In partnership with CBSSports.com
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Thanks for this terrific research, BayernLion. The case, and challenge, reads like what has happened here, and what might happen here.
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.
This post was edited by RWC5113 23 months ago
Follow me on Twitter @rayraycotto
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.
You're correct for the most part.
But the BoT can simply not hold any meetings or vote on this and McCombie and the trustees in the suit can get Erickson's consent voided through the courts.
So something can come of this for sure regardless of whether the BOT votes against Erickson's consent agreement or not.
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.
The big question with this entire situation is was Erickson told by Emmert NOT to consult with the BoT about the sanctions and to take them "as is" by Emmert, otherwise we would receive the DP? It is known that Erickson did at least talk to Peetz and maybe another member or two of the Executive board but that's it.
"DOMINATE the state" - James Franklin 1/11/14
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?
The BOT didn't vote that they agree.
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?
I believe a full vote of the BOT would be needed to "ratify" or validate the consent decree signed by Erickson.
October 12, 2013. PSU 43 - UM 40 (4 OT). Unfortunately this fan wasn't around long enough to see it!
I agree but that is authority after the fact. To me, the document is invalid but I'm not an attorney and would like a legal perspective vs my perspective.
But if erickson did not have the authority to sign the deal?
I can go put an offer in on a $10mil house...but if I can't get a loan..
Does anyone know the timeframe for a response from the NCAA on this and the other appeal filed today? Is their comment on the paterno appeal all the response that is necessary? or will there be written replies to these appeals?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports