The precise role played by the potential imposition of suspension of play (the “death penalty”) in the discussions between Penn State and the NCAA is murky and will likely remain so. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll assume that the possibility was raised in a plausibly deniable manner. Instead, I want to focus on a different power dynamic: did Penn State have any concrete leverage over the NCAA, i.e. something beyond plaintive moral suasion?

In negotiation, don’t focus on what you want; focus on with the other party wants. Ironically, a major source of damage to Penn State – the reputational cost of being associated with pedophilia – was also the only leverage that Penn State had over the NCAA. The NCAA wanted to minimize the number of news stories that paired the concepts “NCAA” and “pedophile”. Thus they needed the enforcement action to conclude rapidly. Penn State’s only tangible leverage was its ability to prolong the enforcement action and thus keep the NCAA in the story. The Freeh report recommended that Penn State involve the full Board of Trustees more closely in important decisions; that would be a slow process, but one that the NCAA would have a hard time denying, since they leaned heavily on the same report. The NCAA demanded that there be no leaks, and a full board discussion would risk leaks. So to minimize risk, one would need to credibly convince the NCAA that a long delay would be forthcoming without formally committing to that delay, and then carefully assess the NCAA’s response.

I am curious whether Penn State deployed this leverage in the negotiations.