Rethinking Penn State Sanctions and Executive Authority

Journal of issues in intercollegiate athletics ^ | 5-5-13 | Dennie, Gurney

[FlJoePa]

From page 6:

We are left with unprecedented penalties based on disputed facts. The Penn State sanctions are based upon a Consent Decree that is disputed by the accused individuals. The three key administrators are facing criminal charges and have not had an opportunity to fully respond to the Freeh Report that serves as the basis for the penalty. The full account of what occurred at Penn State University has not been told and the sanctions seem premature. As such, NCAA sanctions currently levied against Penn State should be suspended until the perjury and child endangerment cases have been completed. Should facts established in the court contradict the basis of the Emmert’s actions, the entire case should be dropped and referred back to the NCAA enforcement staff. Given Emmert’s rush to judgment and the enormous publicity associated with the Sandusky case, it is difficult to imagine a fair and impartial consideration of the Penn State case by the NCAA Committee on Infractions. If codified NCAA rules have been broken, the case requires a hearing before a neutral and unbiased body unassociated with college athletics. In any event, an appeal process for the institution and accused individuals before a neutral board should immediately be afforded to Penn State and those accused of wrong doing.

[FlJoePa]

Very good presentation by two independently thinking individuals. Pretty brutal assessment of emmert's actions.

[FlJoePa]

FYI...