NCAA may have set a bad precedent in Penn State case

By not handing down its harshest sanctions, ruling body leaves itself open to unreasonable comparisons

July 24, 2012|By Chris Dufresne, Tribune Newspapers

Lets be clear: The NCAA on Monday hit Penn State football with five tons of gridiron.

NCAA President Mark Emmert was given extraordinary power to use Wild West justice in the most heinous of circumstances. Emmert correctly called the child sexual abuse case that led to former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky's conviction "an unprecedented, painful chapter in the history of college athletics."

Penn State's football program is likely doomed for a decade. The litany of penalties Emmert issued includes a $60 million fine, five years of probation, a four-year bowl ban and the loss of scholarships. Penn State will vacate wins dating to 1998, which undercuts the legacy of former coach Joe Paterno.

It sounds harsh, punitive and corrective.

Emmert assured this was not a "Pandora's box" in which the NCAA would now routinely intervene in criminal cases in which no NCAA rules were violated. Yet the NCAA set itself up for years to come by allowing the Penn State case to be compared to all others — even though nothing ever will compare to what Sandusky did at Penn State.

Smart folks are arguing the NCAA had no jurisdiction in this case.

"I don't know that it is absolutely clear on what basis this becomes an NCAA issue," Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Monday. "Having said that, there are certainly elements of our constitution and bylaws that go right to the heart of ethics."

The Michael L. Buckner Law Firm, which represents schools standing before the NCAA, issued a statement that read in part, "The NCAA's actions, no matter how noble and justified ... have charted an unprecedented course of action and created a slippery slope…"

If the NCAA was going to get involved, though, shouldn't it have used its entire arsenal of options? In fact, the NCAA spared Penn State, the worst lack-of-institutional-control offender of all time, of the most crushing penalties.

It did not invoke the death penalty and order the program closed for at least a year — could you imagine the Big Ten scheduling conflicts? It also did not ban Penn State from television appearances because, well, that's way too much money to deprive next week's opponent.

You might reasonably ask: How could the most egregious acts in college football history not lead to the most egregious penalties?

Emmert said the suspension of football would "bring significant unintended harm to many who had nothing to do with this case." As if that never happens?

The problem here is the NCAA already set precedent. In 1987, it banned SMU football for one season for violations that pale in comparison with what happened at Penn State. Emmert's edict allows Penn State sanctions to be compared with garden-variety skullduggery.

Miami is under NCAA investigation for serious football-related accusations, but the Hurricanes can rest easy knowing, no matter what happens, they're still going to be on TV!

By not going all out against Penn State, Emmert may have compromised future cases that come before the infractions committee. He did take bold action. He also obliterated due process.

This case was unprecedented. It should have left no one comparing it with a running back's parents getting free rent.