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

[brodybuck21]

"Funnled". I can't stop laughing at his use of that word. Like it was all done thru illegal wire transfers to Boom's account in the Caymans. Posey was strictly Swiss banks all the way.

Haters gonna hate.

Even if a few recruits jump ship or decide to not attend...oh...fuckin'...well. Urbie isn't going anywhere. IT's still a wrap.

GPfuckinA

 

[zincfinger]

Better poll from the Plain Dealer?

http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-sports-blog/index.ssf/2011/12/ohio_state_buckeyes_did_ad_gen.html

I didn't pay any attention to the poll, but Gene Smith's quote...

Had this team come to me and said we don't want to play in a bowl at the end of the season, that would have factored in, but that's not what we had here," Smith said. "These young men fought through adversity. I know that Buckeye Nation is all about next year and looking forward to winning a national championship, and that is right.

...in my opinion, contains at least two immediately obvious pieces of what I will euphemistically refer to as "flawed reasoning".

 

[PJ33]

PJ SIAD WE GOT A BOWL BAN?! WTF? I THINK HE'S URBIN MEYERS. HOW ELSE WOULD HE KNOW THAT [Mark May] ALREDY?!!! THINK ABOUT IT.

I just had seen the info coming across twitter before the press conference yesterday and posted it.

 

[zincfinger]

The flaw in your reasoning is that [you assume] Tressel and the instituion [OSU] are one and the same. In this case Tressel =/= the institution. The NCAA seems to acknowledge as much in the quote you provided, with the key portion that I bolded.

The institution cooperated. Jim Tressel as an individual not acting in concert with the institution, did not.

I think it's difficult-to-impossible to know to what extent respondeat superior is applied in NCAA deliberations. Respondeat superior is a legal term which says, in essence, that an employer is potentially liable for any actions taken by an employee in the course of his employment. Obviously the NCAA COI isn't an arbiter of legal jurisprudence, but I suspect that a similar concept applies to some extent, and that there isn't the bright-line distinction between employer and employee that you're suggesting, particularly for a relatively high-level employee.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

You're assuming Gene Smith can be taken at his word. I have no idea why, other than a launching pad for a lengthy discussion.

Unionfutura posted previously that their research firm recommended six scholarships and a postseason ban, which OSU chose not to follow.

So we pay what I'm assuming to be seven figures to a law firm specializing in ncaa enforcement. They come back with a set of recommendations for us to act upon. GS tears up their recommendations and makes his own decision. In the end, outside consultants were correct, and GS was wrong.

How, in any field or profession and when the stakes are both so very high and very public, does this not result in termination.

 

[sparcboxbuck]

So we pay what I'm assuming to be seven figures to a law firm specializing in ncaa enforcement. They come back with a set of recommendations for us to act upon. GS tears up their recommendations and makes his own decision. In the end, outside consultants were correct, and GS was wrong.

How, in any field or profession and when the stakes are both so very high and very public, does this not result in termination.

The Bay of Pigs seemed to work out well (for Cuba).

 

[sparcboxbuck]

After a night to sleep on all this I've had a chance to step back and ask myself:

Question: Am I more excited to watch, root for and bleed S&G for tOSU football now than I was 365 days ago?

Answer: Hell yes I am.

Reasoning: Time and change will surely show how firm thy friendship

Move on, drop a hundo on everyone in '12 and do it again in '13. Fuck anyone not us. That is all.

 

[Bestbuck36]

After a night to sleep on all this I've had a chance to step back and ask myself:

Question: Am I more excited to watch, root for and bleed S&G for tOSU football now than I was 365 days ago?

Answer: Hell yes I am.

Reasoning: Time and change will surely show how firm thy friendship

Move on, drop a hundo on everyone in '12 and do it again in '13. Fuck anyone not us. That is all.

Right there with you bub, !

I really believe that if Gene Smith hadnt acted so nonchalant about the way things were headed and lead people to believe that things wouldn't end as bad as they actually did, there would be much less hatred over the findings. He was the catalyst towards the optimism and in the end it was his arrogance that lead to the thing imploding. Tressel and the kids messed up, they paid a heavy price, imo. Gene Smith should have put out the fires appropriately and instead he fanned the flames.

 

[OHSportsFan]

Hey,

Juz checkin in on da firebombz NC2AA plain. Got suppliz. Liv 10 min from headqrt.

Le' do it!1

kthx

 

[Buckeye Maniac]

Hey,

Juz checkin in on da firebombz NC2AA plain. Got suppliz. Liv 10 min from headqrt.

Le' do it!1

kthx

It's on. We meet there at 1:30, so as to make sure everyone is back from lunch.

Don't worry if you don't see anyone else there, we'll all be hiding. Just start chucking Molotov cocktails and the like and we'll follow suit.

 

[unionfutura]

You're assuming Gene Smith can be taken at his word. I have no idea why, other than a launching pad for a lengthy discussion.

Unionfutura posted previously that their research firm recommended six scholarships and a postseason ban, which OSU chose not to follow.

I have no doubts especially now that had we gone the route of what was recommended to us, we would have not received further penalties.

 

[unionfutura]

So we pay what I'm assuming to be seven figures to a law firm specializing in ncaa enforcement. They come back with a set of recommendations for us to act upon. GS tears up their recommendations and makes his own decision. In the end, outside consultants were correct, and GS was wrong.

How, in any field or profession and when the stakes are both so very high and very public, does this not result in termination.

Good question, it should and probably will but not soon enough.

 

[Gatorubet]

T
But as was posted in the Auburn thread:



So it's what can be proved (unless it's how harsh they want to be when it's time to make the ruling).

The rules for proving what was done and the rules used in sentencing are entirely different. Again, using a criminal trial analogy, the quote you posted of mine is correct about the level of proof and evidence used to convict someone of - say - manslaughter. That match of proof/evidence to the crime has to be very tight. Once convicted, you go to the sentencing phase. In that situation there is usually a sentencing range - say time already served to 20 years in jail. There is a whole lot of discretion in sentencing. So whether the judge gives you ten years or twenty depends on how bad a deal it was. And if you have prior convictions. And if you likely committed 2nd degree murder, but the proof was lacking because some technicality threw some evidence out and the jury came in manslaughter. Or the judge was [censored]ed.

Here, like all penalty phases, there is a range of possible punishments that is subject to a whole lot of discretion and latitude. I was pointing out that that the committee may have been thinking TP's refusal to cooperate indicated some worse stuff was out there. That, and how mad they were at Tress. The 5 years shows they were really, really mad.

So like I say, being human, those factors can affect a judge's thoughts on sentencing to make them go to the high side of the range instead of the low side. Nothing about my post you quoted changed that view. I'm glad its over and you can move on.

 

[OSUBucks22]

This thread needs this:

 

[OCBucksFan]

Could be better, could have been worse, really we knew something was coming down, I am just glad it wasn't worse.