You are here

NCAA Authority to Act

NCAA Constitution References | Board Executive Committee Motion

The Executive Committee acts on behalf of the entire Association and implements policies to resolve core issues, pursuant to its authority under the NCAA constitution and Bylaw 4.1.2(e). The Executive Committee along with the Division I Board, a body of presidents representing all of Division I, directed President Emmert to examine the circumstances surrounding the Penn State tragedy and, if appropriate, make recommendations regarding punitive and corrective measures.

As a result of information produced from the Sandusky criminal investigation and the Freeh Report, which Penn State commissioned and also agreed to its findings, it became obvious that the leadership failures at Penn State over an extended period of time directly violated Association bylaws and the NCAA Constitution relating to control over the athletic department, integrity and ethical conduct.

Executive Committee:

Stan L. Albrecht, Utah State University, Western Athletic Conference
Judy Genshaft, University of South Florida, Big East Conference
Thomas Haas, Grand Valley State University, Great Lakes intercollegiate Athletic Conference (DII)
William R. Harvey, Hampton University, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
Nathan O. Hatch, Wake Forest University, Atlantic Coast Conference
David R. Hopkins, Wright State University, Horizon League
Sidney McPhee, Middle Tennessee State University, Sun Belt Conference
William A. Meehan, Jacksonville State University, Ohio Valley Conference
F. Ann Millner, Weber State University, Big Sky Conference
J. Patrick O'Brien, West Texas A&M University, Lone Star Conference (DII)
Jack R. Ohle, Gustavus Adolphus College, Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (DIII)
Harris Pastides, University of South Carolina, Columbia, Southeastern Conference
John G. Peters, Northern Illinois University, Mid-American Conference
Edward Ray, Oregon State University, Pac-12 Conference
James Schmotter, Western Connecticut State University, Little East Conference (DIII)
Lou Anna Simon, Michigan State University, Big Ten Conference
Timothy P. White, University of California, Riverside, Big West Conference
 

Division I Board of Directors:

Stan L. Albrecht, Utah State University, Western Athletic Conference
Gene D. Block, University of California, Los Angeles, Pac-12 Conference
Rita Hartung Cheng, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Missouri Valley Conference
Judy Genshaft, University of South Florida, Big East Conference
Patrick T. Harker, University of Delaware, Colonial Athletic Conference
William R. Harvey, Hampton University, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
Nathan O. Hatch, Wake Forest University, Atlantic Coast Conference
David R. Hopkins, Wright State University, Horizon League
David Leebron, Rice University, Conference USA
Sidney McPhee, Middle Tennessee State University, Sun Belt Conference
William A. Meehan, Jacksonville State University, Ohio Valley Conference
F. Ann Millner, Weber State University, Big Sky Conference
Harris Pastides, University of South Carolina, Columbia, Southeastern Conference
John Peters, Northern Illinois University, Mid-American Conference
Lou Anna Simon, Michigan State University, Big Ten Conference
David J. Skorton, Cornell University, The Ivy League
John D. Welty, California State University, Fresno, Mountain West Conference
Timothy P. White, University of California, Riverside, Big West Conference
 

Frequently Asked Questions

How does the NCAA have the authority to do this?

The Executive Committee acts on behalf of the entire Association and implements policies to resolve core issues, pursuant to its authority under the NCAA Constitution and Bylaw Provision 4.1.2(e). The Executive Committee along with the Division I Board, a body of presidents representing all of Division I, directed President Emmert to examine the circumstances surrounding the Penn State tragedy and, if appropriate, make recommendations regarding punitive and corrective measures.

As a result of information produced from the Sandusky criminal investigation and the Freeh Report, which Penn State commissioned and also agreed to its factual findings, it became obvious that the leadership failures at Penn State over an extended period of time directly violated Association bylaws and the NCAA Constitution relating to control over the athletic department, integrity and ethical conduct.

Why didn't the NCAA do an investigation?

Because Penn State accepted the factual findings of the Freeh Report, which the university itself commissioned, the NCAA determined that traditional investigative and administrative proceedings would be duplicative and unnecessary.

What bylaws did Penn State violate?

In determining the penalties for Penn State, the Executive Committee, Board and NCAA leadership considered numerous bylaws and portions of the constitution. Click here to see the full list of bylaws and constitutional articles that were breached.

How can you move so quickly?

Because Penn State accepted the factual findings of the Freeh Report , which the university itself commissioned, the NCAA determined that traditional investigative and administrative proceedings would be duplicative and unnecessary. The Freeh Report findings enabled the NCAA to evaluate appropriate sanctions on an expedited timetable, which benefits current and future university students, faculty and staff.

What happens with the Nov. 17 letter from the NCAA to Penn State?

Because Penn State accepted the factual findings of the Freeh Report and acknowledged that those facts constitute a violation of the principles described in the NCAA's Nov. 17 letter, the NCAA will not require a response.

Was your decision based on the Freeh report or your own investigation?

Because Penn State accepted the factual findings of the Freeh Report, which the university itself commissioned, the NCAA determined that traditional investigative and administrative proceedings would be duplicative and unnecessary.

Why didn't this go through the normal enforcement/infractions process?

The circumstances involved in the Penn State matter are unlike any encountered by the NCAA in its history. Because Penn State accepted the factual findings of the Freeh Report, which the university itself commissioned, the NCAA determined that traditional investigative and administrative proceedings would be duplicative and unnecessary. Additionally, the egregiousness of the conduct is unprecedented and amounts to a breach of the NCAA Constitution, bylaws and core values of intercollegiate athletics, based on the findings of the Freeh Report and Sandusky criminal trial. This spurred the Executive Committee to act pursuant to its authority under the NCAA Constitution and Bylaw Provision 4.1.2(e) to resolve core issues of Association-wide import.

Will the NCAA use this process in the future?

The NCAA and its members hope that a similar circumstance would not arise on any other campus in the future – indeed, these events should serve as a call to every single school and athletics department to take an honest look at its campus environment and eradicate the ‘sports are king' mindset. However, should a circumstance arise in which such action is required, the process is available.