

The lawyer for the family of the late Joe Paterno announced Wednesday that he plans on suing the NCAA, its president Mark Emmert and its executive committee chairman, Ed Ray.

The decision is no surprise – it's been anticipated long before it was announced on Wednesday's edition of "Costas Tonight."

The suit's goal is "to redress the NCAA's 100-percent adoption of the Freeh report and the imposition of a binding-consent decree," Wick Sollers, the Paterno family attorney, said on the NBC Sports Network show.

In layman's terms, the Paternos aren't pleased that Penn State hired former FBI head Louis Freeh to investigate the school's involvement in the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal. They also aren't pleased that the school fully accepted Freeh's evidence and conclusion, which painted some administrators and Paterno in a negative light.

And they are especially not pleased that the NCAA took Penn State's admission as the basis for levying significant sanctions on the school, including a $60-million fine, four years of scholarship reductions, a four-year postseason ban and, notably, the vacating of many of Joe Paterno's victories.

Since Paterno v. Penn State might be too eye-popping, this may end up Paterno v. NCAA. At its heart though, this is an internal fight, the Paternos (and their supporters) against the university he worked at for over six decades.

Sollers said the school was forced into accepting the punishment due to the NCAA's "coercion and threats behind the scenes" – i.e. possibly shutting the program down completely for a season or two. As such, "there was no ability for any of the parties filing the lawsuit to get any remediation to the grave, grave damage that has occurred from this consent decree."

View photos

Since the lawsuit has yet to be filed – and perhaps even written – it would be folly to judge the merits of its argument or the NCAA's response.

At the very least it appears to have a bit stronger base than a similar suit filed by current Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, which is calling for the NCAA sanctions to be overturned based on economic harm to the local community due to the potential diminished stature of Nittany Lion football program.

That one makes little sense (other than as a political move by a politician). How can you tell the few thousand people who stopped attending games last fall did so because of the NCAA sanctions? Maybe they were protesting the school's firing of Paterno? Or maybe they were frustrated that Sandusky was able to maintain access to school facilities long after suspicions rose? And are these fans from in-state? If so, wouldn't their discretionary spending not used on Penn State tickets just get used at another Pennsylvania business?

Whatever. The civil courts can decide who wins or loses here.

What's worth noting is who isn't involved in either suit – Penn State itself. Officially, the school hasn't changed its position of compliance after accepting the NCAA punishment last summer.

"The university is not a party to any lawsuit against the NCAA that may be filed by the Paterno family," the school said in a statement. "Penn State remains committed to full compliance with the consent decree and the athletics integrity agreement. We look forward to continuing to work with Sen. George Mitchell and recognize the important role that intercollegiate athletics provides for our student athletes and the wider university community."

Story continues