Details Revealed on Tressel Calls, Texts

By 11W Staff - 07 June 2011
24 Comments

Redaction city, but the 31 text messages exchanged between Tressel and Cicero on Christmas Eve, stand out. (Dispatch)

Source dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/06/07/details-reveal...

Follow @11W

Comments

Maestro on 7 Jun 2011 - 12:58pm #

Actually it was Cicero that he sent several texts to on Christmas Eve.

vacuuming sucks

Denny on 7 Jun 2011 - 1:52pm #

Yes but did he txt Santa Claus thx

Taquitos.

Jason Staff on 7 Jun 2011 - 2:13pm #

Derp. Thanks.

BuckeyeSki on 7 Jun 2011 - 1:04pm #

Since when is it a NCAA violation to spread X-Mas cheer, Old St. Dick?

If Denard Robinson isn't careful with spooning all that food into his mouth, he's going to end up lookin' like Whoopi Goldberg

Backup Placekic... on 7 Jun 2011 - 1:12pm #

One thing that I have noticed in todays dispatch article and one earlier in May (after the NCAA findings were published) is that Ohio State has not released any significant call, email or text information between Smith and Tressel.

Is there a "cover your a$$" going on here ?!?

Pam on 7 Jun 2011 - 1:36pm #

Is it because there are none?

AJ on 7 Jun 2011 - 1:40pm #

doubt it

"Without winners, there wouldn't even be civilization." -----------Woody Hayes

Backup Placekic... on 7 Jun 2011 - 2:12pm #

From the article:

"However, the university withheld records of about 5,000 phone calls and text messages made by Tressel and athletic director Gene Smith between April 2010 and March 2011. "

And the Article about Tressel's NCAA findings from over a month ago said that the university still needed to disclose email correspondence between Smith and Tressel .

I can't find that article - it is not on the dispatch website.

Irricoir on 7 Jun 2011 - 5:10pm #

This is what has concerned me all along. This is also why I think Tressel fell on the sword. It, even to this day, is hard for me to believe he did all of this himself without some higher power urging him in one direction or the other.

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

SouthBayBuckeye on 7 Jun 2011 - 1:43pm #

the more is read about this, the less I feel like significant punishment is on the way. Maybe that's wrong, but I just get the feeling that what's been handed out might be sufficient almost...

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

M Man on 7 Jun 2011 - 2:22pm #

It is a kind of a throwaway line in the story, but I do think it is interesting that Sarniak is someone whom "OSU says is not a booster."

That has all kinds of meaning, purely for purposes of hyper-technical NCAA-speak. OSU might be put in a position of a sort of vicarious-liability for Sarniak if he is indeed a booster per NCAA definitions. If not, he and Pryor and the University would get a lot more breathing room.

Does anybody know how that battle is going? The "Is Sarniak a booster?" question?

SouthBayBuckeye on 7 Jun 2011 - 2:29pm #

Booster would mean he donated $$$ , right?

I'm sure there are financial records for all of that under IRS rules.

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

M Man on 7 Jun 2011 - 3:30pm #

No; and that's the point. The NCAA has sweeping definitional categories and criteria for "boosters." It is not merely donations to the University; I'm not really aware of any Sarniak donations, although he might have donated. It would be sort of surprising if someone of Sarniak's means hadn't made some kind of donation, at some point. Golf outings, receptions, parties, fundraisers; we all know how our respective schools go about the relentless business of fundraising.

But the real point is that NCAA bylaws describe a booster as any individual who is a member of an institution's athletics booster club, has ever made donations to the club or athletic department, is involved in recruiting prospects or in providing benefits (summer jobs) to enrolled student-athletes, or otherwise involved in promoting the institution's athletics program. Once an individual becomes a booster he or she retains that status forever, even if the person discontinues supporting the athletic programs.

And, most critically, many of the subsequent NCAA regulatory guidelines apply to "representatives... or... boosters." In other words, a "booster" doing something bad, is very nearly as bad as a coach or other institutional employee doing something bad. Which is why most schools go way out of their way, in all season ticket information, all donor packets, etc., to tell people that they may be "boosters," and as such they have to adhere strictly to NCAA bylaws. Schools are justifiably paranoid about getting into trouble for something that one of their dumb, over-enthusiastic boosters might have done.

NW Buckeye on 7 Jun 2011 - 4:01pm #

You are indeed correct. The booster description is very large. However, in my experience (I am a booster) I have had to sign NCAA compliance forms in order to do anything - i.e. buy tickets, etc. OSU compliance office makes sure that they have those in hand of anyone they consider "boosters". That said, it would not be surprising to see someone accusing Sarniak of being a booster simply because he has mentored Pryor since before he was in Junior High. The article points out that Sarniak has attended about every game since Pryor enrolled, but this is not uncommon for a "friend of the family" for someone in Pryor's situation. My understanding of Sarniak's overall involvement with Pryor was that of mentor and advisor - not unlike a father or a caring uncle. Given that Pryor had no father figure at home this should not be surprising. I also recall from Pryor's recruiting debacle that his mentors (yes, plural including the likes of Chalie Batch) were actually advising him to go to UM. Hence, the bitter feelings when he announced for OSU. The real point here is that Sarniak could have been attending UM games instead of OSU games had Pryor declared for the Wolverines - how would you guys have handled him? I guess the real question is "when does a personal fan/friend/mentor become a booster of the team their idol plays for?" Fine lines for a definition. And, although I really don't see how he can be called an OSU booster under NCAA guidelines, I am sure there are many who may think he crossed that line. If indeed he does become considered an OSU booster by the NCAA, that will open up a whole new can of worms for future consideration. I mean where do you draw the line? People blogging on this site and yours may have to sign NCAA compliance forms in the future (LOL)!

SouthBayBuckeye on 7 Jun 2011 - 4:03pm #

just for future reference, I am no longer a booster as I refuse to give OSU any more of my $$ without guarantee of football tickets.

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

NW Buckeye on 7 Jun 2011 - 4:08pm #

Well, according to NCAA guidelines, you are still a booster because you were a booster in the past. Maybe Bob Knight is right.

SouthBayBuckeye on 7 Jun 2011 - 4:11pm #

I'm sure he is.

I say this mostly because I agree with him, and 2ndly I don't want to draw his ire.

Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST

NW Buckeye on 7 Jun 2011 - 4:14pm #

LMAO!

M Man on 7 Jun 2011 - 5:56pm #

NW Buckeye, you've done a great job of framing the issue. And what a close call it might be, on whether Sarniak is determined to be a booster. My guess is that there is going to be much, much more talk about Sarniak and whether or not he is a booster. And that Sarniak's status will be a very important issue in determining sanctions.

I'll give you an example of what an important determination it can be.

In the case of the Fab Five at Michigan, the truly serious and out of control individual was the guy named Ed Martin. Ed Martin (sometime-Ford factory electrician, sometime-numbers racketeer) had ingratiated himself with Jalen Rose, Chris Webber and a bunch of other top Detroit PSL prospects when they were still schoolboys. Ed Martin wasn't ever a Michigan coach, or even a Michigan donor. Martin never went to Michigan, and had very little to do with anything at the school other than being good friends with Bill Frieder and then Steve Fisher on the recruiting trail. In fact, Martin made himself friends with some kids who never went to Michigan, including (notoriously) Mateen Cleaves at MSU.

Michigan never paid any of the kids in the investigation, and never gave any of them any recruiting favors. Michigan never even gave much of anything to Ed Martin. Ed Martin's dirty money exchanges with Webber and others was completely outside of the University in every sense, both technical and as a matter of real fact.

But Martin was determined to be a booster, and in making that determination, they were looking at some things that were seemingly trivial -- whether he had been on any coaches' lists for comped game tickets (he was); whether he had traveled with the team (I think he had); whether he had recruited for the school, or whether he had simply been a private mentor to some kids. The connections were pretty tenuous, at least between Martin and the University.

But in the conclusion of the NCAA investigation of the 1990's, Ed Martin was determined to be a Michigan "booster." Which imputed all of his wrongdoing, and there was a staggering amount of it, to the University. It is almost a vicarious liability situation.

I certainly can't, and won't, prejudge Sarniak's status. But I think it will be one of the several very important determinations to be made in the process. The NCAA seems to have something of a specialty in finding the wrongdoing of "boosters."