Yahoo, Tattoos, and tOSU (1-year bowl ban, 82 scholly limit for 3 years)

[scarletngray]

Just heard from a close friend of mine. My friend recently had dinner with an Ohio cabinet member and the subject of JT came up. Said cabinet member informed my friend that he had recently had lunch with JT and they had talked about the situation with the emails. JT told him that he confronted the players with the information and all denied any wrongdoing. He said he trusted them and took them at their word. That may help explain why he didn't take it any farther, if he in fact did not. If this is truly the case it makes me feel better about JT's motives. It would fit in with the kind of man he appears to be. He may have been too trusting but he seems to be a genuinely caring man. It is too bad he is going to be the one that is most affected by this situation. Hope he does not become too disillusioned over this, would hate to have it change the kind of person he is.

This entirely makes sense to me...

So, if he confronts his players and they deny it, who is he going to believe? The fact that if this did happen (which I think is more likely the case than anything else I've heard) and Tress did not go public with this (though Smith, Gee and NCAA know) it reveals that Tress is being the fall guy for his student athletes.

Would this be enough to turn the tide of public opinion?

:osu:

:osu:

 

[TexasBuck]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but Tigerdroppings is having some fun with a recent Tressel book signing. Some of this is actually pretty funny. If you are at work, you might want to wait until you get home to click on the link.

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/25191638/Jim-Tressel-signing-things.aspx

 

[AKAK]

First, 10.1 covers more than just non-disclosures, it covers unethetical conduct in general. But to your question, the school would have needed to have knowledge that a violation had occurred or was occurring. Why would a team self-report something that the have no knowledge about or something that they believe is proper? For instance, Oregon maintains that what they did was kosher, so it is pretty hard to punish a coach for failing to disclose something that he believed was proper. Likewise, there is no evidence that George Knew AJ Green sold his jersey, or that Carolina knew their players were getting the hook-up from agents, etc. With Tress (and OSU) they have already acknowledged that he was violating 10.1 in April 2010. The letter to the NCAA says as much, and I believe Tress publicly stated that he knew the players would probably lose eligibility when he became privy to this information.

Missed my point entirely, but, ok.

 

[alexhortdog95]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but Tigerdroppings is having some fun with a recent Tressel book signing. Some of this is actually pretty funny. If you are at work, you might want to wait until you get home to click on the link.

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/25191638/Jim-Tressel-signing-things.aspx

I love the "They Live" one, ROFLOL.

 

[sandgk]

This entirely makes sense to me...

I've largely steered clear of this topic - but am prompted by these recent posts to say, no, it does not make sense at all.
This is not about belief - it is about the inactions (no immediate visit to Compliance Office at tOSU) following revelations delivered in e-mails, and actions following delivery of the messages undercutting the narrative earlier put forth (forwarded to TP's close mentor - not the thing one does if your primary rationale for inaction is keeping things under wraps, it being this Fed investigation and all).

So, if he confronts his players and they deny it, who is he going to believe? The fact that if this did happen (which I think is more likely the case than anything else I've heard) and Tress did not go public with this (though Smith, Gee and NCAA know) it reveals that Tress is being the fall guy for his student athletes.

See above, belief in this case was not really relevant. It is his inaction and mixed / confused defense of the same which looks bad, as in very bad.

Would this be enough to turn the tide of public opinion?

:osu:

:osu:

In Columbus, maybe for some. Round the country, certainly not.

Like all others here I wish JT well in what will doubtless be a rough time in front of the NCAA. But, I'm not of the opinion that is worth our time to shine as meritorious actions which clearly go against best procedure for a HC at tOSU - or any other NCAA institution facing similar issues. By his own admission he did not do that which he should have done.

I'm sure he is man enough to live with the consequences of those decisions - and further hope the NCAA and University will accept his current 5-game suspension as the beginning and end of the matter.

 

[TexasBuck]

I love the "They Live" one, ROFLOL.

I think my work is blocking some of the content. I don't see that one. I love the Herby in drag, the motor-boating and Willie Nelson ones.

 

[Gatorubet]

If a former Auburn player attorney had e-mailed Chizik and said Cam Newton had been paid to come to Auburn, several other Auburn players tweeted or commented that that was common knowledge, so Gene asked Cam about it and he said "no", would everyone be just as happy with Auburn's coach not sending that information to compliance and ending his reporting and investigation?

I know, "tats for cash/ink" is not as serious as getting a big cash payment, but the duty to investigate and report does not have gradations of reporting or investigating - neither of those are "secondary"violations, and the NCAA does not have a provision for ignoring any violations that involve eligibility issues.

The supposition that Tress investigated (and they denied) is not unreasonable at all. However, the question to be asked by the NCAA is, considering you knew player eligibility was implicated the minute you heard about it, was the reporting and investigation sufficient?

 

[alexhortdog95]

If a former Auburn player attorney had e-mailed Chizik and said Cam Newton had been paid to come to Auburn, several other Auburn players tweeted or commented that that was common knowledge, so Gene asked Cam about it and he said "no", would everyone be just as happy with Auburn's coach not sending that information to compliance and ending his reporting and investigation?

There's a difference - Cam is an 'entertainer' AND an 'icon'

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

Just heard from a close friend of mine. My friend recently had dinner with an Ohio cabinet member and the subject of JT came up. Said cabinet member informed my friend that he had recently had lunch with JT and they had talked about the situation with the emails. JT told him that he confronted the players with the information and all denied any wrongdoing. He said he trusted them and took them at their word. That may help explain why he didn't take it any farther, if he in fact did not. If this is truly the case it makes me feel better about JT's motives. It would fit in with the kind of man he appears to be.

meh. all tressel had to do was ask to see the items that the players allegedly sold, which seems like a perfectly reasonable request when dealing with an email discussing players possibly involved (though remotely) in a federal case (the details of which certainly being released in time). the implications of the email were far too great for a coach to take players on their word when there was one more simple step to take that would have guaranteed innocence. if tressel confronted the players and took them at their word, this is what i picture:

 

[bassbuckeye07]

If a former Auburn player attorney had e-mailed Chizik and said Cam Newton had been paid to come to Auburn, several other Auburn players tweeted or commented that that was common knowledge, so Gene asked Cam about it and he said "no", would everyone be just as happy with Auburn's coach not sending that information to compliance and ending his reporting and investigation?

I know, "tats for cash/ink" is not as serious as getting a big cash payment, but the duty to investigate and report does not have gradations of reporting or investigating - neither of those are "secondary"violations, and the NCAA does not have a provision for ignoring any violations that involve eligibility issues.

The supposition that Tress investigated (and they denied) is not unreasonable at all. However, the question to be asked by the NCAA is, considering you knew player eligibility was implicated the minute you heard about it, was the reporting and investigation sufficient?

What folks are doing here is trying to calm there nervs about the prospect of the program going through a decade of poop (see Bama 96 to 2006, OU 1992-2002, USC 92 to 2000)....all your doing is ruining our rationalization that everything is going to be ok.....so stop damn it

 

[Gatorubet]

Would this be enough to turn the tide of public opinion?

:osu:

:osu:

This story would, in fact, support and explain why Gee and Smith have as little problem with Tress as they do, and would be in line with what is known of his character.

But opposing fans will not buy the fact that Tress' ....minimalist...... investigation left his starting star QB in the saddle for the season in a BCSNC possibility year, and cynical football fans will see this as his main concern. The refusal to report any knowledge until he was caught, and the failure to mention it in December when specifically asked will be foremost in the minds of those who do not want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, those are hard facts, and not opinion based. But only Tress knows his heart, and unless more comes out, there will likely never be "proof" of his intent. Just those making a conclusion from those facts using a preconceived opinion of the man that was positive...or negative/neutral.

I guess more troubling would be if that is the story -Tress was lied to by his guys, which led to his (and maybe tOSU's) troubles. That would bother the Hell out of me as a fan, and, if true, it would be hard to forgive the guys.

 

[BB73]

This story would, in fact, support and explain why Gee and Smith have as little problem with Tress as they do, and would be in line with what is known of his character.

But opposing fans will not buy the fact that Tress' ....minimalist...... investigation left his starting star QB in the saddle for the season in a BCSNC possibility year, and cynical football fans will see this as his main concern. The refusal to report any knowledge until he was caught, and the failure to mention it in December when specifically asked will be foremost in the minds of those who do not want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, those are hard facts, and not opinion based. But only Tress knows his heart, and unless more comes out, there will likely never be "proof" of his intent. Just those making a conclusion from those facts using a preconceived opinion of the man that was positive...or negative/neutral.

I guess more troubling would be if that is the story -Tress was lied to by his guys, which led to his (and maybe tOSU's) troubles. That would bother the Hell out of me as a fan, and, if true, it would be hard to forgive the guys.

JT being 'specifically asked' something in December - is that an assumption on your part, or was it stated in a press conference or an interview? Please provide a link if you can find one. I'm not going to look it up - you made the statement - you need to back it up.

 

[Gatorubet]

What folks are doing here is trying to calm there nervs about the prospect of the program going through a decade of poop (see Bama 96 to 2006, OU 1992-2002, USC 92 to 2000)....all your doing is ruining our rationalization that everything is going to be ok.....so stop damn it

For the record, I don't see your program getting in trouble, so much as Tress.

While haters gonna hate, how many schools would deep six the e-mails they found in Trees' in-box? I know, that is playing with fire, and SMU light a version of the death penalty, but as an institution, it looks like y'all did everything you should have done. Heck, you asked Tress in December. It ain't tOSU's fault that he chose not reveal it.

I think Tress may get a year sit down, but I do not think you are in for a "decade of poop" under any theory even the haters are bringing. Really, 07, if the NCAA wants to kick y'all for Auburn's sins, I guess they can make up some stupid stuff to take a scholly or two. But that seems worse case, and one or two to tOSU means two less bench kids watching another Big-10 Championship.

I mean that.

 

[utgrad73]

Have I mentioned that I hate tatoos. They are artistic marks on the surface that we can see and they distract the human eye from seeing what lies below. Symbolicly, they might as well be warts or scars with hope of clearing up after they fester and heal. Coach has adopted a few blemishes here that just don't heal because someone keeps picking at the scabs.

 

[Gatorubet]

JT being 'specifically asked' something in December - is that an assumption on your part, or was it stated in a press conference or an interview? Please provide a link if you can find one. I'm not going to look it up - you made the statement - you need to back it up.

I'm sorry, but the only link to a video of the December presser was difficult to download/watch because of technical issues. Tress was sitting next to Gene Smith as Gene explained that tOSU had recently learned of the problem, reported it, and the NCAA had cleared the 5 to play. So I find it hard to think that Gene would have done so without asking his head coach about it first.

In any event, you can look at Gee's letter to the NCAA, Here. http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/sports/stories/2011/03/09/SelfReport.pdf

I think that you will see - on the third pdf page - points "ii" and the first sentence of point "iii" after the heading "Information Relating to the Violations" would support the statement I made. I wasn't trying to "bash" with that comment. Frankly, I just assumed that we were all on the same page by now as far as the facts as admitted by tOSU to the NCAA