The Lions' Pride

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

BayernLion said...

The case of Tim Cohane could actually help set precedence in PSU's favor if it actually gets to a Federal level:

"In a 1988 case, N.C.A.A. vs. Tarkanian (yes, that’s Jerry Tarkanian, the infamous former University of Nevada at Las Vegas coach), the Supreme Court ruled that the N.C.A.A. was not a “state actor.” A state actor is a legal term for any institution that acts as an arm of the government — and is, therefore, subject to constitutional mandates like due process. Since then, the N.C.A.A. has waved the “we’re-not-a-state-actor” flag whenever it’s been sued for violating someone’s rights. Since it’s not a state actor, it argues, its members have no constitutional rights.

...

The most egregious was that SUNY-Buffalo officials had threatened to strip the school’s basketball players of their eligibility unless they implicated Cohane. Graduating seniors, whose eligibility had expired, were told that they wouldn’t graduate if they didn’t point the finger at Cohane. The N.C.A.A. knew that players were being coerced to lie — and did nothing to stop it. Indeed, those lies became part of its report. Years later, a number of players submitted affidavits as part of the Cohane lawsuit, saying they had never seen their former coach do anything wrong but had been pressured to implicate him.

Naturally, the N.C.A.A. responded by trying to get the case tossed out on the grounds that it was not a state actor. The trial judge agreed. But, in 2007, the appeals court overruled that decision and said that because the N.C.A.A. had acted in concert with the university — which, as a state-run school, is undeniably a state actor — it, too, could be considered a state actor. The N.C.A.A. then appealed to the Supreme Court, to no avail."

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

RWC5113 said...

Which is why proving Erickson did not have the authority to sign the consent without a full board vote is so critical.
If determined that he did not have that authority, and that a full vote was needed, then the consent is void and there is no agreement.
Therefore, if the NCAA wishes to institute the sanctions anyway after it's determined that the consent was voided, they are acting as a "state actor," by using the PSU commissioned Freeh report as the basis for it's punishment.

The number of trustees listed in the suit means nothing. Only a full vote by the board to sign another consent matters if one were to occur.

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

bonovoxpsu said...

Considering the BoT has already had a meeting and determined that erickson did what he had to, I'm pretty sure that nothing will come of this. So you're right. Unless the BoT votes and declares that Erickson had no authority to sign the consent, nothing will come of this.

Follow me on Twitter @rayraycotto

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

helpdesk said...

A majority of the BOT agreeing to ignore the fact that the President did not have the authority does not override the fact that the President did not have the authority. I believe that is the point of the appeal to the NCAA and will be the point of the lawsuit once the appeal is rejected.

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

danmcc said...

A legal question of timing. I am making the assumption that Rod spoke to Peetz and thought he had authority.

IF it is determined that the document signing required BOT approval, Rod did not have authority at the time of signature. However, the BOT later votes that they agree to the document.

Is the document/signature valid if he did not have authority at the time of signature?

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

danmcc said...

I understand, thank you. The items in my post were to set up the question.

IF Rod did not have authority at the time the document was signed, but was granted authority later, is the original document/signature valid?

Fantastik! Is really formula 409! WE ARE....

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down