All The Rage Up North

By Joe Beale on July 13, 2011 at 1:00p
134 Comments
MICHIGAN MAN IS DISAPPOINT Michigan Man is disappoint with Smith and Ohio State

In the wake of OSU's official response to the NCAA regarding the Tressel situation and Tat-gate, it seems that our not-so-friendly neighbors to the North are somewhat incensed. You might be wondering why, when their arch-rival is suffering from an NCAA investigation and getting all kinds of bad publicity in the process (not to mention losing recruits), would UM partisans be upset about anything.

Apparently, Ohio State did not crawl on their collective bellies and grovel sufficiently to suit the maize and blue faithful, and they've taken to the internet to vent their outrage about it. On Monday, our favorite Wolverine opinion-maker fired a rhetorical pre-emptive broadside at the NCAA by suggesting that if they agreed with OSU's suggested penalties they would be "dumber than a fourth grader". Many commenters followed suit, although several of them were sidetracked when one of them made a "Brady Bunch" analogy which turned into a lengthy rabbit trail including debates on the Beastie Boys discography.

Such is life when you haven't beaten your rival in football in many years and you're hoping that your new coach can remove the bad smell from the program left by the previous head man. Rocks from a glass house, you say? Fair enough, but if the target is Michigan, I'll throw my rocks while hanging from a chrystal chandelier in my glass house. I don't mind breaking a few windows if I can inflict more damage in the process. No disrespect intended (other than the usual), but this hatred has been nursed for decades.

So how does an OSU fan respond to these types of taunts from the hated ones? Defiance, mockery, rebuke. In other words, show them the back of our collective hands. Not only that, but enjoy how much it must make them squirm to read the well-reasoned and mature comments from UM hoops great Jalen Rose saying that sanctions should not be in order. It's quite a contrast to the juvenile drivel spewed forth by the commenters on Brian's post, although one of them gave away the game when he said:

"If the NCAA buys this BS, the really dirty programs will see this as a green light to do what they like and stonewall any investigation that ensues."

Yes, he's worried about "the really dirty programs".  You see, in their hearts they know the truth. 

To support his contentions, Brian makes reference to "nine Buckeyes ticketed in loaner cars". Ok, so they were ticketed. Got anything else? Nearly all of the "loaner cars" in question were actually cars being purchased that simply had dealer plates. The ones that weren't were a rental car and a case of an inaccurate license-plate number being reported on the public records. Naturally, the BMV has determined that there was no wrongdoing involved in any of these cases, leading to Ohio State dropping their investigation on the matter. Brian also makes a reference to "reports that are unconfirmed but obvious from a half-dozen Buckeyes about Hookups on Tats and other things". That's some slick prose, but "unconfirmed but obvious" does not exactly have me shaking in my boots.

Undaunted, Brian then bolsters his argument by quoting from some other online pundits who are also outraged, starting with Dave Curtis of The Sporting News. Curtis apparently thinks that it's OSU's job to "win back the public", and having failed to do so with this response "The public’s only recourse is ranting and complaining."  No Dave, that was your recourse, and it wasn't your only option. The other option would be to recognize that it is not "two-faced" to, on the one hand, point the finger at Jim Tressel for not reporting the violations, and on the other hand, allow him to "retire" without having to pay the $250,000 fine. The fine was levied at a time when the coach was going to be allowed to continue his employment, and since losing his job will cost him a lot more than 250 grand, it's insult to injury if the fine is levied on top of that.

Jumping on a link from the Curtis post (or perhaps grabbing it from Jason's post), Brian then quotes from Brian Bennett of ESPN. Bennett, like Curtis, is also apparently incensed about the university dropping the fine for Tressel, but he goes further by saying that the probation is merely a "slap on the wrist" and claims that Tressel "knowingly used ineligible players all of last season". I wonder if Bennett really believes that, if Tressel had reported the violations on time, the players would have been suspended "all of last season". The suspensions they actually got were only for 5 games and that was after Tressel covered it up for the whole season. Does Bennett think the punishment would have been worse if Tressel had done everything according to the rules? 

Brian ends with a reference to "OSU's persistently nose-thumbing response", which was entirely predictable. Who among Buckeye fans has not heard the charge that everyone associated with The Ohio State University is "arrogant"? Ultimately, arrogance is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps Brian and Co. will accuse me of it for writing this post. I guess I can take it if I have to. If still getting a chuckle out of "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Forcier" is grounds for such charges, consider me guilty. 

134 Comments

Comments

AcrossTheField11's picture

LULZ

Time and change will surely show how firm they friendship... O-HI-O.

Maestro's picture

"The Forcier".  Ha!!!!!  What a douche.

vacuuming sucks

SouthBayBuckeye's picture

Never trust anyone that wears birkenstocks.

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

Cross Village's picture

Brian Cooked is a little full of himself which is to say he's full of bat guano.

He'll come back to reality when the Wolverhunds get sent to the pound in November.

 

BuckeyeSki's picture

Your going to transfer to where, son? AUBURN? Ha-hahahaha-hoooo-hahaha.

 

 

But seriously Tate, have you been hanging out at Justin Feagin's house again? I told you, that stuff will rot your brain.
 

 

Banned from BlackShoeDiaries since 2008. Crime: Slander/Defamation of Character Judgement: Guilty

Bucksfan's picture

I don't really blame Michigan one bit.  To them, they see a team that's getting favortism by the NCAA in allowing the players to play in the Sugar Bowl, and they see a school that was unwilling to suspend those players from that Bowl.  They see a coach that knew these players did something that made them ineligible, but denied knowing it in the very short NCAA investigation going into that bowl game. They see a school that tried to slap the coach on the wrist for lying to win that bowl game.  They see a school that a) hasn't forfeited their bowl money, despite forfeiting the win, and b) has placed itself on probation when it doesn't look like that's any different than the situation they've been in with Clarrett and Smith, for example.

So, in all reality, there IS a degree of arrogance eminating from Ohio State.  It did not have the correct perspective heading into this scandal with either comments from Gee/Smith or the penalities at the time, and they've never really done enough damage control to satisfy the critics who questioned their responses back in December.  To an unbaised observer, it would seem like Ohio State is acting like it's too big to fail, and that their behavior is indicative that football rules above all else in Columbus.  Honestly, I can't disagree with them.

Facts are facts.  Ohio State technically didn't do anything wrong, per se.  But they haven't done anything to establish that they're not a "win at all costs" school.

Pam's picture

They did not "forfiet" the Sugar Bowl win, they vacated it. The $17.5 million was split evenly between the Big Ten schools and the conference. Should all of the schools who got a cut give that money back? And give it back to whom? Not the NCAA, they didn't give it to them. Allstate? 

Name a coach who heading into a BCS bowl game would bench players that the NCAA ruled eligible. You can't. How is it "favoritsim" when the NCAA has a rule in place that allows for suspensions to be delayed in a situation like that? At the time, no one knew that JT was aware of the tattoo's. FTR, Gee/Smith responses were in March not December.

Jim Tressel was asked to resign and did. An extremely popluar and successful coach for ten years is gone. If tOSU truly thought they were to big to fail. why get rid of the coach in order for the NCAA to view them favorably?

Michigan is in no position to criticize anyone when they are on 3 years probabtion for cheating and trying to cover it up. F^%k 'em

Bucksfan's picture

Semantics.  Just saying that if the win is vacated, but the school still has the money it made off the exhibition, then it looks not severe.

Pam's picture

Not really.  They mean two entirely differnet things. The rest of the Big Ten has the money too, including our whiney friends up north

Bucksfan's picture

Btw, Ohio State didn't "get rid" of anybody.  Tressel resigned.  "They mean two entirely differnet things."  Whether or not he was asked to resign will be a subject for debate, because Gene Smith originally claimed that Tressel wasn't pressured to resign.  Then later he said that he did pressure him.  So, either way, it looks bad because it's just more dishonesty coming from Ohio State powers-that-be.

Irricoir's picture

You see what she did right there? That's called a knuckle punch to the lips man..Just saying.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

m1ek's picture

To third parties, though, Michigan's infractions look a lot less serious than yours do.

Irricoir's picture

They haven't banned you yet? No one really values what you think, not the regular posters at least.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

BuckeyeSki's picture

To most 3rd parties, State Penn's football program looks a lot less serious than our's does as well

Banned from BlackShoeDiaries since 2008. Crime: Slander/Defamation of Character Judgement: Guilty

SouthBayBuckeye's picture

boom

 

/old coach'd

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

m1ek's picture

Oh! The Funny!

A better counter to them than this whining about butthurt symphonies and the like would be to point out how much THEY whined about being assaulted by the media before their own punishment arrived.

NeARBuckeye's picture

The situation in Joe Paterno's pants is very serious. I hear his adult diaper is very concerned.

BuckeyeSki's picture

Banned from BlackShoeDiaries since 2008. Crime: Slander/Defamation of Character Judgement: Guilty

M Man's picture

To third parties, though, Michigan's infractions look a lot less serious than yours do.

I wish that were true.  I'm not so sure that it is.  I think that most outside of Ann Arbor just think nothing more than Rodriguez=Michigan=Major Violations.  And Major Violations=Major Violations.  Which is of course some colossal bullshit.  But that's the way it goes.  In the end, we got a slap on the wrist, because all we deserved was a slap on the wrist.  I'd quite like to have Gisele Bundchen give me my slap on my wrist, but Tom Brady might have a different idea.

As for Brian Cook's ranting about OSU...  I don't get it.

The OSU case boils down to a few players, doing some very stupid shit, and then Tressel not handling it properly.  Not point shaving, not grade-fixing, not recruiting violations, not oversigning, not gang assaults in the cafeteria, et cetera, et cetera.

The one and only decent lesson I learned from Michigan's miserable NCAA experience was to wait; wait for the NCAA to rule.  If the 11 W crew is hoping to have the last laugh (and I know there isn't a whole lot of laughing down by the banks of the Olentangy these days), I can't promise it.  I think sanctions are going to be enhanced, after August.  But I do predict, that based on what we know so far, and no matter what else, the eventual sanctions are absolutely going to leave your rivals all pissed off Brian Cook-style, saying you didn't get hammered enough because like what about Pryor's prom Corvette in high school and the OSU point shaving scandal that I'm pertty sure some guy mentioned somewhere on the internet.

I like Brian and I agree with him about 80 or 90% of the time.  I definitely do not always agree with him, and this is one of those times.  Substantively and technically, he's taking the really easy position, if his bottom line is:  Those proposed self-imposed sanctions are not enough; there have to be more.  Cuz that's a no-brainer.  There is always more.  In Michigan's case, even when both the NCAA and Michgan had together concluded that the newspaper story that kicked it all off had been hysterically overwrought, and Michigan's self-sanctions were all accepted, the NCAA Infractions crew still had to justify their existence with another year of probation.

So you're gonna get more.  That's the easiest thing in the world to predict.  (My guess; 5 years probation, 2 scholarships x 3 years, and a one-year bowl ban.)  My saying that probably sounds horrible to most of you; I'm sorry about that.  But I also agree that Brian Cook's latest was Brian at his very uncharacteristic whiniest.

SouthBayBuckeye's picture

this is weird... i mostly agree with you...

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

krenzelmoni's picture

6 schollies and a one year bowl ban (and probation)? You honestly, truly believe that in light of the looming repeat offender charge? Who cares about there being no LOIC or FTM charge in the Notice of Allegations? The NCAA bylaws allow the Committee on Infractions to impose any punishment it seems fit (up to the death penalty) for repeat offenders. Given: 1) that the 2007 hoops violations are on the table under the 5 year statute of limitations; and 2) the NCAA having massive credibility issues nationwide given what has recently gone on at Auburn, Tennessee (hoops admittedly), OSU, and now Oregon, you think OSU is looking at 6 schollies lost and a one year bowl ban (and probation)?

We'll see, and no one can say for sure, but from my perspective, I don't think your prediction is grounded in reality in the least.

 

 

 

M Man's picture

In our case, we too had basketball sanctions (because of the long and drawn-out deals with Ed Martin and Chris Webber) and probation still lingering at the time that went under the NCAA microscope in the fall of 2009.  And it didn't mean much of anything at all.  People in our camp were actually worried about that part of the equation.  Brian Cook was one who was concerned about it when it first broke.  We were barely within range of the old probationary period.  Turns out we didn't need to worry.

I won't argue sanction-predictions with you, but I'm just saying that the basketball thing is unlikely to be used as a technical device to enhance penalties.

krenzelmoni's picture

The wording of bylaw 19.5.2.3.1 says that the second major violation has to occur within 5 years of the "starting date of the first major violations." When did the Ed Martin/Chris Webber sanctions START at Michigan? My guess is it was long before the fall of 2004, but I'll take you at your word. I don't think the NCAA could have hit UM as a repeat offender even if it wanted to under the bylaws, but again, you know more about UM than I.

We don't have to argue sanction predictions (you gave your opinion and I gave mine), but I think it's completely unrealistic (and borderline wishful thinking for those who agree), given what the NCAA has recently said about getting tough on rules violators, along with it facing a serious credibility issue nationwide, to think that the NCAA drops 6 schollies and impose a one year ban (with probation) when USC got docked 30 over 3 and was slapped with a 2 year ban (I believe). Granted, USC was charged with LOIC as well as being deemed a repeat offender, but my guess is OSU gets something much closer to what USC got than what you propose. Time will tell.

 

 

M Man's picture

You're totally right.  The Ed Martin fiasco has an origination date going back to the mid-1990's.

krenzelmoni's picture

Right; basically UM didn't have to worry about repeat offender status during sanctions re: RichRod. OSU admitted it's subject to repeat offender status. Apples and oranges.

biggy84's picture

They didn't admit they were repeat offenders. In fact, read 3.b in the response.

krenzelmoni's picture

It admitted that it's subject to the repeat violator legislation. It wouldn't be saying that unless it knows that charge is on the table.

 

 

 

justingoblue's picture

Actually that isn't correct. Michigan was subject to repeat violator status, but the NCAA declined to do anything about it. From the NCAA report:

The committee further notes that this institution comes before us as a Repeat Violator per NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3.  The committee declines to impose enhanced penalties because, among other reasons, 1) it has been an unusually long time since the violations in the previous case occurred.  The violations were not uncovered and processed until 2003, even though they occurred from 1992 to 1999.  They came to light through the efforts of the institution, which pressed the federal authorities handling a related criminal prosecution to require certain individuals in that case to cooperate with the institution to discover the truth; 2) the violations in both this case and the previous case were limited to one sport, and they were different sports; 3) there was no lack of institutional control or academic fraud found in the present matter; and 4) the violations detailed in Findings B-1 and B-2 of this report are relatively technical.

SouthBayBuckeye's picture

have you read USC's NOA vs OSU's?

 

My guess would be "no".

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

krenzelmoni's picture

As I understand it, USC was charged with LOIC and and was subject to repeat offender status (for earlier major violations in its basketball program).  OSU is only subject to repeat offender status violations (and admitted it in its Response); hence, my opinion that OSU will get hit with slighly less than what USC received, given the current climate nationwide on cracking down on cheating in college sports.

The bylaws only prescribe a maximum penalty for repeat offender violations (the death penalty). The Committee on Infractions can do whatever it wants for that violation. My guess is that it's slightly below what USC received - perhaps 20-25 docks and a one year bowl ban.

biggy84's picture

OSU-  5 violations

 

USC- 31 violations

 

See the difference?

krenzelmoni's picture

Do you think the NCAA lives in a vacuum? There's no way that it's going to ignore the public outcry over this, or ignore the fishy-ness re: TP's loaner sleds, or that, from an optics standpoint, it appears osu is paying Tressel to take the fall for this (Gee said Tressel was paying the fine, then OSU is paying it; Smith said Tressel was forced to resign, then Tressel is allowed to retire).

The NCAA isn't bound by anything on repeat offender charges. It can do whatever it deems fit, with the maxium penalty being the dealth penalty. OSU won't get hit with the death penalty, but anyone who thinks the NCAA is going to issue decisions on five players selling trophies to some degenerate tat parlor owner or Tressel intentionally lying and misleading the NCAA is out to lunch. We're going to get hit as a repeat offender; and get hit hard. Probably not at the USC level, but close.

Bucks's picture

No way? This is the same public that outside of Buckeye Nation believes that OSU faces/deserves more penalty then UNC (ya know the whole academic fraud on down deal).

This IMO is the exact nature of the problem. Media outlets that know they can make quite a few $$ run stories that are without merit, the general public just reads it & believes it to be fact ... and now we have the worst program in existance & should be obliterated off the face of NCAA football. The NCAA has in their hands the actual validity of any claims, they've been here and had free reign & there has been no indication additional amendums/violations are coming.

The NCAA also isn't bound to treat us like a repeat offender. The option is present, but as they pointed out in their own letter, it is up to their discretion. I don't see them choosing to, but who knows.

 

krenzelmoni's picture

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that the NCAA has sure been talking tough as of late. Stories are out today that it's still investigating Auburn. And I totally agree with you - the NCAA isn't bound to anything; it can do whatever it wants to. But given that it didn't charge OSU with LOIC or FTM, and that the current charges - historically - have not yielded much in the way of actual penalties, it sure seems likely to me that if it wants to punish OSU in addition to the self-imposed sanctions (vacated wins and probation), it's going to have to rely upon the repeat offender charge - which is very, very scary, to me at least.

Kalamazoo Steve's picture

USC got nailed for football AND hoops.  Google OJ Mayo.  Just a bit different than OSU current situation where the basketball team is clean, football coach "retired" intead of jumping ship before JoPa hit the fan and the school self reported without saying the NCAA was "jealous".

Night and day, my friend.

Joe Beale's picture

The wording of bylaw 19.5.2.3.1 says that the second major violation has to occur within 5 years of the "starting date of the first major violations." 

Here you say "violations" but later you say "sanctions".  Which is it?

krenzelmoni's picture

Schools are alleged to have committed "violations;" generally speaking, they're "sanctioned" for whatever violation they're found guilty of committing. See NCAA bylaw 10.3.2, for example.

Joe Beale's picture

I looked it up: "an institution shall be considered a 'repeat' violator if the Committee on Infractions finds that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty. For this provision to apply, at least one major violation must have occurred within five years after the starting date of the penalties in the previous case."

So it appears that the operative word is "penalties".  Splitting hairs, I know, but I wanted to be precise.

MikeO's picture

Solid post, M Man. For the record, I thought the UM violations were pretty much a joke, especially in the greater scheme. I haven't been to MGoBlog for months, although I do appreciate most of what Cook does. He gets preachy on certain subjects, and any dissention to the ideas he posts is usually shouted down by the herd there. Dogmatic groupthink isn't very compelling.

I don't think OSU will get a postseason ban, but they may get some scholly reductions. Whatever it is, bring it on. More than anything, I am tired of the hypocritical media OUTRAGE!!! Tressel screwed up, but spare me the "I am shocked, SHOCKED that gambling is going on in this establishment!".

 

NC_Buckeye's picture

Sounds right. But I'm hoping that the "2 scholarships x 3 years and a one-year bowl ban" is a one or the other. Doing both seems excessive to me.

We should know sometime in Sept or Oct at the latest. Hopefully, there won't be a new NOA from the Talbot-Pryor relationship.

buckeyedude's picture

Anything short of the Death Penalty and most of your comrades in A^2 will be pissed. Same for Happy Valley. Oh well.

 
 

m1ek's picture

Keep telling yourself that, you charming victim, you.

I hate the A^2 comrades a lot more than I hate you guys, but I think they got punished a bit too much for their recent violations.

M Man's picture

Pam may actually have gone easy on Bucksfan.

There was this:

I don't really blame Michigan one bit.  To them, they see a team that's getting favortism by the NCAA in allowing the players to play in the Sugar Bowl, and they see a school that was unwilling to suspend those players from that Bowl.

Now here I defer; to the Buckeyes Football fans who obviously outrank me.  But isn't that factually untrue?  OSU was willing to suspend Pryor & Co. for the Sugar Bowl.  Jim Delany didn't want any bowl suspensions, and the NCAA agreed with that.  Right?

I know that a lot of people in the Great Lake State mistakenly believe that Tressel somehow personally lied, cheated and stole to get his guys back into the game.  It's hard to get haters to change their minds.

But, it simply isn't true that The Ohio State University bears any culpability in that decision, right?

And just maybe, for that reason, people (people like, uh, me) might be wrong in predicting any bowl bans as a component of future sanctions.

Maestro's picture

M Man is correct.  The original punishment by OSU was to suspend the players for the bowl game.  The NCAA ruled them eligible.  So the school should them suspend them again????  I don't blame Tress at all for playing those guys.  He did what he could by encouraging them to return and serve their punishment in 2011.  Looks like 4 out of 5 are going to do exactly that.  Not bad.

vacuuming sucks

m1ek's picture

Tressel lied to keep them eligible and they likely won him at least one game they would have lost during the season. Without that, they wouldn't have been in a position to go to the Sugar Bowl.

Maestro's picture

Thanks for that crystal ball revision of history.

vacuuming sucks

Bucksfan's picture

Universities and coaches suspend their own student-athletes all the time for things that aren't NCAA rules violations, whether it's before a bowl or a regular season game.

I would like to think that selling memorabilia would constitute a team's rules violation on at least some level, and would result in an immediate suspension.  How many times was Ray Small suspended for unspecificed team rules violations?  Was he not suspended before the Rose Bowl?  Weren't Donald Washington and Eugene Clifford suspended for rules violations two weeks before the NC game against LSU?

If Ohio State was serious about having no tolerance for this sort of thing, and were ready to act on their own accord as they had in the past, then why was THIS NCAA ruling so different?  Was it for the NCAA's benefit or for Ohio State's?  If Jim Delany was pushing for bowl eligibility, why did Ohio State change its position for HIS benefit?  To me that could look weak, and yes, they do bear culpability if they changed their position due to any sort of overhead pressure.  They have the right to stick to their own rules, and do what they deem appropriate no matter what anyone else says.

Given the magnitude of the situation, and given that Ohio State has done a good job of sticking to no-nonsense policy of suspension before bowl games, why did it choose to play these 5 players when they haven't had any issue suspending other players in the past?  No, this has to do with how important were the personnel involved, and also how many of them there were.

Pam's picture

There are NCAA rules against selling memorabilia.  Schools make team rules that are separate from NCAA rules, i.e. arrests, DUI's etc.things outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction.  It makes no sense to make a team rule that is already an NCAA rule.

It was Ohio State that asked for reinstatement immediately after they suspended the players. It was during the time before the NCAA made a decision that Delany started lobbying for reinstatement for the Sugar Bowl. tOSU never changed their position. They were not going to bench the players if they didn't have to.

Bucksfan's picture

Right, and that's a good point.  What I'm wondering is "why the absence of a standard penalty?"  Why does Ohio State defer to the NCAA to enforce a penalty that isn't written in stone?  Take Bob Stoops and Oklahoma, for example.  Pretty much the minute Rhett Bomar was found to have taken improper benefits, he was kicked off the team.  It is likely that Rhett Bomar would have been suspended for a handful of games by the NCAA.

Oklahoma is not Ohio State, and Bob Stoops is not Jim Tressel...yeah, yeah, I realize that.  But my point is that Oklahoma has a severe penalty for tarnishing their name or putting them in a situation where the school's integrity and/or reputation can be compromised.  Ohio State went the route of squirming.  Ohio State goes above and beyond what other schools do in their NCAA compliance education for their players.  I know Ohio State athletes, they said that the school and the AD make this VERY clear.  But what did Gene Smith do?  His FIRST comments when all this broke was that the school failed the students.  I call bullshit, because I know that's bullshit!  And now he's saying that it's Tressel, not Ohio State, and it's those 5 players, not Ohio State...it's confusing to me, and disrespects my intelligence.

Why doesn't the school have a strict policy and enforce it?  And since they obviously don't, and it's clear that you will not be excused from the Ohio State football team if you break a serious NCAA rule, and there actually is no penalty written out (the NCAA does not have a written out penalty for any of these rules, just a general arbitrary guideline based on previous rulings), then how can you expect the outside world to respect your actions?  How do you expect alumni to respect your actions?  It's embarrassing!

SouthBayBuckeye's picture

Tarnish OU's rep?? Barry Switzer would like to have a word with you sir.

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

Pam's picture

Rhett Bomar got took $7-8K for work he did not do at a local car dealership.  He also lied to Stoops when he asked him about it.  You think he was going to get a couple of games? Yeah, well either did Stoops. 

Do you think JT would kept Troy had he taken that amount of money and then lied to him about it? I don't

biggy84's picture

OU? ever hear of Charles Thompson?

elaydin's picture

M Man, out of curiosity, do you post on mgoblog?  And if so, what's your name there?

M Man's picture

Yeah, I do.  I'm afraid somebody's going to figure that out someday.  Like with BylawBlog.

elaydin's picture

I'm guessing VegasJeff or Section1

M Man's picture

Do you post there? 

elaydin's picture

Been known to...

It was more enjoyable when the shadenfreude went the other direction, but this too shall pass. 

Jason Priestas's picture

11W: Hosting MGoBlog meetups since 2011

justingoblue's picture

I'm on MGoBlog all the time and I can tell you that M Man is not Section 1. He has a completely different writing style, so at least you have one less user to guess from...two actually if you'll take my word that I'm not also M Man.

RedinMichigan's picture

Do you ever feel badly about continuously sucking up to OSU fans? You actually go out of your way to consistently support the authors on this blog while bashing Brian Cook. It's weird.

Signs point to a resurgence. Be afraid.

M Man's picture

Oh I don't accept your premise at all.  I like Brian Cook.  I like his blog.  I routinely agree with Brian.  I've said that here, many times.  But my posts here are generally about instances when there is some UM-OSU friction, or some NCAA/media conflagration.  That's when I've got something to offer you guys.  (Why would you guys care about what I think about Miller starting, or about your new linebackers coach?)  And true, sometimes I don't agree with Brian.  But it's rare.

It would be the easiest thing in the world to come on here and be a troll.  But I'd expect to be banned if I did.  There's no point in my flaming you guys, and no point in my being a punching bag for this site.  Most of the time, if I don't have something nice to say, I don't say it.  You can be courteous and still be rivals.  Now ask me who I want to win on November 26.

Maestro's picture

M Man is a stand up dude.  He is simply willing to give a different perspective and I for one appreciate it.

vacuuming sucks

Matt's picture

I'll bite...whom do you want to win on November 26?

M Man's picture

Your correct usage of the object pronoun makes me comfortable in saying, Go Blue!

Matt's picture

OUTRAGEOUS -- WE MUST BAN THIS 11W COMMENTER.

Kalamazoo Steve's picture

I have had many a convesation with my peeps up here that happen to root for the bastards in the winged helmets about how it wouldn't be as much fun being a Buckeye if it weren't for those douches in blue.  Best rivalry in sports.  You can hate but still respect.  I'm half way home.  I got jokes, M Man.  I enjoy your takes.  Not so much on the helmet, though.

thetruth's picture

Actually, Lou Holtz suspended his two stud running backs, and a starting wide receiver in a win over Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl back in the day.

Integrity does really exist.

biggy84's picture

Lou Holtz also left 3 programs on probation. Bad guy to pick for your integrity choice.

WC Buckeye's picture

Every single place Lou went, the trouble visited shortly after his departure. Without exception. Look it up.

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

NoVA Buckeye's picture

Does that include the New York Jets?

The offseason begins when your season ends. Even then there are no days off.

WC Buckeye's picture

That's pretty good! No, the trouble in New York visited WHILE he was there ;) I was referring to NCAA troubles.

"You might outsmart me, but you'll never outwork me"

Pam's picture

Mr. Integrity benched them because they had been charged with RAPE. No player charged with a felony played another down for Jim Tressel.

Scott K's picture

Ha, THE TRUTH hurts, doesn't it...

"There's a fine line between stupid, and....clever.  David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel

Pam's picture

That was too easy. Like Boom running through the UM defense

El Caballo de Sangre's picture

Ditto Pam. The position summed up in Bucksfan's last three sentences, which is basically also MGoBlog's and other assorted haters' in a nutshell, is just wrong. Ohio State, via Tressel's misdeeds in his official capacity, absolutely did lots of things "wrong", and admitted and continues to admit them. They vacated a season, got the main culprit out of his job, and imposed probation. If we can take Gene Smith at his word, it would appear that the school is going to take steps to improve compliance efforts going forward.

It occurs to me that Bucksfan (and Brian Cook, and that dick from CBS whose name I'd never heard before 11W pointed me to his trolltweets) probably is unable to take Smith et al. at his word - that there's nothing short of him losing his job as well, and whoever ran the compliance efforts involving FB, probably all the coaches, and voluntary scholly reductions on the order of 15 or 20, that would satisfy Bucksfan's and the others' desires to see OSU act like it takes this seriously, whatever that means. Which is insane - and way out of proportion to anything that's gone on here. Of course, if I'm wrong, and there's some sort of middle ground between what I've mentioned above and what OSU self-imposed that would make these people happy, they're free to say so. The problem they have with that is any punishment much more serious than what OSU's suggesting would be way out of line with precedent and proportionality, and would be unfair example-making.

I personally feel like a one-year reduction of seven scholarships would be fair - one for each caught player and one for the coach, for the one year that was affected by all this. No bowl bans are in order here, despite how butthurt everybody EXCEPT the NCAA seems to feel about the Sugar, for all the reasons Pam mentioned.

Denny's picture

Careful, caballo - Johnny might try to eat you.

Taquitos.

m1ek's picture

One year, 7 scholarships, would be a good self-imposed start. One bowl would be a good start too - as the rest of the world is RIGHT when they point out how much bullshit it is that you got to go to the Sugar Bowl by, in effect, lying about players being eligible for it.

Joe Beale's picture

Actually, the NCAA declared that the players were eligible for the Sugar Bowl.  No lying necessary.

Maestro's picture

I ask the bowl ban people this question in all seriousness.

What is a more fair punishment?  Vacating a Sugar Bowl win that actually punishes the people who broke the rules or forcing people who did not break the rules to miss out on a bowl game in the future?

vacuuming sucks

m1ek's picture

Vacating the game is meaningless. It provides no disincentive for dirty programs to do the same thing you did down the road.

Pam's picture

It is not tOSU's job to provide a disincentive for other programs. Ask the player's if they think it is meaningless.

Maestro's picture

BS it's meaningless.  The record book now says that Ohio State is 0-9 against the SEC in bowl games.  That was an enormous monkey that now remains on the back of the program.  Sure we will all remember that Ohio State beat Arkansas on the field, but the record books will outlive me and you.  It matters.

vacuuming sucks

m1ek's picture

You misunderstand my point. Tressel lied about the players for a long time to try to keep them eligible, and winning games. Without their presence in those games, IMO, they wouldn't have been invited to the Sugar Bowl as they likely would have lost at least one more game on the way.

Bucksfan's picture

Why is it insane to question Gene Smith's word when just this week he went back on it concerning Tressel's exit?

Secondly, don't suppose you know what my idea of an adequate punishment would be.  You don't know me.  You're making quite a bit of assumption here simply because I am extremely disappointed with how my alma mater's figure heads handled these situations, and subsequently have the audacity to question them after they embarrassed alumni all across the country with their words and backtracks.

I don't know what an adequate action would be (if you're really even curious), but working well-within the minimum standard "punishments" set forth by a flawed system that rules over a corrupted sport just doesn't cut it to my satisfaction.  College football is at a crossroads, and it seems Ohio State is an entity that claims to be progressive and forward thinking, yet made zero effort to take a position of reform that 90% of college sports fans want.

El Caballo de Sangre's picture

You're not "questioning" Gene Smith's word, you're discounting it altogether. And your extreme disappointment - which, incidentally, is shared by me and probably 99% of the people who call themselves Buckeye fans - doesn't constitute a valid reason for OSU to be punished more than anybody else ever has been for these types of violations.

You sort of give the game away when you say things like "zero effort". That's untrue and unfair.

Bucksfan's picture

I didn't discount Smith's word, HE did.  I'm just pointing it out.

I'm not giving any game away here.  90% of college football fans think a) the NCAA rule about paying players is outdated, and b) the NCAA is incapable of policing or enforcing such ridiculous rules effectively.  Ohio State's effort has been SOLELY one of complience with this nonsense.  I'm disappointed that not a single university official has addressed the gap between scholarship/stipend and living costs. 

They have not answered the question, "WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO CHANGE COLLEGE FOOTBALL SO THAT YOU STOP GETTING IN TROUBLE FOR THINGS THAT WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN EVERYWHERE?!" 

I have not heard a single constructive statement come out of Smith's or Gee's mouths about the state of college football that hasn't been retracted, backtracked, or changed back to NCAA-status-quo.  By "zero effort," it's well-within the realm of FAIR.

krenzelmoni's picture

As an alum, a Buckeye football fan, and someone who cares about the integrity of the university and how it is perceived (as well as the value of my degree), I completely agree. Tressel's, Smith's, and Gee's actions have been nothing short of shameful.  

Bottom line - OSU's response to the Notice of Allegations is fine IF one looks only at the actual allegations noticed. ( 1. preferential treatment for players and; 2. unethical conduct by Tressel for failing to report and intentionally lying to the NCAA) However, the "REPEAT OFFENDER" charge is the big one (the 2007 hoops violations are on the table), and it's looming. Anyone who thinks OSU won't get hit hard by the NCAA as a repeat offender - which is dealing with major credibility issues right now - is absolutely dreaming. Be prepared for a 2 year post season ban and roughly a 20-25 schollie loss over 3 years. It's gonna happen, folks. The NCAA risks losing all credibility nationwide if it doesn't drop the hammer. Just the facts.

rampageripster's picture

"Just the facts"?  No, it's "just your opinion".  The only facts you said in that entire post was the outlining of NOA.

That seems to be the biggest issue of all.  People are trotting out opinions and rumors as facts.  It drives me nuts when I have to CONSTANTLY correct people about the violations (I live in Louisiana).  I still have to tell people that they paid for their damn cars.

There are facts... then there are opinions... then there are rumors... please be intelligent enough to separate them

Cause I couldn't go for three

krenzelmoni's picture

Fair enough. "Just the facts" is a figure of speech. Apologies for the semantics.

As for opinions and rumors, this is a message board; it's all about "trotting out" opinions.

Again, I THINK the fact that OSU wasn't hit with a LOIC or FTM charge is largely irrelevant. The Notice of Allegations refers to past violations (see page 6 of the Notice of Allegations). The NCAA Appeals Committee's final ruling on the hoops team was in 2007, which puts it within the 5 year statute of limitations governing the NCAA repeat offender by-laws.

Long story short, I THINK the NCAA will hammer OSU as a repeat offender.  It's dealing with major credibility issues and is talking a very tough game recently about rule violators.  IN other words, it's not going to take kindly to being directly lied to by Tressel after it allowed the Tat 5 to play in the Sugar Bowl. Any talk about there not being a LOI or FTM charge in the Notice of Allegations (and that OSU will escape significant penalty for that reason) is largely irrelevant, IN MY OPINION.

 

Just the opinion.

Pam's picture

The NCAA ruled on the hoops violations on March 10, 2006.

krenzelmoni's picture

Correct. And then OSU appealed, and the NCAA Appeals Committee issued a final ruling in April 2007.  It's on the table for repeat offender purposes.

Pam's picture

Jim O'Brien appealed the show cause action taken against him. OSU did not appeal the sanctions.

krenzelmoni's picture

You're right. I apologize for that inaccuracy. That said, in that hearnig, the NCAA dismissed most, but upheld some of the violations involving O'Brien. For purposes of when the violations were considered imposed, my guess (I'm not an NCAA lawyer - one would need to comb through the bylaws to know for sure) is that the March 2007 deadline is controlling for purposes of the repeat offender violation.

 

Pam's picture

I don't see how when it was O'Brien acting independently from the University. The school did not appeal and accepted the probation and vacated wins. I guess we will see.

krenzelmoni's picture

Actually . . .

The statue of limitations is five years for repeat offender violations. OSU accepted the NCAA's violations in March '06.  Tressel received the email in April 2010 (I believe). The wording of the repeat offender bylaws (bylaw 19.5.2.3.1) provides that an institution is a repeat offender if a "major violation has occured within 5 years of the starting date of a major penalty."

If the starting date of the hoops major penalty is March '06, and Tressel failed to alert compliance about the Tat 5 or knowingly lied to the NCAA (the major violations) at any point before March '11, then it appears OSU is on the hook for repeat offender charges (should the NCAA wish to impose them).

 

 

NC_Buckeye's picture

There are a lot of factors in play here outside of the actual NOA. You appear to believe that the public perception feeding frenzy that the sports media outlets continue to chum -- that will dictate what sanctions get issued.

I think the COI will objectively view the details of the case (and hopefully Smith's relationships will come into play as well) and the sanctions will be along the lines of what M Man offered. Guess we'll know sometime in Sept or Oct who was right.

I will say this... I believe Smith when he says tOSU will fight sanctions if they fall onto your side of the fence. As an alum, I would support the university filing suit against the NCAA. If the COI is going to set new precedent with us, I say we lay waste to this organization. Tie it up in the courts for at least a decade.

Maestro's picture

You can be sure that USC would be on board with doing whatever they could to get rid of the NCAA.

vacuuming sucks

Seth9's picture

OSU stated in their response to the NCAA that repeat violator legislation applies:

 Overview of Applicability – As noted above, the institution acknowledges that
the self-reported violations in this response are major.  On March 10, 2006,
the Division I Committee on Infractions issued an infractions report  to the
University that primarily involved the men’s basketball program. The report
indicated that the University was  subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw
19.5.2.3 for a five-year period, beginning on March 10, 2006.   The major
violations involving institutional responsibility in this case occurred in April
of 2010 when  Tressel  should have reported  that  possible  NCAA violations
likely  were committed, and  he  did not report such information to  the
appropriate institutional officials.   As a result, the institution agrees it is
subject to the repeat violator legislation.

biggy84's picture

Show 3.b where OSU disagrees with the repeat offender status.

Seth9's picture

In 3b, OSU requests that repeat violator penalties be withheld and states why they think such penalties be withheld. This means that OSU is conceding that they are repeat violators but requesting that they not be treated as such when they are sanctioned. I don't want to copy the whole thing since the formatting got messed up on my last post, so I'll just sum them up:

1) The previous violations were committed by the basketball program and were not similar to these violations, which were committed by the football program.

2) The previous violations mainly stem from actions taken 13 years ago.

3) There are mitigating circumstances regarding institutional culpability in this case.

This is a decent argument, but there are numerous reasons that the NCAA could reject it. For one thing, both sets of violations were highly serious insofar as the NCAA is concerned. For another, both sets of violations directly involved the coach of a high profile sport flagrantly and intentionally violating NCAA rules. There are numerous other potential counter-arguments along these lines, but the larger point is that OSU is at the NCAAs mercy here by admitting that the repeat violator status can legitimately be applied in this case.

biggy84's picture

Subject to and agreeing are two totally different things. One is a guilty plea, the other is not.

biggy84's picture

Arrogance? Look up the history on punishments for the actual infractions in the past. There are 5 violations in 1 sport. If arrogance is defined as not being influenced by some agenda-driven dick from a sports site, then arrogant is the only way to be.

 

Do you honestly believe that OSU's public perception is a result of this? They despised OSU before and are just using this as a reason to get on their soapbox and spew venom. It is not the job of OSU to appease the unbiased public.

Seth9's picture

The perception of arrogance started (or at least was greatly intensified) when OSU initially suspended Jim Tressel for only 2 games for violations that will almost certainly result in a show-cause penalty from the NCAA. Plus there was the whole debacle of a press conference and the mixed messages surrounding his resignation/retirement, among other things.

iball's picture

Whipping your rivals asses 7 times in a row is pretty friggin arrogant if you ask me

“There’s one thing I have learned through all my adventures and conquests - it’s that some people are just wired for success. I had no choice when it came to being great - I just am great.” – Kenny Powers

rampageripster's picture

Here's the deal... these are self-imposed sanctions.  Looking at the CURRENT NOA, you can;t expect an institution in its right mind to SELF impose a bowl ban or scholarship losses.  The precedent of an being accused of a 10.1 and NOT a 2.4.1 (LOIC) does not call for it... Less we all forget that USC imposed ZERO sanctions upon themselves and basically flipped the NCAA the bird with their response... the media and the masses want blood, but to expect tOSU to fall on its own sword is just ridiculous

Cause I couldn't go for three

Pam's picture

Exactly. It's not like the NCAA would REDUCE the self-imposed violations if they inlcuded a bowl ban and scholarship losses. You self-impose, you own it.

btalbert25's picture

Bucksfan, I kind of agree with what you are saying.  I understand why Michigan fans are whining and Penn State fans, and ESPN or whoever else.  If the same thing happened at another school, especially a rival or an SEC school, we would be throwing fits.  If the administration of other schools appeared to be the clown and pony show that Ohio State's administration as proved to be, we'd all be questioning everything they say too.  If it were Mark Richt who was the guy that lied and cheated, we'd be tearing him down the way many have Tressel.  It's the hypocrisy of a fan base.  We're trying to rally behind our team.  From the outside though, the administration doesn't have much credibility at all.

For what it's worth though, I think self imposed penalties are stupid.  The NCAA is there to enforce the rules.  Let them say what is adequate or what isn't good enough.  I wouldn't propose a post season ban or scholarship reductions either.  If you make it too severe, the NCAA may not have given that harsh of punishment.  Too light, they supposedly come down harder on you.  Why take away the 2 things every school fears losing?  Let the bastards at the NCAA do their jobs.

Bucksfan's picture

Another thing I want to know is why a little bit of voiced reason gets you crucified around here?  Why is it such a sin to voice one's shame?  To want more from the university than what we're seeing?  To understand an opposing viewpoint?

Look, I think ESPN has been unusually harsh.  There is paper evidence out there that they are on a witch hunt.  No, I don't think the violations by the players are that harsh.  Do I think lost scholarships and a bowl ban would be too severe?  Absolutely!

But this is exactly why I have an issue with OSU basically taking it up the rear, AND looking like idiots while doing it.  It's a stupid set of rules that need changing, and the NCAA is an entity in need of reform.  Ohio State could have found itself in a position to say these sorts of things after its own students are found guilty of such transgressions.  But, Gee said he's in Tressel's pocket, in not so many words, only to eat those words later when it came to light that Tressel's a liar.  Smith has been hapless from the beginning.  So, now what capital do they have to say the rules need changing or the enforcement needs changing?  They're boneheads that we can no longer take seriously, and it's right back to "Yes, Mr. NCAA, whatever you say, Mr. NCAA."

BuckeyeSki's picture

How's the view from up there?

Banned from BlackShoeDiaries since 2008. Crime: Slander/Defamation of Character Judgement: Guilty

Bucksfan's picture

A bit breezy, but I brought a jacket...lol.

Denny's picture

Put ur collar up, brah. It helps a lot.

Taquitos.

BuckeyeSki's picture

Well played gentleman

Banned from BlackShoeDiaries since 2008. Crime: Slander/Defamation of Character Judgement: Guilty

Matt's picture

I appreciated Brian's analysis, but I think he's jumped the shark with the OSU scandals.  He is usually fairly level headed and analytical, even about OSU-related things.  Whether consciously or not, I suspect that he views the chance to chop down OSU for its most recent transgressions as an opportunity to delegitamize OSU's entire domination of Michigan over the past decade.  One doesn't have much to do with the other, but perception is reality and Brian is having a go at it.

btalbert25's picture

In all honesty, I think the sanctions we'll get are going to make the 2011 season suck.  I do think we're going to lose a bowl game and I wouldn't be shocked to see some schollies lost.  It's going to be just enough for Ohio State fans to piss and moan, but not so harsh to satisfy the haters so they'll piss and moan too.

Pam's picture

Who cares what the haters think? They hated us before this all happened anyway. Nothing has changed.

Kalamazoo Steve's picture

Nail on head, Pam.  Living up here and still wearing my gear gets me the "what do you think now" comment on a regular basis.  My response is always the same...

"WE ARE STILL GOING TO WIN." (yes I said we.  Blog cops get over it.) 

Funny that I hear little debate from the turds about the statement.  They all know it.  We all know it.  They can do nothing about it.  THAT'S what has them spun up, not free tatts and emails.  The rational fans are actually a little disappointed because they wanted the chance to beat Tressel.  Now they will have to lose to a new coach, and they hate that.

And I freaking LOVE it.

Pam's picture

Funny that the one guy that had the biggest mouth when he played for UM is disappointed that UM didn't get a chance to beat Tressel again. Mike Hart gets it and strangely enough, so does Jalen Rose and Jimmy Jackson. They can't win literally. If they win it will because JT is gone, if they lose they still can't beat tOSU. I would feel bad, but that would make me a big liar.

Kalamazoo Steve's picture

We are in a lose/lose as well.  Win?  We're a bunch of cheaters.  Lose?  We're a bunch of cheaters.  It's all they have to fall back on.

They can cry about running a clean program is all that matters.  That would make them big liars.  Beating them is all that matters.  And they feel the same.  Nobody buys tickets to the chem lab on Saturdays, you know?

And Mike Hart is still a punk.

M Man's picture

In all honesty, I think the sanctions we'll get are going to make the 2011 season suck.

That's a bad attitude.  There aren't any possible sanctions that will affect your season from September through November this year.  Sanctions will mean nothing to how your guys play this year.

What will mean something is how the team performs without Tressel's leadership.  And that might be a big deal.  But I remember how everybody up here felt totally dazed and freaked out when some assistant named Lloyd Carr was forced to take over for Gary Moeller almost overnight.  As the "Interim" Head Coach.  And that worked out pretty good.  They took away the "Interim," and ended up giving Carr an M ring.

btalbert25's picture

I guess I should've elaborated on that.  If there's a sanction that restricts this team from postseason play this season it's going to suck.  The games will be fun to watch, but it would be really bad for the team that has been so good in Big 10 play the last 10 years to not be elligible to play in the B1G 10's championship game.  It will suck if this team can go undefeated or lose 1 game and not get a chance to play in a BCS game.  That's what I meant.  It would really suck if the 2011 team has a great season and the players who are still around to play and who earned that shot, don't get to play for anything at the end of the year.

salberico's picture

I thought Ann Arbor = AA = Arrogant Asses. Pretty sure that's self-admitted on their part. Takes one to know one, right?

M Man's picture

MSU Coach Darryl Rogers gave us that name in his speech at the 1978 Spartans football banquet.  I happen to know that because I got invited to go to that dinner (the only one I've ever been to) by some ex-Spartan-player friends and we were at the front table directly in front of him.  And speaking of asses, I was laughing my ass off.

salberico's picture

I vaguely remember John Bacon mentioning the arrogant asses thing during the HBO documentary.

AcrossTheField11's picture

Luke Roberts makes 10.  Go Bucks!

Time and change will surely show how firm they friendship... O-HI-O.

AcrossTheField11's picture

Ht:6'2"
Wt:230 lbs
40:4.62 secs
Bench Max:305
Squat Max:415
Shuttle:4.24
Vertical:30 inches
GPA:4.3
ACT:30

Yes please.  We have a knack for making lower rated LB's into studs (Hawk, Laurinaitis, et al)

Time and change will surely show how firm they friendship... O-HI-O.

7596's picture

Hey, Joe--good post, but one thing needs to be cleared up:

 

Bennett, like Curtis, is also apparently incensed about the university dropping the fine for Tressel, but he goes further by saying that the probation is merely a "slap on the wrist" and claims that Tressel "knowingly used ineligible players all of last season". I wonder if Bennett really believes that, if Tressel had reported the violations on time, the players would have been suspended "all of last season". The suspensions they actually got were only for 5 games and that was after Tressel covered it up for the whole season. Does Bennett think the punishment would have been worse if Tressel had done everything according to the rules?

 

Tressel did use ineligible players the whole season. OSU acknowledges this in its response. (Page I-9: "(T)he institution recognized that Tressel competed ineligible players for the entire 2010 football season.") It doesn't matter that the suspensions ended up being five games. They were ineligible the whole year because of how the matter was handled.

The way student-athlete eligibility works is this: An ineligible player remains ineligible until he's officially reinstated by the NCAA. The moment the school becomes aware that there's an eligibility issue, the affected player(s) can't play until they're reinstated. Tressel knew there was an issue before the season, but the Tat Five didn't go through reinstatement until December. Therefore, he knowingly used at least one ineligible player (Pryor) the entire regular season. This is why the whole thing* had to be vacated, not just the first five games.

*-The Sugar Bowl is trickier, since the NCAA reinstated the players for that game. But, since Tressel was in the midst of committing a 10.1 violation at that time by not being forthcoming, it's hard to argue that OSU should get to keep the W.

Maestro's picture

I think the point was that if it had been reported properly they would have been suspended for the first 4-5 games of the season not for the entire season.

vacuuming sucks

btalbert25's picture

It's a good point though, and I've often wondered if the NCAA would elect to suspend those players longer.

Joe Beale's picture

Maestro is correct. There is a reason why the university made such an admission; they are trying to own up to what the coach did and win points with the NCAA in the process.  I am under no such constraints and neither is Bennett. Anyone who objectively looks at the situation will admit that if JT had reported the violations on time then the resulting suspensions would have been no worse (and quite possibly less) than what they ended up getting anyway: 5 games. That being the case, to say what Bennett said is just an attempt to make the offense look worse than it actually was.

SouthBayBuckeye's picture

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST