By Donald Remy
Chief Legal Officer
The NCAA, along with President Mark Emmert and Oregon State president and former NCAA Executive Committee chair Ed Ray, have brought by the estate of Joe Paterno and others due to a lack of legal standing, a failure to add necessary defendants, and various significant legal deficiencies. Penn State leaders determined the consent decree was the best course for the university and its community to put the devastating Sandusky affair behind them. Those who continue to challenge Penn State’s right to make that decision only prolong the pain and delay the recovery.
Universities must be free to manage their own affairs, including their membership in the NCAA, without interference by disappointed or disgruntled individuals. While the plaintiffs may be unhappy with the conclusions and university’s acceptance of the Freeh Report, the plaintiffs in this case were not sanctioned by the NCAA and have no legal basis to sue the Association. .
Factual and Legal Flaws in Lawsuit
The NCAA has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the estate of Joe Paterno and others due to a lack of legal standing.
This case is flawed factually and by law for the following reasons:
- Their suit complains primarily about the conclusions of the Freeh Report, conducted at the behest of the Penn State Board, and the university’s acceptance of its findings.
- The NCAA did not commission the Freeh Report nor had any role in it.
- The court cannot consider the case because Penn State is a necessary defendant under Pennsylvania law and the plaintiffs in this case lack the standing to sue because they were not sanctioned by the NCAA.