None taken man. But no offense, the e-mails discovery and subsequent investigation started in January, after the initial "discovery" of the player's part was revealed in December. I think you can get the bottom of a "
Why didn't you tell us about the e-mails Jim?" investigation pretty damn quickly, actually. So while I may be wrong, I think that wondering about the change of heart in light of that is not that odd. To tell you the truth, I don't remember anyone else ever bringing that up (the "How does it look to flip-flop so quickly on your official punishment announcement?" ) as a topic of discussion. New ground to plow, as it were.
Yeah - you can hang your hat on the fact that new and revealing circumstances came about between March 8 and March 10, and that putting a proposed penalty in your letter to the NCAA and then doing a 180 degree about face on it two days later was due to that new info...but that would make me question why tOSU felt the need to fine Tress $250K and say he did wrong - on March 8 - if the evidence was so unsure.
I took the fine as University punishment, kind of like docking pay, that no-matter what comes from all of this, Tress did breech contract by not informing the Admin of his discovery of potential violations ASAP. I don't believe that the NCAA fines coaches directly, the Universities do. (At least I could not find any instances where the NCAA fined a coach directly.) So this fine, to me, has absolutely no bearing on the NCAA investigation and punishment. That is, of course, in my IMO.
I don't care if the news was leaked by Yahoo. You do not throw a great coach like Tressel under the bus in front of a national audience unless you are pretty damn sure what happened. Lots of folks here are really hanging on the "We do not know all the facts!" Really? Then how the Hell could they treat Tress the way they did if they really were not in possession of all of the pertinent facts? If that is true, that there are lots of unknowns remaining, then Gee and Smith should be ashamed of themselves! I find that possibility so unlikely that I reject that theory, popular tho it is here.
Back in the day before 24-7 insta-information and the "tell me NOW!!" generation, nothing would have been said about anything by the University until the NCAA had handed down their findings and punishment. In todays world, unfortunately, if any entity (whether it be a University, Corporation, or Individual) that does not address rumors and conjecture quickly, the public at large will automatically hang GUILTY around the necks of the "accused" as it were, regardless of the actual facts of the case/situation. As stated in the press conference, the University was wrapping up their investigation into the matter, which they had two NCAA officials on campus aiding in the investigation, and they were then handing it over the self-report with RECOMMENDED punitive action. I would venture to guess, as a lawyer, if you recommend a client get a plea bargain of 18 months in prison for whatever, but the prosecution comes back and says 9 months is sufficient, then you would most likely take the 9 months, yes? Maybe that is what happened here. Do we know? No. Will we find out? I am sure we will. Like I said before, we do not know the full facts of what is going down right now with the NCAA investigation and their findings. Anything said as to what people think should be done is nothing more than an uninformed opinion.
I find it hard to think that your President and AD threw your famous and beloved coach under the bus on national TV while in the midst of an incomplete investigation. So I am left with the more likely scenario - that their investigation was complete enough for Tress to agree to the penalties and for tOSU to make the public announcement on the 8th. And if they were so confident of the facts on the 8th that they would fine Tress and sanction him, then it follows that the tOSU President was confident of the facts and penalty he included in his formal letter to the NCAA regarding both. It would absolutely shock me to learn that on the 9th or 10th they found out exculpatory facts of such great importance that they canceled the spring and summer practice ban. Had that happened, I would expect them to release a follow up letter to the NCAA explaining the decision to change their minds just two days later.
As stated above, the University stated at the press conference that they, the University, had wrapped up their investigation in the matter and was handing it off to the NCAA. The NCAA may have told the University that it was not necessary to have him abstain from Spring ans Summer sessions/camps, therefore the change of heart by the University. Again, not saying this is what happened, but it is an alternate scenario. (Shelly Poe, IMO, is not the most savvy when it comes to PR for an institution the size and notoriety of Ohio State, and I am not real happy that she is in charge of it for the University's athletic department. There have been other situations in the past couple of years that I thought were badly handled, and this is not being handled well at all on the PR front.)
So I hear you. But if what you say is true (bold part), then everyone needs to be really mad at your AD and President for doing this to Coach Tressel prematurely.
No, nobody should be mad at the AD or president because they recommended a punishment to the NCAA. I think an overwhelming majority here believe Tress was in the wrong and deserves to be punished. The fact that what the University recommended may have been above what the NCAA is looking for could be the reason. I am not saying it is, but, again, we have not heard the final verdict yet.
I hear you buxfan. But to be fair, people are welcome to their "I stand with Coach Tressel" opinions - even when they are based upon factually incorrect information - like TS10's. Nobody tells them to keep their opinions to themselves until all of the facts are known. So I hope that it is OK to respectfully point out something that has not been discussed before to my knowledge.
Just to go on record here, I have not stated an opinion either way on this situation. I am disappointed in the situation, sure, but until I am satisfied that everything is on the table, I am reserving my judgment on the matter.
And you are correct that it hasn't been discussed, but I wasn't really sure if you had or not with your 1000 word essays of post on this subject. :p
And really, saying "Don't flip-flop two days later" on your official position to the NCAA is not all that controversial an opinion. Not really so much "legal" (although I'd be thinking of perception issues mostly) as PR.
I can't remember a single case of an institution changing its mind about self imposed penalties on a head coach two days later. Seemed odd is all. Hell, everything about this thing seems a little odd. A bazillion side issues on this one. That's what makes it so interesting to me.
Well, how many institutions (not conferences, but the Universities itself) proposed punishments for their coaches in the past? Usually, the coach bolts (Carroll, Calipari) or they get fired (too many to name). But I agree that this is a very interesting, and pretty unique case that is going on here.
Occupational hazard, as you say. 
Damn lawyers. :p
