PA Gov Corbett bringing lawsuit against NCAA over Penn State/Sandusky ruling

Great Debates
1

Sorry if the title isn’t clear. I was surprised no one had posted about this yet. Here’s some links about the story: Philly Inquirer, CBS News, NBC news

In a nutshell, and as I understand it, they are intending to bring a federal anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA for the penalties levied against Penn State for their covering-up of allegations against convicted child-molester Jerry Sandusky. This includes a $60,000,000 fine to be paid to national programs to fight child sex-abuse (at least one of their complaints being that it should go exclusively to PA programs). Bear in mind that Corbett is a former member of the Penn State board of trustees. I doubt he’d be doing this if it was University of Pittsburgh, Temple, or any of the 14 state schools. Penn State officials have denied having anything to do with this.

When I heard about this last night I was gob-smacked. I can’t fathom how this could possibly be seen as anything other than a major publicity fiasco. I even sent a letter of protest via the state website, for all the good it will do.

So here’s the thing; there’s how people feel about the NCAA ruling, there’s whether or not Corbett has a solid case against the NCAA, and the implications of fighting it.

I felt that some of the NCAA’s penalties were a bit excessive, but supported it overall. I don’t know anything about the legalities of the matter. But I am deeply concerned about the culture of, and I hate to sound so hyperbolic, rape-apologists that this seems to condone. I mean, couldn’t Penn State just tell the NCAA to go ‘f’ themselves and simply not have a sports program if they don’t want to abide by the rulings? Sure it would hurt their finances immensely, but that’s the whole point of the NCAA’s rulings. That Penn State had become a football institution to the exclusion of all legal or ethical concerns. If they can’t do well as a school without their football team than maybe they should have to shut down. Why are we supposed to be so quick to forgive and forget when institutions turn a blind eye to pedophilia? I can’t help but see similarities between Paterno’s covering for Sandusky (as evidenced by Louis Freeh’s report) and the Catholic Church’s protection of accused clergy. If Corbett pursues this, isn’t he just reinforcing this tendency to minimize the responsibility of such organizations to take action and support a proper investigation?

Quite frankly, the incredible sense of entitlement and self-aggrandizing attitudes shown by the Penn State community throughout the scandal sickened me, and to see the state government being brought to bear on their behalf because “boo-hoo, what will our students do all semester without football parties?” infuriates me.

And another thing; how is it an anti-trust issue if they don’t need to have anything to do with the NCAA. Because as I understand it they don’t, unless they want to play in the NCAA’s sports league(s). Has there ever been an anti-trust case brought against the MLB or NFL for their rulings affecting a team?

I’m really curious to see what other people have to say about this.

2

I suppose one could bring this up in the never-ending Joe Paterno Pit thread. It would at least break up the discussion of inventive uses for paper towel tubes a bit.

Re: the OP, I can’t fathom what Corbett thinks he’s going to accomplish with this, but I likewise think that saying one of the nation’s largest universities should simply shut down if the football revenue stream stops is a bit over the top.

In any event, glad I’m not living in PA any more, so I don’t have to think about my tax monies being blown on this (probably) meritless lawsuit.

3

I don’t think the OP is recommending that Penn shut down, just that if they cannot survive without a football program, then they have ceased being a University and have become a football training facility which should not be part of a state run school system.

4

I heard this on the local news and I would like some factual questions answered-

How (if at all) is the NCAA in violation of the anti trust act?

Does Corbett have legal standing to file suit?

5

Some legal analysis here

6

It’s as if Corbett has this urge to just fuck up everything he comes across.

7

Thank you that did indeed answer most of my questions.
The extremely non factual question of just why Corbett is doing this, remains.

8

What

a

dick

9

It’s a hard sell. SCOTUS previously rejected the argument that schools are “forced” to participate in the NCAA in the Tarkanian case, though frankly that was an odd decision.

I think standing is a bigger problem; the school’s board of trustees accepted the penalty. Unless the Governor has the authority under state law to override them (doubtful) it’s difficult for me to see how he can assert standing.

10

This couldn’t be done without the school’s blessing therefore they are using the Governor as a proxy lawyer to dodge public opinion.

Fuck the school, and by extension, fuck the Governor.

I don’t have any money in which to boycott the state but in principal I encourage any and all businesses to do so.

11

No, that would be Sandusky. [rimshot]

12

That’s not what that case says. Well, at least not the summary. The conclusion of that case is that the NCAA doesn’t count as a state actor even though they forced UNLV to do something.
I think the NCAA’s participation in this matter is dubious. They are an organization focused on athletics and maintaining a fair playing field for participating universities. The actions of Penn State’s football program while criminal, did not appreciably advantage them in competition. Thus, the violations fell outside the scope of the NCAA. This, of course, does not mean that I think Penn State should go unpunished. Just that these punishments should be meted out through the criminal and civil justice systems.

13

But should Tom Corbett be the one doing this? To give you an idea of where Corbett’s feelings lie, he issued flags be flown at half-staff when Paterno died. Not exactly non-biased.

14

Three thoughts about that:
[ol]
[li]It’s a moot point because Penn State signed a contract agreeing to abide by NCAA regulations back when they first joined, and signed a second contract agreeing to accept the NCAA’s rulings on this matter, which AIUI included waving the right to fight it legally (according to the Sports Illustrated article Fotheringay-Phipps linked.[/li][li]The NCAA has a right to protect their brand, and the prestige of the league. One of the top criticisms I ever hear about college football is how this entertainment business often becomes top priority for participating universities to the detriment of their academic programs. Doesn’t matter whether that’s true or not, it’s a widespread belief. As I said in the OP, when a football program takes precedence over legal and ethical concerns, it can only reinforce that impression. Therefore they wanted to make an example of Penn State so the public and other universities would feel that they take the matter seriously. Again the SI article quotes their mission statement which reflects the idea of sports and academics hand-in-hand. This may only be indirectly related, but it reflects poorly on such a notion.[/li][li]Again, I’m repeating myself, but aren’t you concerned about the larger cultural impact of fighting this? It’s much bigger than NCAA legal precedents. It’s about how seriously we as a society hold institutions responsible for covering up allegations of felony offenses by their members.[/li][/ol]

15

  1. It was a “sign or else” contract. Those are adhesion contracts that many courts won’t enforce against regular people. Is Penn State free to not join the NCAA and play the Latrobe Brewing Company Team instead? Not likely. The settlement was also “Sign this, or you get the death penalty for four years.”

  2. The NCAA should be a force in promoting social and moral values. However football punishments (retroactive ones at that) that affect the football team for criminal matters unrelated to on the field play are unprecedented.

  3. You let the civil and criminal legal systems take care of it. Telling a Penn State wide receiver who caught a winning TD pass in 2003 that it no longer counts doesn’t serve this purpose, nor does punishing current players, fans, and coaches who took no part in the scandal by telling them no post-season play for the next four years.

I like the legal theory, but I doubt the Governor has standing.

16

Courts are much less likely to rescind a contract as one of adhesion when the parties are both sophisticated business actors, remember. It would be difficult to argue that Penn State is not one; I mean, they’ve got their own law school and everything. :slight_smile:

The whole point was that UNLV wasn’t forced to do anything. According to SCOTUS, they could have disciplined Tarkanian as the NCAA demanded, refused and been penalized themselves, or withdrawn from the NCAA. It’s a Hobson’s choice, but one that was apparently sufficient to satisfy the court.

ETA: jtgain just alluded to why it’s a Hobson’s choice - withdrawing from the NCAA means no more athletics, really.

17

Missed edit window.

[QUOTE=SCOTUS]
State action nonetheless might lie if UNLV, by embracing the NCAA’s rules, transformed them into state rules and the NCAA into a state actor. See Lugar, 457 U.S. at 457 U. S. 937. UNLV engaged in state action when it adopted the NCAA’s rules to govern its own behavior, but that would be true even if UNLV had taken no part in the promulgation of those rules. In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977), we established that the State Supreme Court’s enforcement of disciplinary rules transgressed by members of its own bar was state action. Those rules had been adopted in toto from the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility. Id. at 433 U. S. 360, n. 12. It does not follow, however, that the ABA’s formulation of those disciplinary rules was state action. The State Supreme Court retained plenary power to reexamine those standards, and, if necessary, to reject them and promulgate its own. See id. at 433 U. S. 362. [Footnote 14] So here, UNLV retained the authority to withdraw from the NCAA and establish its own standards. The university alternatively could have stayed in the Association and worked through the Association’s legislative process to amend rules or standards it deemed harsh, unfair, or unwieldy. Neither UNLV’s decision to adopt the NCAA’s standards nor its minor role in their formulation is a sufficient reason for concluding that the NCAA was acting under color of Nevada law when it promulgated standards governing athlete recruitment, eligibility, and academic performance.
[/QUOTE]

My bolding.

18

Unfortunately I think that if anything this helps Corbett’s reelection status. The culture of entitlement among Penn State alumni/fans in the state is pretty sickening. At least here in Western PA where football is king and winning is both fetishistic and oddly taken for granted. A lot of voters here don’t want any restrictions on the football team and will view this as him standing up for what’s right.

19

Correct, but unequal bargaining power is a big factor as well.

But the Court wasn’t ruling on whether it was an adhesion contract. It was ruling that the NCAA wasn’t a state actor. One of the reasons it was not a state actor was that UNLV was free to leave the NCAA, even if the consequences were harsh. This is not even a bad option when the state forces you to do something. Therefore, the NCAA is not a state actor.

20

Yes. And?