Emails reveal NCAA knew it didn’t have jurisdiction over PSU |

Emails reveal NCAA knew it didn’t have jurisdiction over PSU

Internal NCAA e-mails released as part of state Sen. Jake Corman’s suit against the NCAA and Penn State indicate the uncertainty that NCAA staff felt about penalizing Penn State over the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. Those emails preceded one of the strongest, most drastic penalties handed down by college sports’ governing body.

The website Onward State published the e-mails, which were released as part of Corman’s motion that the NCAA be forced to provide documents that it had been withholding.

“We could try to assert jurisdiction on this issue and may be successful, but it’d be a stretch,” wrote former NCAA Vice President of Enforcement Julie Roe Lach in an e-mail on July 14, 10 days before the NCAA’s sanctions were announced. “I characterized our approach to PSU as a bluff when talking to Mark (Emmert) yesterday afternoon after the call. He basically agreed b/c if we make this an enforcement issue, we may win the immediate battle but lose the war when the COI (Committee on Infractions) has to rule.”

Penn State president Eric Barron released a statement late Wednesday that read, “We find it deeply disturbing that NCAA officials in leadership positions would consider bluffing one of their member institutions, Penn State, to accept sanctions outside of their normal investigative and enforcement process.

“We are considering our options. It is important to understand, however, that Penn State is in the midst of a number of legal and civil cases associated with these matters. We therefore have no additional comment. We also want it to be clear: Penn State’s commitment to the fight against child abuse and to the implementation of best practice governance, ethics and compliance programs and policies remain steadfast.”

The e-mails also revealed that NCAA officials knew they had no jurisdictional claim over Penn State but chose to act anyway with the assumption that the university would comply based on fear of embarrassment.

“I know we are banking on the fact the school is so embarrassed they will do anything, but I am not sure about that, and no confidence conference or other members will agree to that,” NCAA Vice President of Academic and Membership Affairs Kevin Lennon wrote in an e-mail. “This will force the jurisdictional issue that we really don’t have a great answer to that one … .”

Later that July, the NCAA handed down a set of penalties including a four-year postseason football ban, reduction of scholarships and a $60 million fine. The school also was forced to vacate all of its football wins from 1998-2011.

The NCAA said in a statement Wednesday, “Debate and thorough consideration is central in any organization, and that clearly is reflected in the selectively released emails. The national office staff routinely provides information and counsel to the membership on tough issues.

“The NCAA carefully examined its authority and responsibility to act in response to the athletics department’s role detailed in the Freeh report. Ultimately, advised by all information gathered the Executive Committee determined to act and move forward with the Consent Decree.”

Since rendering its decision on Penn State, the NCAA has lessened the penalties’ severity, restoring Penn State’s postseason eligibility for the 2014 season and allowing the program to return to a full 85 scholarship roster in 2015, citing “progress toward ensuring its athletics department functions with integrity.”

Roe and Lennon also debated whether the school gained a competitive edge as a result of Sandusky’s abuse not being revealed in 1998.

“I think Mark believes based on conversations with some presidents that PSU did gain an advantage although Berst, Wally and I disagree with that point,” Roe wrote. “The point some have made is that had PSU dealt with this in 2001, they might have suffered a recruiting disadvantage due to the bad publicity at that point. Given that they have a decent recruiting class now, not sure this holds up.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.