( CNN ) -- The federal lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania Gov . Tom Corbett on behalf of the state against the NCAA is politically smart . It is never a bad thing for a state lawmaker to stand behind the flagship university , especially when the lawmaker himself is under investigation for his alleged complicity in protracting the official inquiry of Jerry Sandusky . But legally , the lawsuit makes no sense . Recall the events : Penn State University , in the midst of the national scandal stemming from the crimes of Sandusky , agreed to settle any claims that the NCAA might have against it for failure to supervise its football program . The settlement was undeniably harsh , including a fine of $ 60 million , loss of scholarships and bowl eligibility for four years , and the easing of rules to allow student-athletes to transfer out of Penn State 's football program . ( Meanwhile , outside of the settlement , the criminal trials of key university administrators for perjury and failure to report abuse are proceeding . ) Like most plea bargains , the perpetrator got something from the deal , too . By settling early , the university avoided the prolonged NCAA infractions process . Proceeding by the infractions process would have kept Penn State 's name , Sandusky 's crimes and Joe Paterno 's dubious legacy in the news longer than usual . More alarmingly , the infractions committee could have imposed the dreaded `` death penalty '' -- a complete termination of the football program for years , the cost of which would have undoubtedly dwarfed the measures imposed . Notably , Penn State agreed in accepting the deal that it would not challenge the NCAA 's authority in court . Corbett described the sanctions as `` overreaching and unlawful '' while other lawmakers object to the fines being used to fund programs in other states . Since the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not limited by the Penn State-NCAA agreement , it can sue to overturn it . Yet it is that very fact -- that Pennsylvania is a stranger to the agreement -- that dooms its litigation . The lawsuit asks the court to grant an injunction so that NCAA can be refrained from imposing the sanctions . Injunctions look to the future and are designed to prevent damages . Typically , an injunction plaintiff claims that something bad is about to happen and asks the court to stop it . What bad thing will happen to Pennsylvania ? It partially funds Penn State . Therefore , according to the complaint , future NCAA sanctions that come out of the Penn State treasury will , by derivation , also be taken from Pennsylvania 's treasury , or at least the part of it that the state chooses to share with the university . In other words , Pennsylvania is claiming that it will be injured by its decision to contribute money to the university . If it is so keen to prevent itself from being harmed , why does n't the state simply refuse to give money to the school until the sanctions period has expired ? Pennsylvania will not be injured by the NCAA 's sanctions ; it will be injured by its own decision to fund the university . No federal judge is going to find otherwise . I strongly suspect Pennsylvania 's lawyers are well aware of the fundamental absurdity of their lawsuit . That is why the complaint repeatedly alludes to the losses that other people and parties will suffer from the NCAA sanctions ; those others include local businesses , other students and sports teams at the university , season-ticket holders and the numerous merchandise vendors who profit from the financial success of this greatest-of-all revenue sports . Yet none of those other people would likely have standing to sue , so their inclusion only underscores the state 's untenable litigation position . At times , the complaint filed by the state reads less like a legal document and more like a press release , extolling the fine virtues of a Penn State education amidst the hard-working townsfolk of central Pennsylvania . The complaint also strangely paints the NCAA in starkly negative hues , as if associating the organization with greed and its leadership with conspiracy will somehow make a difference . It goes so far as to smear the NCAA president for his handsome salary , noting that it constitutes a substantial raise over that of his predecessor . This lawsuit will probably not get past the motion to dismiss . The high point of the suit in Pennsylvania 's eyes is now ; get your shots in while you can . But imagine that Pennsylvania actually litigates to a successful conclusion and has the consent decree between Penn State and the NCAA overturned . What then ? The NCAA can simply reopen the case and refer the matter to the infractions process , with the penalty of death the likely outcome for Penn State 's Nittany Lions . If Joe were still here , he would tell you : Sometimes it 's smarter to punt . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey Standen .
Gov . Tom Corbett filed a lawsuit against NCAA over sanctions on Penn State . Jeffrey Standen : The lawsuit is smart politically , but makes no sense legally . He says complaint is less like a legal document , more like a press release . Standen : Even if it were successful , we can reopen the case .