tOSU Indiscretions of May (Mega Merge)

[tundra1]

Love the speculation, but please stick to the facts as reported.

osugrad...not sure who you're directing this comment to.

BuckeyeBill took the comment from a Cincinnati Enquirer article verbatim--an article that BuckeyeBill even correctly cited (i.e. he's doing better than Mitch Albom these days).

And, it's clear from the article that Smith did basically say that a coach's job is in jeopardy. In the article, it quotes Smith saying, "So, yeah, a coach's job falls on the line, including mine if I continue to allow a program to emerge and operate that way. In the end, it's still not all about wins and losses. The fans will shoot me because they want to win, but that's not why I'm here. We will not tolerate consistent, poor behavior by our student-athletes."

So I think BuckeyeBill reported the article verbatim, and I think the article summarized what the new AD said pretty well. Did I miss something?

 

[hoyalawbuck]

I agree with PJ here--it wouldn't be "sweeping under the rug" or anything for this campus cop to notify JT that one of his players was under investigation, well before any known crime took place, so that the coach could talk with Skeete and attempt to steer him clear of potential trouble. Campus cops are essentially colleagues of OSU athletic coaches and should be to some degree focused on the same mission of helping students develop into upstanding adult citizens.

Are you suggesting that athletes should get some kind of special consideration in this regard? Or that all students, athletes or not, should be given this benefit, i.e., their guidance counselors, mentors, hall monitors, whatever, should be told that Janey or Joey is under investigation. I do not think that it would be appropriate to give student athletes this special benefit, if not available to all students. My guess is that the NCAA also would not look very favorably at this.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

osugrad...not sure who you're directing this comment to.

BuckeyeBill took the comment from a Cincinnati Enquirer article verbatim--an article that BuckeyeBill even correctly cited (i.e. he's doing better than Mitch Albom these days).

And, it's clear from the article that Smith did basically say that a coach's job is in jeopardy. In the article, it quotes Smith saying, "So, yeah, a coach's job falls on the line, including mine if I continue to allow a program to emerge and operate that way. In the end, it's still not all about wins and losses. The fans will shoot me because they want to win, but that's not why I'm here. We will not tolerate consistent, poor behavior by our student-athletes."

So I think BuckeyeBill reported the article verbatim, and I think the article summarized what the new AD said pretty well. Did I miss something?

saw this coming a mile away.....only a terrible mod couldve screwed this up :p

 

[BB73]

Should be interesting...any word on the time?

Not that I've seen yet.

 

[osugrad21]

osugrad...not sure who you're directing this comment to.

BuckeyeBill took the comment from a Cincinnati Enquirer article verbatim--an article that BuckeyeBill even correctly cited (i.e. he's doing better than Mitch Albom these days).

A Did I miss something?

Yes you missed it...I was responding to the author....not Bill.

The added piece is the author's assumption after an obvious guided response from Smith.

 

[strohs]

must....refresh.....more.....often..............
my bad.

 

[KevinBuck]

Are you suggesting that athletes should get some kind of special consideration in this regard? Or that all students, athletes or not, should be given this benefit, i.e., their guidance counselors, mentors, hall monitors, whatever, should be told that Janey or Joey is under investigation. I do not think that it would be appropriate to give student athletes this special benefit, if not available to all students. My guess is that the NCAA also would not look very favorably at this.

No, Pete Johnson actually suggested it; I just agree with him. What would the NCAA care if campus cops told coaches that a player who had committed no crimes had the potential to do so? This is all BEFORE THE FACT.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

what does the person learn this way? that there will always be somebody there to warn them before they get caught?

 

[sandgk]

Should be interesting...any word on the time?

Per WBNS 10TV - time of roundtable is 3PM

 

[KevinBuck]

what does the person learn this way? that there will always be somebody there to warn them before they get caught?

Or maybe that they were lucky that someone was there that once, and that someone cared enough to intervene before anything terrible happened, which for a previously-assumed good kid like Skeete might be all he needed to get back on track.

 

[strohs]

Or maybe that they were lucky that someone was there that once, and that someone cared enough to intervene before anything terrible happened, which for a previously-assumed good kid like Skeete might be all he needed to get back on track.

You know what happens when you ass-u-me.
The kid was selling some serious amounts of pot, that cannot be tolerated nor defended in any manner.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Or maybe that they were lucky that someone was there that once, and that someone cared enough to intervene before anything terrible happened, which for a previously-assumed good kid like Skeete might be all he needed to get back on track.

but you said this should be done for every student athelete.

 

[LloydSev]

No, Pete Johnson actually suggested it; I just agree with him. What would the NCAA care if campus cops told coaches that a player who had committed no crimes had the potential to do so? This is all BEFORE THE FACT.

The NCAA would care very much.. especially after ESPN puts their spin on it.

Any special treatment that the players receive that is not available for normal students (outside of the locker-room) is something the NCAA would look into.. especially when given from law enforcement officers.

 

[BB73]

Yes you missed it...I was responding to the author....not Bill.

The added piece is the author's assumption after an obvious guided response from Smith.

Looking at this line, it looks like a poorly worded statement by the author:

The off-field culture within the program must improve, Smith said. If it doesn't, eventually Tressel's job could be in jeopardy.

But in the next paragraph, it appears that the author didn't make that much of a leap, since this whole paragraph appears to be Smith's own words:

"In the end, the reality is, no recruit's parents are going to send their sons and daughters to a program like that, so you're going to end up with a bunch of kids doing that type of thing," Smith said. "That type of program attracts a certain type of kids. So, yeah, a coach's job falls on the line, including mine if I continue to allow a program to emerge and operate that way.

However, as always, I'd like to see what the question was that triggered that response. What was the description of "a program like that" in the question that Smith was addressing? Was it tOSU's current situation, or a hypothetical situation after a few more incidents?

 

[hoyalawbuck]

No, Pete Johnson actually suggested it; I just agree with him. What would the NCAA care if campus cops told coaches that a player who had committed no crimes had the potential to do so? This is all BEFORE THE FACT.

Well, if Pete was limiting his comments to the situation where the player had not actually committed a crime, but was merely hanging around with the wrong guys, exposing himself to temptation, then by all means, warn the coach that the kid's setting himself up for trouble. I did not construe Pete's comments as so limited. But once the kid has actually become part of the focus of a criminal investigation, either because he has actually broken the law, or because he is made arrangements to break the law, i.e., has made arrangements for a drug transaction, but has not actually executed the transaction, then it would be a clear special benefit to be warned that he was a subject of a criminal investigation. In such case not only do I believe the NCAA would look at it as a special benefit, but in everyday common sense terms most people would recognize it as a special benefit if non-athletes in the same position were not warned.