Penn State Latest

With practice starting Monday, this weekend could be an busy one in Happy Valley. I know there are a couple who are still on the fence publicly, but I wonder how many are undecided but have kept their mouths shut during the whole thing?

 

Probably fewer than the number that have no place to go because nobody wants them.

 

An argument that the NCAA's "death penalty," had it been meted out, may have been in violation of the Sherman Act:

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/08/sports-and-the-law-professor-edelman-explains-why-giving-penn-state-the-death-penalty-may-never-have-been-a-real-option/#more-179609

 

I imagine this is news to SMU.

 

That was my first thought. Here's the author's take on what he perceives as the difference, whether right or wrong:

 

If Penn State sued they'd probably be voted out of the NCAA.

 

I don't know that much about antitrust law, but I'm guessing Penn St. might be able to demonstrate that such concerted action, especially in retaliation, would be per se illegal under the act.

 

Here's something then that doesn't make sense. If the NCAA wasn't allowed to give Penn State the death penalty because of restraint of trade, then how could the NCAA take away an athlete's eligibility if they took "improper" benefits?

The principle would be that the kid agreed to the rules and has to abide by them. If that's the case, then wouldn't a court rule that Penn State had voluntarily agreed to the NCAA's rules and had to abide by them? Even if it cost them financially?

 

If Penn State went to court and won, the court would effectively be telling every voluntary membership organization in the country that it could not enforce its own rules.

 

Even at it's broadest interpretation, the Sherman Act couldn't possibly come into play unless a court would be willing to find essentially a de facto boycott that for all intents and purposes expelled Penn St from the "college football marketplace."

 

This is incredible. The report on the sanctions the NCAA just gave to Central Florida:

"A head coach is not required to investigate wrongdoing, but is expected to recognize potential NCAA violations, address them and report them to the athletics administration."

Somebody explain to me how this is not a double standard.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-07-31/ncaa-sanctions-central-florida-postseason-ban/56608682/1?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150973637616219_23755684_10150977982071219#f36545ff

 

I don't really get what your question is, but the fact that one case is about the NCAA's silly little amateurism rules and the other is about the most basic level of morality and human decency that should be required renders all comparisons pointless.