line when it all comes out, IMO.

[Tiger n Miami AU83 25]

Sorry... edited my post a bit late...

Wanted to point out the other board members are gonna have to pick a side now.

[Autigers71 0]

Erickson signed the consent decree late last month with the NCAA after consulting with board chairwoman Karen Peetz and university counsel, but he did not bring the decree to the full board for review or a vote.

At this point I would like to see the NCAA suspend the sanctions. Still allow players to transfer w/o restrictions if they want to. Get a ruling from a court of law. And if they get a ruling that says they have authority to levy sanctions in this case then give PSU the MAXIMUM penalty allowable by law.

I hope they can give them an 8 year death penalty.