QB/WR Terrelle Pryor ('10 Rose, '11 Sugar MVP)

[billmac91]

How does his not coming forth with the information possibly protect them from criminal activity? If they were involved with known criminals, one would think the first thing JT or any other responsible person in authority would want would be the institutional power of the university getting involved and getting the proper authorities involved in order to remove those players from the activities and individuals in question--even if it came at the price of their ncaa eligibility. And if they were actually involved in the criminal activity, it would make his decision even worse and would cross over the line into obstruction of justice.

I haven't read anything to indicate the latter, but one poster did try to spin JT's actions in a positive manner as trying to protect his players from jail. With regards to just being around criminal activity, I don't believe that had anything to do with his decision, and if it did makes his actions worse not better.

I have no idea if he took them, but a police report was filed in the stealing of cleats from the mens locker-room last year. 4 pairs of Pryor's cleats alone. If it came out that it was Pryor himself who stole them, that could get pretty ugly....

Maybe it's not criminal activity in terms of Rife and drugs, but criminal activity in terms of selling property that doesn't belong to him.

 

[NFBuck]

Isnt it supposed to be the other way around?

Especially in the media where you can sell a million magazines by accusing anyone of wrong doing without repercussion. My 2 cents

Hasn't been for a long time.

 

[Deety]

I have no idea if he took them, but a police report was filed in the stealing of cleats from the mens locker-room last year. 4 pairs of Pryor's cleats alone. If it came out that it was Pryor himself who stole them, that could get pretty ugly....

I've been wondering about this. Is the NCAA supposed to be notified when the school becomes aware of a violation, or when they suspect a violation?

(The issue here seems to be insufficient digging to find out if something was going on, so I'm not really trying to downplay that, though I do wonder how much digging is appropriate and how we would know.)

Something goes missing, a player insists it's stolen and you have no hard evidence otherwise. Do you report a suspicion that it might not actually have been stolen to the NCAA, or do you tell the student that if it's stolen you need to make a police report? And filing a report adds much more serious legal liabilities for lying than the NCAA dishes out, so you had better be very sure that's what actually happened? And maybe point out past players who had filed false reports to drive home that point?

Or if the player files the report immediately, is the coach really supposed to send up the ladder, "Hey, NCAA, we think maybe our players are filing false police reports? No, the police don't care if I tell them that because there is no evidence, but you guys do, right?" Maybe so. I am just not sure the situation is as clear to someone slogging through it as it seems from a distance.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I've been wondering about this. Is the NCAA supposed to be notified when the school becomes aware of a violation, or when they suspect a violation?

(The issue here seems to be insufficient digging to find out if something was going on, so I'm not really trying to downplay that, though I do wonder how much digging is appropriate and how we would know.)

Something goes missing, a player insists it's stolen. Do you report a suspicion that it might not actually have been stolen to the NCAA, or do you tell the student that if it's stolen you need to make a police report? And filing a report adds much more serious legal liabilities for lying than the NCAA dishes out, so you had better be very sure that's what actually happened?

Or if the player files the report immediately, is the coach really supposed to send up the ladder, "Hey, NCAA, we think maybe our players are filing false police reports?" Maybe so. I am just not sure the situation is as clear to someone slogging through it as it seems from a distance.

Interesting. Since the player most likely wouldn't file the police report himself, I wonder if the player simply telling the equipment manager that the items are missing would make him responsible for filing the false police report? Lacking any further knowledge, the university officials would be seen to be acting in good faith, I'd assume. Gator?

 

[Deety]

Interesting. Since the player most likely wouldn't file the police report himself, I wonder if the player simply telling the equipment manager that the items are missing would make him responsible for filing the false police report? Lacking any further knowledge, the university officials would be seen to be acting in good faith, I'd assume. Gator?

Good question. I'd been thinking the player would report but that doesn't sound right. So in effect, if the school did know something was going on but filed a police report rather than an NCAA report, the school was opting for potential serious legal violations rather than NCAA violations.

Yep, that seems likely.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Good question. I'd been thinking the player would report but that doesn't sound right. So in effect, if the school did know something was going on but filed a police report rather than an NCAA report, the school was opting for potential serious legal violations rather than NCAA violations.

Yep, that seems likely.

So, basically I see three possible scenarios.

BEST: The items really were stolen. The player reported that to the equipment manager who, in good faith, filed a police report to that effect.

BAD: The player was really taking the items, but because he didn't file a police report himself may or may not be responsible for filing a false report. The university official was acting in good faith and wouldn't be held responsible.

WORST: The equipment manager (or other person in authority) knew where the items were really going but chose to file a false stolen goods report rather than notify the NCAA of wrongdoing on the part of the player.

Hope for best, but settle for bad, and pray to god that it's not worst.

 

[osugrad21]

Isnt it supposed to be the other way around?

Especially in the media where you can sell a million magazines by accusing anyone of wrong doing without repercussion. My 2 cents

So guilty until proven innocent is the American way now?

Don't twist my meaning. The guilty players are fair game for judgment. Those that are innocent will come clean in the wash.

Right now, you have 5 that are fair game to be judged.

 

[Coqui]

From a public perception perspective yes, it has been for decades, maybe even forever. I love when people take things out of context. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal institution, these kids aren't in jail or fined waiting to be acquited so all is in line with normalicy.

So we should treat them as destroying the program just because someone named them? As it stands, an SI article puts their name in it and that's all we have to go with.

Then there's lawsuits showing the contrary. Why treat them as guilty if one article says it, but dismiss another article that says they're not guilty?

 

[Coqui]

Don't twist my meaning. The guilty players are fair game for judgment. Those that are innocent will come clean in the wash.

Right now, you have 5 that are fair game to be judged.

Not twisting your words, just assumed you meant the additional 9 as well. mea culpa

 

[Deety]

So, basically I see three possible scenarios.

BEST: The items really were stolen. The player reported that to the equipment manager who, in good faith, filed a police report to that effect.

BAD: The player was really taking the items, but because he didn't file a police report himself may or may not be responsible for filing a false report. The university official was acting in good faith and wouldn't be held responsible.

WORST: The equipment manager (or other person in authority) knew where the items were really going but chose to file a false stolen goods report rather than notify the NCAA of wrongdoing on the part of the player.

Hope for best, but settle for bad, and pray to god that it's not worst.

Good convo, ORD.

Your WORST example would mean someone was willing to take the legal consequences of filing a false report personally. This is possible, but I seriously doubt it.

I do think that the police report outranks any NCAA reporting. If the police find it to be a false report, it's an NCAA violation. If they don't, I don't see how it could possibly be an NCAA violation.

 

[buckeyesin07]

As for TP, 7 cars in 2 years (or whatever the hell it is), tattoos, the high school committing fiasco, comments about Vick.........after a while it gets tough to defend him.

What you refer to here contains too much speculation to reach the conclusion you want to reach, IMO. I'd suggest you stop reading espn.com for awhile.

 

[BB73]

Don't twist my meaning. The guilty players are fair game for judgment. Those that are innocent will come clean in the wash.

Right now, you have 5 that are fair game to be judged.

To be accurate, it's really 6 players; Whiting only got a 1-game suspension for a discounted tattoo.

And that's not counting former "player g", who hasn't been officially identified.

 

[Steve19]

To be accurate, it's really 6 players; Whiting only got a 1-game suspension for a discounted tattoo.

And that's not counting former "player g", who hasn't been officially identified.

And Mr Such and Such, you forgot him, oh wait...

 

[jimotis4heisman]

Perhaps JT was protecting a former player who, in breaching the confidentiality of an investigation, put his own career in jeopardy.

that is great and all, but is that supposed to be a good thing? do two wrongs make a right (i know that three lefts make a right). i find no courage/reason that tressel should step out on a limb for a guying who allegedly is fighting to save his law license for other indiscretions. nothing is "honorable" about that at all. just like if someone shows up to my company drunk/under the influence all employees have an affirmative duty to inform a superior. furthermore, if someone is stilling from my company and another is aware of it and enables such activity or worse aids/abets/conspires/etc with that person, pink slip.

their are a lot of "hard lessons" in life. but honesty and doing the right thing, in the face of punishment is the lesson he should have taught, not how to cover up, make excuse, preaching to the choir and what not... nothing to be proud of at all, imo. that being said a few bad choices dont make anyone a bad person. but it takes thousands of actions and deeds to build a reputation, and one to destroy that reputation...

 

[BUCKYLE]

that is great and all, but is that supposed to be a good thing? do two wrongs make a right (i know that three lefts make a right). i find no courage/reason that tressel should step out on a limb for a guying who allegedly is fighting to save his law license for other indiscretions. nothing is "honorable" about that at all. just like if someone shows up to my company drunk/under the influence all employees have an affirmative duty to inform a superior. furthermore, if someone is stilling from my company and another is aware of it and enables such activity or worse aids/abets/conspires/etc with that person, pink slip.

their are a lot of "hard lessons" in life. but honesty and doing the right thing, in the face of punishment is the lesson he should have taught, not how to cover up, make excuse, preaching to the choir and what not... nothing to be proud of at all, imo. that being said a few bad choices dont make anyone a bad person. but it takes thousands of actions and deeds to build a reputation, and one to destroy that reputation...

We talking about moonshine?!