Paterno family to file lawsuit against NCAA

The family of the late Joe Paterno will file a lawsuit against the NCAA because of the way it handled its sanctions against Penn State University in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse case. (Patrick Smith/Getty Images)

The family of the late Joe Paterno will file a lawsuit against the NCAA on Wednesday night, according to a report from Scott Gleeson and Daniel Uthman of USA Today Sports. The news will be announced by Paterno family attorney Wick Sollers, former Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh and family spokesman Dan McGinn during Bob Costas' Costas Tonight on NBC Sports Network after Game 7 of the Chicago Blackhawks-Detroit Red Wings series.

The lawsuit looks to shed light on the NCAA for its "execution of discipline" in the fallout from the sex abuse scandal surrounding Jerry Sandusky, who was convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse in 2012. A spokesperson for the NCAA said they will not issue a statement until they have seen the lawsuit.

The family is seeking to appeal the sanctions that were subsequently placed on the University after results from the Freeh report were published, which led to Penn State receiving reductions in its scholarships, a bowl ban and a $60 million fine from the NCAA. According to the appeal, those actions were made in a "fundamentally inappropriate and unprecedented manner."

USA Today Sports obtained excerpts of the lawsuit to be filed Wednesday evening, which include the following detail on what the NCAA should expect:

"The lawsuit is being filed against the NCAA and Mark Emmert, in his individual and official capacity as the president of the NCAA, and Edward Ray, who was the chairman of the executive committee of the NCAA. It's being filed by certain trustees, certain former players, certain former coaches, certain former faculty members, as well as the estate of Joe Paterno, to redress the NCAA's 100 percent adoption of the Freeh Report and imposition of a binding consent decree against Penn State University. The reality is that consent decree was imposed through coercion and threats behind the scenes and there was no ability for anyone to get redress. There was no board approval, there was no transparency, and there was no consideration of this consent decree."