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.
Erickson did not have the authority to enter this agreement with Emmert.
That is yet another angle, and perhaps to many the more pursuasive.I did not think my point exhausted all the arguments as to why PA Vs. NCAA should have standing.
I don't know if this angle could be used, but Emmert forced Erickson to sign the consent decree to avoid the death penalty (if you believe Erickson). That course of action goes directly against the recommendations of the Freeh Report. How does the NCAA use the Freeh Report as their "evidence" while forcing Penn State brass to goes against the document itself? Hypocrisy at its finest.
Was thinking that this may become useful. Especially if the Board Reform Legislation moves forward in PA. ie - Erickson not authorized. Execs. on the board with whom he conferred, violated their fiduciary duty to PSU.
Therefore consent decree non-binding & illegal.
Reports out there that I just read saying the ncaa did indeed pay the lawyer lady 20,000 or 25,000 (depending on what you read).
Can't wait to read a Jay Bilas text!!
hearing there might be some kind of special about the case sunday on espn OTL anybody hearing the same?
I wonder how much C. Baldwin got paid?
On PA vs NCAA or The Miami Case?
ESPN is still a joke though. All the other sports outlets have it on the main stories but not ESPN.
I hate that joke.
Pa vs ncaa
A few things, and I'm quoting this because I'm going to address it directly.
If you're talking about how damages could be calculated in the PA v. NCAA case, this is 100% irrelevant - there is no bowl game in the state, and the state (almost certainly) does not receive taxes for anything except t-shirt sales and BOB's bowl game bonus, which are significantly less than the economic harm we're talking about in the overall scheme of things. If you're talking about damages for some other purpose, then these could perhaps be relevant, but I'm not seeing how since PSU is not suing and they're the only one who lost this money.
As far as the consent decree barring standing, the biggest hitch would be the various ex officio members of the BOT (governor and whomever else). But, I don't believe that any of those members are voting members. To that end, they would be insulated from the decision to sign, which by almost all accounts I've seen, was made by Erickson, Peetz, and maybe Surma. Furthering a point someone made above, even if Corbett was involved in the vote, that vote was taken in his role as trustee, and not representative of the citizens of PA. So, whatever the scope of the decree, it should not impact PA's standing.
Calculating damages is irrelavant because PA isn't suing for that. What is important is to show that PA's economy has suffered, which theoretically should give them standing (or at least help PA's case for standing). You don't need a dollar amount for that.
Yes, I know. That's why I said it is "100% irrelevant" to PA v. NCAA... But the post I was responding to wasn't clear if it was talking about PA or one of the other suits (or the possibility of PSU recovering money, which is hinted at in earlier posts).
I hear ya.
Would love to know if PSU has legal standing to join in corbetts suit or does the consent decree pretty much end that thought
A treasure trove of angles!!
Great question, my zero experience in law says the latter...I'm curious as well
I think of the BoT voted that Erickson didn't have standing to sign the consent decree it would become null and void. The problem is that the BoT will never do that because theu are hell bent on "moving on."
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports