-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter buckeyeinfla
- Start date
- Status
Magua;1959491; said:
I wonder if he told Larry that USC was found guilty of 31 violations while OSU was only found guilty of 5.
...and that USC's AD called the NCAA investigation a "witch hunt" while tSOU self reported the violations, invited them to campus and gave them any and all information they were looking for during the investigation. and OSU fired their coach once all details emerged. OSU didn't let him coach for two more years while the athletic department sat on infformation hoping to wait out the statute of limitations.
:)
Upvote
0
Magua;1959491; said:
To be fair, Mr. Scott probably tried to ask USC but they refused to answer.
Upvote
0
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
I did not take the reference to be the Means case. That pay for play violation was wrapped up with no less than TEN other major violation allegations, involved two other coaches, and had the Tahd looked at as death penalty candidates. Bama was horrified - and appealed. 
I was looking for something that was much less a deal than that clustermuck of a case. Means was Huge! The facts were the talk of the SEC for years, with UT and Bama fighting it out over Phil Fulmer's narking Bama, resulting in lawsuits against UT and Phil. Bama got a two year bowl ban, oodles of schollies lost over several years, and a five year probation.
The Means case is the farthest thing from your facts you could find Ak. They could not have been thinking about Means in relation to y'all when they made that comment. If they did, they are deranged. That case is one of the very worst in a long line of cases.
I was looking for something that was much less a deal than that clustermuck of a case. Means was Huge! The facts were the talk of the SEC for years, with UT and Bama fighting it out over Phil Fulmer's narking Bama, resulting in lawsuits against UT and Phil. Bama got a two year bowl ban, oodles of schollies lost over several years, and a five year probation.
The Means case is the farthest thing from your facts you could find Ak. They could not have been thinking about Means in relation to y'all when they made that comment. If they did, they are deranged. That case is one of the very worst in a long line of cases.
Upvote
0
Gatorubet;1959517; said:I did not take the reference to be the Means case. That pay for play violation was wrapped up with no less than TEN other major violation allegations, involved two other coaches, and had the Tahd looked at as death penalty candidates. Bama was horrified - and appealed.
I was looking for something that was much less a deal than that clustermuck of a case. Means was Huge! The facts were the talk of the SEC for years, with UT and Bama fighting it out over Phil Fulmer's narking Bama, resulting in lawsuits against UT and Phil. Bama got a two year bowl ban, oodles of schollies lost over several years, and a five year probation.
The Means case is the farthest thing from your facts you could find Ak. They could not have been thinking about Means in relation to y'all when they made that comment. If they did, they are deranged. That case is one of the very worst in a long line of cases.
Not my facts... the assertion was that Alabama got a post season ban without a failure to monitor or LOIC charge... they did get the LOIC for Langham and not Means. (Not sure about failure to Monitor in the Means case, my google machine is confused as well). Regardless that was the point of Zurp's concern. So, yeah, I mean, whatever the particular charges regarding the Means situation, technically, no LOIC... but, to your point, a MUCH worse situation all around.
So, I think we go with deranged.
Upvote
0
NateG
Can't waste the day when the night brings a hearse
OH10;1959569; said:
All he said in response was that it wasnt final. that will happen on Aug 12th. I expect some schollie drops and maybe another year of probation. Nothing he said corresponded with the fact that he cared about what the media or public said.
Upvote
0
OH10
*
Taosman;1959571; said:
I don't know why, but I am continuously amazed but the ignorance of people in failing to understand the fundamental differences between Ohio State and USC.
If the NCAA were to come down hard on Ohio State, I can assure you that schools would no longer give them the level of cooperation they require in order to properly police their rules. Think about it. There simply wouldn't be any incentive. In the future, schools would sit on the information rather than report it. Compliance departments would be gutted or at least understaffed. The Tressel-type emails would never see the light of day. They'd be erased.
Regardless of what the media thinks, the NCAA can't hammer Ohio State. It would cause them more damage in the long term to do so than the public beating they're taking right now.
Upvote
0
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
August 12 is the hearing. The ruling will come later in the year.Coqui;1959579; said:
(for example USC Hearing was on February 18. COI issued its findings June 10. Hopefully it will not take as long, as the issue is straight forward, and there is not much to even discuss at the hearing, Tressel's actions being admitted. I would guess that they might grill him on his motivations again, and maybe discuss the repeat offender status, the only remaining thing that might be an issue. The mitigation justifications put out there by tOSU - different sport, occurred long before these actions, no relation in type of infractions, compliance and self report mitigation - would lead me to think that repeat status will not be assessed. It is not mandatory, despite tOSU admitting that they are repeat violators in their response. With the NCAA appeals committee in USC stating that precedent is just advisory, it is hard to say what they will do.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
scarletngray;1959183; said:
How about everyone sends this to the Dispatch with a request that they report a summary and reference?
Upvote
0
- Status