( CNN ) -- The National Collegiate Athletic Association 's sanctions will devastate Penn State football for years to come . They will also harm the university as a whole , with consequences felt not only in the athletic and budget departments , but probably in the development and admissions offices , too . The severe penalties are probably appropriate , but I question whether the NCAA overstepped its legal authority in issuing them so hastily . Penn State acknowledges institutional responsibility by accepting the sanctions without a legal fight . It can try to repair the institutional flaws that enabled Jerry Sandusky to rape children and allowed a coverup of those crimes , but it misses a historic opportunity to legally challenge the scope of NCAA authority and how it 's applied . News : 'Stark wake-up call ' for Penn State . The NCAA is in the business of ensuring that college sports are separate from professional sports and that they keep within the academic mission of its members . Penn State supporters have reason to insist that the NCAA lacks the jurisdiction to punish its members for off-field , nonplayer related crimes . After all , what do Sandusky 's crimes , however heinous , and the associated coverup , however despicable , really have to do with the NCAA 's purpose ? The NCAA 's constitution , which all members must follow , requires that the coaches and athletic officials display ethical conduct . A football coach raping children and the head coach and athletic officials covering it up clearly constitutes unethical behavior . News : Paterno loyalists call NCAA sanctions excessive . The NCAA also knows that if the Penn State scandal been unveiled years ago , not only would some boys have avoided the horror of Sandusky , the football team probably would have faced NCAA sanctions . On balance , the NCAA had grounds to sanction Penn State . The heinous acts warranted a stiff penalty . But I 'm less comfortable with how fast the ruling was made . The NCAA clearly bypassed its normal procedure for investigating and sanctioning . This procedure often takes more than a year and involves several hearings . Consider what the NCAA did not give Penn State . Normally the association notifies the school that an official inquiry is going to be held . Notice is followed by an investigation and , if the NCAA finds fault , a written explanation of the allegations is given . The school has 90 days to respond , after which it may request more time to respond or schedule a hearing before the NCAA 's Committee on Infractions . Experts : What happens to Penn State football now ? Then comes the hearing , which resembles a trial or arbitration hearing . If the school is found to be at fault , it can appeal to the NCAA 's Infractions Appeals Committee . Penn State did not receive 90 days to respond , nor did it get a trial or an opportunity to appeal . To bolster that its decision-making process makes sense , the NCAA could maintain that Penn State President Rodney Erickson 's decision to sign a consent agreement takes any potential challenge off the table . Besides , the U.S. Supreme Court , in NCAA v. Jerry Tarkanian , made clear the association is not a governmental actor and thus is not obligated to provide due process . Although the absence of due process does not mean the NCAA can act arbitrarily and capriciously , it does provide it with significant immunity from lawsuits . The NCAA could also assert that Penn State 's own Freeh Report treated the school fairly in finding university officials covering up Sandusky 's crimes . In addition , the NCAA could insist that Penn State is voluntarily a member and has contractually consented to NCAA authority . Last , the NCAA could emphasize that the extraordinary circumstances of Penn State compelled instant action . If the NCAA had waited until next year , Penn State would have played the 2012 season under a cloud of suspicion . News : Do sanctions alter history books on Penn State and Paterno 's legacy ? But does the NCAA 's swift justice mean it will now regularly bypass its normal infractions process when it penalizes other schools ? Will `` swift justice '' become the norm ? Probably not , because the Penn State scandal is unique on many levels , including that the NCAA could rely on an extensive internal report commissioned by the university itself . Few schools could afford to commission such an internal report ; even fewer would choose to do so . I imagine the NCAA would probably prefer to employ its more deliberate and transparent process as often as possible . A respected process helps to legitimatize NCAA penalties . If NCAA members were routinely subject to swift justice , they may seek alternatives to the NCAA for organizing games . Still , longstanding criticisms of the how the NCAA does business will only become louder because of today 's news . The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Michael McCann .
Michael McCann : NCAA 's strict penalities will devastate Penn State football for years to come . McCann questions whether the NCAA overstepped its legal bounds by ruling so quickly . McCann : NCAA usually gives schools 90 days to respond , a trial , chance to appeal . Penn State could legally challenge the scope of NCAA authority , McCann writes .