Nah, it was just a pleasant euphemism (“it was simply not playing a football game on a Saturday”) for the death penalty if Penn State didn’t roll over for Mark Emmert.
Some negotiation, that.
If only Emmert could do that with O’Bannon’s lawyers.
Filed under The NCAA, You Can't Put A Price Tag On Joe Paterno's Legacy
Well, they could have settled for playing Georgia Tech on a Thursday night.
It was not a gun to the head, just a baseball bat to the skull that would result in a 4 year coma and several years afterwards in rehab. But not a gun. to the head. Not that.
Good luck to Franklin dealing with perhaps the most delusional fans in college sports.
IMHO that statement is a smoking gun. Duress.The sanctions will be voided by the court and the NCAA will end up paying through the nose to Penn State in damages. This case, together with the other pieces of litigation (O’Bannon, etc.) will be the end of the NCAA both financially and as an institution purporting to govern intercollegiate athletics. This shows the damage having an idiot at the top can do. The NCAA action was not properly authorized, either. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I consider one of the few highlights in the entire Emmert administration. That was scandalous and should have resulted in a smack down. Hard to find a more despicable act being swept under the rug. This is truly an “end justifies the means” moment in CFB. How can anyway criticize PSU being kicked in the nuts in this case? And it didn’t have to be PSU either, I would feel the same way about if it had been UGA, or other schools I care for. They should have gotten the Death Penalty, TV contracts or not.
They should have gotten the Death Penalty, TV contracts or not.
I absolutely agree — and the weird thing is, the Death Penalty would have been more defensible than what they actually did. The threat of the Death Penalty was the coercion that will ultimately undermine the consent decree. If they’d just given the Death Penalty, there would have been no coercion, and also no admission by the NCAA of any degree in complicity in the Sandusky affair, which the court found in the consent decree. If a lawyer says “you’d better settle pronto or I’m going to report you to the state bar,” that’s extortion, even if it’s in the context of a settlement offer (which is usually protected). If you’ve got a reason to report someone to the state bar, you report them — you don’t use it as a negotiation tactic because that would shield bad lawyers.
This warranted the Death Penalty, and they should’ve given the Death Penalty. But they tried to get cute and negotiate with it. And so they’re getting burned.
Seriously, what question did this lawyer think he was really answering? As one commenter on the linked thread asked, did this guy think that it wasn’t a “gun to the head” if there was no actual, literal gun involved?
Subscribe in a reader
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 1,959 other followers