Wah. So if it's found that he was recruited "illegally" he should still get to play at USC like nothing happened. Riiight...methomps;746998; said:
GPA material...808 Buck;747203; said:
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter CleveBucks
- Start date
ysubuck
Be water my friend.
So maybe you weren't directly comparing the situations, but my point still stands.
Ohio State was targeted like no other program before or since. That's not selective retention, it's fact. Show me one other instance where a program has been dragged through the mud like Ohio State was during the whole Clarett/Troy Smith fiasco.
The Clarett allegations were found to have NO merit through NCAA investigations, but I don't remember that ever making the news. Troy Smith took a whopping $500 from a booster that Ohio State self reported and got dinged for. ESPN continued to bash Ohio State. I'll get you the DVD of the Alamo Bowl so you can hear it for yourself. Pregame, during the game, postgame. That was just the tip of the iceburg.
Herbstreit was right there bashing along with Corso and Tirico during the broadcast, but one of our local guys brings up the McKnight thing this past week and what does Herbie say? "Well, I was talking to Lane Kiffin about that this week and I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion."
It's funny how nobody wants to blow things out of proportion now, but they were perfectly willing to blow things out of proportion on the word of a known liar (Clarett).
Ohio State was targeted like no other program before or since. That's not selective retention, it's fact. Show me one other instance where a program has been dragged through the mud like Ohio State was during the whole Clarett/Troy Smith fiasco.
The Clarett allegations were found to have NO merit through NCAA investigations, but I don't remember that ever making the news. Troy Smith took a whopping $500 from a booster that Ohio State self reported and got dinged for. ESPN continued to bash Ohio State. I'll get you the DVD of the Alamo Bowl so you can hear it for yourself. Pregame, during the game, postgame. That was just the tip of the iceburg.
Herbstreit was right there bashing along with Corso and Tirico during the broadcast, but one of our local guys brings up the McKnight thing this past week and what does Herbie say? "Well, I was talking to Lane Kiffin about that this week and I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion."
It's funny how nobody wants to blow things out of proportion now, but they were perfectly willing to blow things out of proportion on the word of a known liar (Clarett).
Upvote
0
Shoeless Joe
Lets Go White Sox
so whats the chances of striping them of there NC's they won in 2003 and 2004
Upvote
0
OSU_Buckguy
Head Coach
please tell me that your reasoning is not that because oklahoma got away with it, so should usc (if the allegations are accurate).methomps;747834; said:
Upvote
0
methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
OSU_Buckguy;747836; said:
My point is that the penalties should be more along the lines of the penalties dished out in that case (restrict the coach's recruiting in the future).
BuckeyeNation27;747838; said:
My point is that to have such a wild variation in penalties depending on when the violations are uncovered is only going to discourage self-reporting.
Upvote
0
23Skidoo
It's so Japaneasy
methomps;747745; said:
Obviously you had nothing left to add to the discussion, so instead decide to take potshots. Selective retention isn't used in marketing to dismiss opinions, especially not carte blanche like you've done here.
So obviously you've been using selective retention this entire time to only remember the term itself and the facets that help support your ridiculous argument.
As for rose-colored glasses... last I checked, you're the USC fan. Selective retention is far more applicable to your situation than anyone else here.
Upvote
0
methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
BuckeyeNation27;747871; said:
Here is the case chronology. I can't make sense out of it, but maybe someone else can.
CASE CHRONOLOGY.
2001
February 19 ? The enforcement staff received information from an anonymous source that the men's basketball staff violated NCAA telephone and in-person contact rules.
2002
March 14 ? The enforcement staff received additional information from a confidential source indicating that the men's basketball staff violated NCAA telephone and in-person contact rules.
April and May ? The enforcement staff conducted interviews of numerous prospective student-athletes.
2003
January 9 ? The enforcement staff received additional information from a confidential source indicating that the men's basketball staff violated NCAA telephone and in-person contact rules.
February and October ? The enforcement staff conducted interviews of men's basketball prospective student-athletes.
December 18 ? The basketball certification staff in enforcement services sent a request for information to the institution, including a request for all telephone records for the men's basketball staff from June 2000 to March 2001.
2004
May 28 ? The enforcement staff issued a notice of inquiry to the institution.
December 21 ? The secondary enforcement staff received a self-report from the institution indicating that the women's gymnastics team engaged in impermissible out-of-season activities, and exceeded permissible daily and weekly time limitations.
2005
April 4 ? After reviewing telephone records and other information obtained through an open records request, the Daily Oklahoman published a story about the NCAA investigation and identified similar potential violations that occurred after those violations identified through the original NCAA inquiry.
September 27 ? Submission of the summary disposition report by the parties.
November 29 ? The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions rejected the findings in the summary disposition report and directed that the case be set for hearing in April 2006.
December 15 ? The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations to the institution, the former head coach and assistant coach's A, B and C.
2006
March 2 ? Deadline for filing of responses by the institution, the former head coach and assistant coaches A, B and C.
April 21 ? The university appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions.
May 25 ? Infractions Report No. 250 was released.
Upvote
0