had violated with the Sandusky Scandal. Although if Mark Emmert felt the NCAA needed to cite a bylaw in interviews, then he typically used "loss of institutional control" (I forget the exact bylaw number). Given the severity of the crimes committed by Sandusky and the cover up by people in position of authority at Penn State, the NCAA felt it needed to do something in response to the public outcry.

So the NCAA decided to bypass most of its operational procedures for investigations by relying on the Freeh report and attempted to expand what is included in the "loss of institutional control" umbrella. It is why the day after the Freeh report was released the NCAA announced it would be imposing "corrective and punitive" sanctions against both the university and the football program.

It also helps explain why the NCAA reduced the punishment against Penn State a year later. There is a part of me that wonders if that was the NCAA's plan all along. Punish Penn State and the football program for crimes that the NCAA probably doesn't have any authority over (based on how the bylaws are written) to appease the group that demand the NCAA take some sort of action against Penn State. Then down the road reduce the penalty because the NCAA overstep its authority.