Dillon Smith Comm 260W Feature Story Most college football fans overlook the paperwork and administrative

work that enables young student-athletes to shine under Saturday nights lights. However, when a major scandal forces the NCAA to levy sanctions against one of its most successful members, the curtain shrouding administrative process rises. Such is the case for the Pennsylvania State University. On July 12, 2012, Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP published an independent report on the circumstances surrounding the universitys handling of allegations against former assistant coach Gerald Sandusky. The findings were used in place of an independent NCAA investigation. Because of the Freeh Report, which was much more extensive than anything the NCAA would have ever done, we felt that we could proceed without out own investigation, said Mark Emmert, president of the NCAA. [Freeh] had more power than we have we dont have subpoena power. On July 24, 2012, Emmert announced seven punitive and four corrective sanctions against Penn State, effective immediately. One of the most notable sanctions is the least understood. Emmerts announcement included a waiver of transfer rules and grant-in-aid retention. In laymans terms, this provision allows current student-athletes on the football roster to transfer to another school without having to serve the one year residence requirement mandated by NCAA bylaw 14.5.1. Nine players have elected to transfer to a different school during the waiver of transfer rules thus far, which will last through the beginning of preseason practice for the 2013-2014 season. An NCAA release clarified the terms and reasoning of the waiver of rules after Emmerts inconclusive mention of them during his press conference. The NCAA recognizes that current football student-athletes will be negatively impacted by the Penn State sanctions, said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for Academic and Membership Affairs. We want to allow those eligible student-athletes as much flexibility as possible while still being mindful of some of the transfer safeguards our membership has put in place. The clarifications included a disclaimer that transferring student-athletes must be admitted through the normal process and otherwise eligible. One running back realized what the sanctions meant for the immediate future of football at Penn State and decided to leave. I can honestly say that, ultimately, this decision is about so much more than football, said Silas Redd, now a junior tailback at the University of Southern California. I continue to have aspirations for my life, and as my family and I considered the bigger picture both on and off the field it became clearer to me that USC will be the best fit for my academic, athletic, and personal needs over the next two years. Redds decision came less than one week before preseason practice began for USC and one month before the teams opening game against the University of Hawaii. While the NCAAs July explanation of policy allowed him to practice with the Trojans, Redd still had to officially enroll at the university in order to be eligible to play during the season. USCs deadline for transfer applications closed February 1, 2012. How did the school accept and enroll Redd six months after its own application deadline?

A representative for USC Sports Information Director Tim Tessalone described Redd's situation as one of special circumstances that happen all the time. The university, like many others, reserves a special admissions process for decisions that do not fit within normal operations. At Penn State, if a prospective student-athlete does not meet the criteria for the schools University Park campus, the only one to field Division I varsity athletic teams, a coach can make use of a change-of-assignment process through the department of admissions. All students have to meet a basic admission requirement to attend the Pennsylvania State University, said Bert McBrayer, III, associate director for admissions operations at Penn State. Regardless of what their background is, where theyre from, [accepted students] can do the work. McBrayer then explained further the process by which admissions officers can change the assignment of a student. If an applicant is exceptionally talented, intellectually, athletically, or otherwise, an agency within the university can use a voucher to admit the applicant to the University Park campus. The university publishes this policy annually in the University Bulletin. The terms specifically provide for special consideration as long as the students affected meet the minimum requirements. Over 2500 across the country, the admissions office at USC uses a different system. We receive a small number of requests each year for special/late consideration each year, some of which are supported by a USC constituency such as athletics, a school or college, a faculty member, etc., though most are not, said Kirk Brennan, associate dean and director of undergraduate admission at USC. We consider these on a case-by-case basis, always sensitive to the success of the student. In 2009, the NCAA defined these special admissions programs as those process designated for students who did not meet standard or normal entrance requirements. Some observers have questioned whether these programs are included in the normal admittance process required by the NCAA in the waiver of transfer rules. NCAA Bylaw 14.1.7.1.1, which addresses student-athlete eligibility via special admission, clarifies that student-athletes may be admitted under special exceptions as long as the process is set forth in an official document published by the university (e.g., official catalog) that describes the institutions admissions requirements. According to Brennan, such a publication does not exist at USC. It wouldnt be any kind of printed thing. Its more of a culture of understanding than a written policy. If Brennans statement is correct, the university appears to be in direct violation of Bylaw 14.1.7.1.1 as well as the clarification made by the NCAA in regards to transfers from Penn State. Redd would be deemed ineligible by the NCAA, and the university would face punitive sanctions for knowingly playing an ineligible student-athlete. USC faced a similar punishment in 2010 when investigations discovered that former running back Reggie Bush had violated his eligibility by contacting an agent while still a student-athlete at the school in 2004. As a result, Bush returned his Heisman Trophy, the NCAA vacated USCs football wins during Bushs two seasons of ineligibility, and the Bowl Championship Series vacated USCs 2004 national championship.