I am not all in

[Tlangs]

Oh, I see how this works...

Giving Cecil Newton $180,000 TOTALLY helped Auburn win all those games!

without the 180Gs, he doesn't end up at Auburn (assuming they matched MSU)

 

[buxfan4life]

Oh, I see how this works...

Giving Cecil Newton $180,000 TOTALLY helped Auburn win all those games!

So what you are implying is that if sCam had gone elsewhere, Auburn still would have hoisted that crystal ball without him behind center. Um, I don't think so.

Sorry Smoov, but your argument is very weak with this statement. The players involved in the Yahoo/Tattoo scandal were already on the team when said infractions occurred. sCam was being shopped around to the highest bidder and could have been bought by another team, so your statement holds zero water.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Oh, I see how this works...

Umm...apparently not.

 

[GomerBucks]

"I am not all in" is becoming "I am mostly out" as this thing rolls on. It is depressing. And it isn't even close to being over. Down the road, the Buckeyes will recover and we will have a great team year in and year out. It nauseates me that our program and University is being dragged through the mud and being compared to so many of the other schools that have cheated the system. It saddens me that many "friends" of Tress are now shrugging uncomfortably when they are asked if he should keep his job.

I cannot wait for this '11 Senior Class to move on. TP can sit with Gruden and hopefully look a little brighter than sCam Newton. Boom, Posey and the rest can move on to wherever they end up and hopefully the younger classes of Buckeyes are ready to put their best foot forward and I hope that they all take a very thoughtful look at what is happening around them and learn from it.

Can we just fast forward one year?

 

[SmoovP]

So what you are implying is that if sCam had gone elsewhere, Auburn still would have hoisted that crystal ball without him behind center. Um, I don't think so.

Sorry Smoov, but your argument is very weak with this statement. The players involved in the Yahoo/Tattoo scandal were already on the team when said infractions occurred. sCam was being shopped around to the highest bidder and could have been bought by another team, so your statement holds zero water.

I'll give you that I didn't do a good job of making my point - that's because, generally speaking, I am an idiot.

But the point was (or tried to be) that OSU knowingly used ineligible players - an established fact - and then went to some lengths to cover that fact up.

And while I think it is a given that Cecil was shopping Cam to the highest bidder, it's not an established fact that Auburn actually paid anyone anything.

So it's not really about what the kids themselves, be they the Tat5 or Cam, did or didn't do - but about what happens on an institutional level after it's revealed.

I don't think it makes a valid point to point to Cam and Cecil and say "oh yeah, what about them!? We're not NEARLY as bad as they are!" because the OSU situation is, at this point, based on known facts, while the Auburn/Cam situation is not.

The rules are that you can't buy players, and you can't pay players - and regardless of the righteousness of those rules, they are the rules and everyone involved knows them up front.

Make sense?

 

[Tlangs]

I'll give you that I didn't do a good job of making my point - that's because, generally speaking, I am an idiot.

But the point was (or tried to be) that OSU knowingly used ineligible players - an established fact - and then went to some lengths to cover that fact up.

And while I think it is a given that Cecil was shopping Cam to the highest bidder, it's not an established fact that Auburn actually paid anyone anything.

So it's not really about what the kids themselves, be they the Tat5 or Cam, did or didn't do - but about what happens on an institutional level after it's revealed.

I don't think it makes a valid point to point to Cam and Cecil and say "oh yeah, what about them!? We're not NEARLY as bad as they are!" because the OSU situation is, at this point, based on known facts, while the Auburn/Cam situation is not.

The rules are that you can't buy players, and you can't pay players - and regardless of the righteousness of those rules, they are the rules and everyone involved knows them up front.

Make sense?

I see what your saying. I guess my thoughts are this.


The act itself of players getting cash or tats for their personal items does not give OSU a competitive advantage on the field. Those players participating on the field when they should have been suspended gives them an advantage. But act itself doesn't give OSU an advantage.

If Cam was paid to come to Auburn, that act gives them a competitive advantage right off the bat.


Avoidance of penalities gave us an advantage the first 5 games of last year, not the actual Tatoos. Auburn gets the competitive advantage of a player that wouldn't have attended their school without cash, and the advantage of avoidance of penalties (assuming he took money and assuming penalties are enforced down the road....big assumptions i know).

 

[bkochmc]

Can we just fast forward one year?

Nope, I'm looking forward to Buckeye basketball... only a little over 6 more months!

I'm interested in seeing how the football team reacts to all of this, especially the first 5 games without Tressel and company, but I'm much more excited about what Matta has built along with the return of Sullinger and Buford. Yes I know, the basketball forum is this way... ---->

 

[Gatorubet]

No matter how much we disagree, I'm still on the "same side" with ORD, Jax, and the others that posted in this thread from day one. No matter how much you agree with them, you aren't on OUR side.

 

[BB73]

I'll give you that I didn't do a good job of making my point - that's because, generally speaking, I am an idiot.

But the point was (or tried to be) that OSU knowingly used ineligible players - an established fact - and then went to some lengths to cover that fact up.

And while I think it is a given that Cecil was shopping Cam to the highest bidder, it's not an established fact that Auburn actually paid anyone anything.

So it's not really about what the kids themselves, be they the Tat5 or Cam, did or didn't do - but about what happens on an institutional level after it's revealed.

I don't think it makes a valid point to point to Cam and Cecil and say "oh yeah, what about them!? We're not NEARLY as bad as they are!" because the OSU situation is, at this point, based on known facts, while the Auburn/Cam situation is not.

The rules are that you can't buy players, and you can't pay players - and regardless of the righteousness of those rules, they are the rules and everyone involved knows them up front.

Make sense?

I think I understand what you're saying. If guys know they can sell rings and get free tattoos it can be an incentive to play for that team, even if the amount is different from what's alleged in the Newton scenario by a couple of zeroes for most of the players.

But I'll take issue with the bolded statement. JT allowed them to play, not tOSU. And if contacting a couple of players and their mentors and saying something like "stay away from the tattoo guy, he's bad news", and otherwise sitting on the information is considered 'some lengths', we differ on that phrase.

The facts as they've been reported indicate that JT basically sat on the information. He signed a form saying he knew of no violations, and then didn't mention his knowledge of the situation when the story broke in December.

He's guilty of an NCAA violation, sure, but it hasn't been shown to be a systematic coverup by the institution. If the university wanted to be involved in the coverup, would we have found out about the emails that were discovered in January?

 

[Jaxbuck]

Would you guys say we are more or less than halfway down this particular worm hole?

 

[Gatorubet]

without the 180Gs, he doesn't end up at Auburn (assuming they matched MSU)

Smoov keeps bringing up that pesky issue of proof. I'm with you (I think Smoov too) on the speculation part: but here you are comparing what may have happened - to a formal admission of major violations in a letter sent by Gee to the NCAA.

Really, that is apples and loquats.

 

[Tlangs]

Smoov keeps bringing up that pesky issue of proof. I'm with you (I think Smoov too) on the speculation part: but here you are comparing what may have happened - to a formal admission of major violations in a letter sent by Gee to the NCAA.

Really, that is apples and loquats.

whatis a loquat?


I agree. For the purposes of this argument I am assuming Cam is guilty. He may not be.

I am also saying that in my IMO recruiting violations give you more of a competitive advantage than players that are serving a 5 game suspension a year later than they should have.

 

[Apache]

To compare what happened at the Ohio State University in the football program to what has or may have happened elsewhere is an attempt at rationalization.

Below is a text reply I made to the Herd on ESPN.

Dear Colin,

While I do not always agree with your opinions, they almost always make me think deeper about the situations. I like your show and the fact that you do not take yourself or your opinions too seriously. I am a huge college football fan and being a three time graduate of Ohio State, I am also a big Buckeye fan. As a high school coach Woody Hayes and Frank Kremblas (a friend and former OSU qb) came to the high school when we made the playoffs to speak to the student body and team at a rally.

I am not one to to promote the firing of anyone.

But the fact of the matter is, Jim Tressel, lied and tried to cover up transgressions by his players. A simple call or visit to the Compliance Department would have solved this for him and the program. He CHOSE not to do this and as a result worsened the situation for his program, his A.D., his president, and himself.

Even after discovery, instead of coming out and saying, "I made a mistake. I was trying to help the players, (if in fact that was his motivation) and what I did was wrong. I will accept any sanctions the school and the NCAA may impose." The university and the the coach, put forth a weak effort with the two and later 5 game suspension and the financial penalty.

Ohio State has stated that Coach Tressel made the mistake and will remain their coach. I do not have a problem with that, as I think having made that statement, they must stay true to their word.

But, that is dependent on no more revelations of deceit.

I think an appropriate sanction would be a one year suspension that includes no contact at all for the year and that includes recruiting. Ohio State will not be allowed any post-season bowl appearances for that year. In addition, that suspension is without pay from the university and that money is donated to charity. Also, Coach Tressel should donate any money from his books and speaking engagements to those charities as well for that year.

This group of punishments shows that the Coach and the University takes this breach of honesty and integrity as deadly serious and will not be permitted.

The image of Ohio State football and Coach Tressel has been tarnished and the Vest has a good deal of stain.

Thanks again.

:osu:

 

[Gatorubet]

He's guilty of an NCAA violation, sure, but it hasn't been shown to be a systematic coverup by the institution.

That is exactly correct. Now (and I neither expect it or wish it), the current NCAA investigation as set forth in the NOA is not limited to the withholding of information about tatgate and the signed compliance cert. That is part of it to be sure. But the request made to tOSU was for an investigation of the people involved, players, staff and Cicero and Rife - of what was sold, when, and how much. A request for any other players - even those who graduated or left - who may have sold stuff. Who - if anyone else among tOSU staff knew anything about the extra benefits, and what did they know?

So people need to know that the parameters of the investigation are not limited to Tress. The NCAA has specifically asked for any an all other violations uncovered in the investigation that tOSU is about to do. They can always reserve the right to find that the institution failed at something, if new info is found, or if the sales were known or found to have gone on for some time. A sporadic deal might be viewed differently than an on-going thing over many years. (Don't ask me how the staff is supposed to know who got a tat or how much it cost - but if some low level staff guy is asked and says "Oh - that. Yeah, our guys have done that for some time, no biggie" then it all may blow up in ways nobody knows)

I'm nor trying to rumor monger Bill, but the specific requests of tOSU by the NCAA in the NOA ask for all of that, and the NCAA always leaves itself the flexibility to get into more things in any investigation. I guess I'm saying that there is no evidence of any impropriety by tOSU, but reminding everyone that the investigation an fairly be said to just be starting again - and is not in any way limited to just the known Tress issue. The institution looks pretty clean, but that will depend upon the depth of the self report investigation and the information turned up in this second one. *

*In the FSU deal they did self investigations more than once - answered the NCAA's NOA more than once - had a request for more information, and (shocking, I know) the second one turned up the bigger problem.

 

[Gatorubet]

whatis a loquat?

The annoying fruit tree in my back yard. Also called a "Japonica" tree.