ArmyVet83;1896864; said:
A lie is a lie is a lie. Agreed both Tressel and Pearl did that BUT it is not the same violation.
Tressel LIED about a situation with current players. To lose scholarships over that would not be "a punishment fitting the crime type action by the NCAA". However vacating wins for the 2010 season to include the Sugar Bowl would be fair punishment and even further suspending Coach Tressel for the ENTIRE 2011 football season should be considered.
While I'm not knee deep on the Pearl firing, my basic understanding is there were issues with current and former players as well as potential recruits. Correct me if I'm wrong.
He knew of players selling their individual merchandise.
YES
He knew of players hanging with a very shady individual.
YES but how much did he know. To this point not all the info has come to light on HOW much he knew.
He had the power to notify someone, and chose not to...on MULTIPLE occasions.
There is MUCH speculation that some people DID know about the situation. Is JT falling on the sword as others have said he MIGHT be doing? I haven't ruled it out.
He lied to the leadership at the school.
Did he or read the above response.
He sat by and let the players be suspended and knew he was just as guilty.
Did Coach Tressel sell or trade the merchandise? Nope. The players took responsibility and have been punished. The only thing that Coach Tressel did was lie to the NCAA to cover the players involved for what ever reasons he deemed necessary. No crime was committed by the coach or players. Simple NCAA rules were violated. Was it to an attempt at saving the football season? Maybe.
In my opinion, there is still alot to this story that hasn't been heard and still alot to come. Do I think Coach Tressel will be punished further? I would be surprised if he wasn't. BUT I do think Coach Tressel isn't the one involved.
I'd agree with you on almost everything you said. But your statement:
"Simple NCAA rules were violated."
You're right. Here's the rule (from the NCAA Div 1 Bylaws Pub):
10.1 UNETHICAL CONDUCT
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(Revised: 1/10/90, 1/9/96, 2/22/01)
(a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual?s institution;
(d) Knowingly furnishing the NCAA or the individual?s institution false or misleading information concerning the individual?s involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation;
(j) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or the institution?s athletics department regarding an individual?s amateur status. (Adopted: 1/8/07, Revised: 5/9/07)
When they plop those Scarlet Letters of "lack of instiutional control" and "Unethical Conduct" that basically says you let the players do whatever you wanted to do and knew about it (even if it's true or not).
The NCAA is also pretty clear on the punishments involved:
10.4 DISCIPLINARY ACTION [#]
Prospective or enrolled student-athletes found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be ineligible for further intercollegiate competition, subject to appeal to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for restoration of eligibility. (See Bylaw 10.3.2 for sanctions of student-athletes involved in violations of 10.3.)
Institutional staff members found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.2 of the NCAA enforcement procedures, whether such violations occurred at the certifying institution or during the individual?s previous employment at another member institution.
(Revised: 1/10/90, 4/27/00 effective 8/1/00, 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
That's why what Pearl and Tressel did are the same thing (to the NCAA). That's what the rules say, guys, not me.
What does bylaw 19.5.2.2 say regarding punishments? The following:
19.5.2.2 Disciplinary Measures.
In addition to those penalties prescribed for secondary violations, among the disciplinary measures, singly or in combination, that may be adopted by the committee (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2) and imposed against an institution for major violations are: (Revised: 1/16/93, 1/11/94, 1/10/95, 4/24/03)
It then goes into the known ones, public reprimand and censure, loss of schollies, loss of postseason play. But here it gets into individual staffing punishment:
(l) Requirement that a member institution that has been found in violation, or that has an athletics department staff member who has been found in violation of the provisions of NCAA legislation while representing another institution, show cause why:
(1) A penalty or an additional penalty should not be imposed if, in the opinion of the committee (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2), it does not take appropriate disciplinary or corrective action against athletics department personnel involved in the infractions case, any other institutional employee if the circumstances warrant or representatives of the institution?s athletics interests; or
(Revised: 1/10/95, 4/24/03)
(2) A recommendation should not be made to the membership that the institution?s membership in the Association be suspended or terminated if, in the opinion of the committee (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2), it does not take appropriate disciplinary or corrective action against the head coach of the sport involved, any other institutional employee if the circumstances warrant or representatives of the institution?s athletics interests.
(Revised: 1/10/95, 4/24/03)
(3) ?Appropriate disciplinary or corrective action? as specified in subparagraphs (1) and (2) above may include, for example, termination of the coaching contract of the head coach and any assistants involved; suspension or termination of the employment status of any other institutional employee who may be involved; severance of relations with any representative of the institution?s athletics interests who may be involved; the debarment of the head or assistant coach from any coaching, recruiting or speaking engagements for a specified period; and the prohibition of all recruiting in a specified sport for a specified period.
(4) The nature and extent of such action shall be the determination of the institution after due notice and hearing to the individuals concerned, but the determination of whether or not the action is appropriate
in the fulfillment of NCAA policies and principles, and its resulting effect on any institutional penalty, shall be solely that of the committee (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2).
(Revised: 1/10/95, 4/24/03)
(5) Where this requirement is made, the institution shall show cause or, in the alternative, shall show the appropriate disciplinary or corrective action taken, in writing, to the committee (or the Infractions
Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2) within 15 days thereafter. The committee (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2) may, without further hearing, determine on the basis of such writing whether or not in its opinion appropriate disciplinary or corrective action has been taken and may impose a penalty or additional penalty; take no further action, or, by notice to the institution, conduct a further hearing at a later date before making a final determination.
(Revised: 1/10/95,
4/24/03)
So, while what Pearl and Tressel did are the same (again, to the NCAA), the saving grace that Coach Tressel may have is that he's still UNDER CONTRACT with the school. But if the NCAA doesn't think that his five game with a fine is good enough......
Also - I'd agree with you on the 'someone else knew' theory. I had said that in a previous post that if the HC took this one on all by himself, he's got some big(ger) round ones, LOL.
