Gee: Ohio State Would've Faced 2012 Bowl Ban Anyway

December 5, 2012 at 4:03p    by Jason Priestas    
49 Comments

Comments

Jason Priestas's picture

Obvious first question: Does this mean they misrepresented things to Urban Meyer when they were interviewing/hiring him?

Denny's picture

Depends on if Gee did the hiring or Smith, or the BoT.

Taquitos.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I didn't read it that way. I figured that, once the ridiculous unprecedented 2012 bowl ban was announced, Gee found out through his V.I.P. grapevine that it would not have made a difference if Ohio State had self-imposed a ban in 2011. I'm guessing that Gee did not want to publicly suggest that Emmert, Ray, and/or Williams would give him inside info, even after-the-fact, so Gee vaguely hinted at "no one knowing more about this than I do."
Perhaps Emmert, Ray, and/or Williams would have thought it inappropriate to feed Gee information prior to the determination of punishment, but afterward let Gee know that he shouldn't beat himself up about not self-imposing.

AndyVance's picture

I agree with this interpretation - I think the group mentioned would not jeopardize their own situations because of a loyalty to Gee, but they would indeed talk about the situation after the fact.
Secondarily, one could speculate that because these three guys had close ties to Gee and/or Ohio State, they went out of their way to see that no favoritism befell the Buckeyes, hence the unprecedentedly harsh punishment for the infractions committed.

BED's picture

That's my reading too.

The Ohio State University, College of Arts & Sciences, Class of 2006
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Class of 2009

brglr14's picture

i dont think so. i think all involved believed and hoped that history was on  our side has far what the infractions were and past penalties. i think the way the ncaa handed down the penalties with their bravado comments of were not going to stand for this type of behavior any more led all to believe self imposed or not they were giving us at least one year to prove a point.

I dont know karate but i do know crazy and i'm not afraid to use it.
                           

Kalamazoo Steve's picture

I think Urbz still would've taken the job, no?

brylee's picture

yeah...he knocked it out of the park, despite the ncaa bs.

sb97's picture

That article doesn't really mesh with reality.  Remember how surprised the administration acted last year when they got the sanctions?  Did they lie to Meyer when they told him not to expect a bowl ban?
 
Edit: Jason beat me to it!

D. Anthony's picture

Did Meyer just say he was friends with a politician? 

D. Anthony

Run_Fido_Run's picture

For all intents and purposes, Urbz is a politician, too - an Independent (no party affiliation) uber-executive who represents about 70-percent of Ohio citizens. As such, he is "friends" with whomever can help turn Ohio State football into the New World Order.
Right now, El Presidente Urbano has a very high approval rating and would easily be reelected with 99.7 percent of the vote.

awwwwwwop's picture

Or maybe he is now realizing, with the benefit of hindsight, that it wouldn't have mattered. That Emmert and others would have given the bowl ban either way so it seemed like they were in control

"Who cares? Go Bucks." - Aaron Untch

Dean's picture

Definitely this.  You can't make an example of someone by giving them the punishment they ask for.

wilson.1363's picture

Perhaps Gee was told by his NCAA contacts that OSU would have been banned this year anyway after Meyer was hired. I wouldn't be surprised if Gee has been talking to his higher-up friends "off the record" throughout the course of this year to see what would have happened had we self-imposed.
While I've always thought we should have self-imposed a ban last year, I still felt, like Gee says in the article, that we would have gotten hit with a ban this year anyway. Then again, given the timing (right after we're 12-0), this does kind of seem like damage control by Gee, and you have to wonder if he's just saying this to appease the fan base.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Good comment - a better version of what I was trying to write above.
Possibly the reason Gee is saying this now is that he just got fed up with hearing media and fans continually claim that something was a fact when it was nothing of the sort (actually, it was either speculation or, as Gee asserts, flatly false).

D. Anthony's picture

Agreed...nationally everyone thought our punishment was light...and the NCAA wasn't going to let us name our own punishment, especially of it was a 1 year bowl ban at the end of one of our worst seasons in a long time.

D. Anthony

hodge's picture

Didn't Gee say this same thing to the Lantern late last year, or earlier this year?

smith5568's picture

I believe he has said this same thing several times, but never referenced his connections to the ones involved in imposing the sanctions. This is the first time I have seen him indicate that in discussions with old colleagues/friends a bowl ban was coming regardless.  

Buckeyevstheworld's picture

Even if Ohio State had self-imposed a bowl ban it wouldn't have stopped the fake outrage. The reaction would have been "It's not really a punishment because your team is 6-6.".

"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.

yrro's picture

I think the timing of the bowl ban would have mattered significantly. If they self-imposed at the beginning of the season, it would have changed the impression significantly. By the time bowl season came around I agree that it wouldn't have mattered.

sb97's picture

http://www.thelantern.com/campus/gordon-gee-bowl-ban-was-coming-no-matte...
 
Here is that article from the Lantern someone referenced earlier.

Squirrel Master's picture

a lot was still going down when Urban was being hired. I doubt the University truly knew if a bowl ban was coming or not by the time he was hired. I mean the phone call with the committee wasn't taken place til after the announcement. How much they really knew by then might never be known.
I do know this though, tell me Urban wouldn't have come here if they told him! I will laugh in your face. Urban might be a bit peeved about the bowl ban but there is no way he would have not taking the job!

I saw a UFO once.......it told me to have a goodyear!

BrewstersMillions's picture

Moving along. This OSU team has 12-0 written all over it again. I'm not one for hyperbole, but there isn't much in Meyer's way next season.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

IBLEEDSCARLETANDGRAY's picture

I agree with Andy, Gee's relationships with Emmert and the other NCAA big wigs likely hurt OSU more than the actual infractions did. If Gee hadnt known those people as well as he did I wonder if they would've come down as hard.

"Sherman ran an option play right through the south" - Greatest Civil War analogy EVER.

AndyVance's picture

And consider Gene Smith's role in the NCAA clubhouse... He's just served as Chair of the Men's Basketball Tournament Selection Committee, and according to Wikipedia (so it has to be true), had "previous affiliations with the NCAA Management Council, the NCAA committee on Infractions, the Rose Bowl Management Committee, and the NCAA Football Rules Committee."
Ergo, he was an NCAA "insider," so the Committee had to appear tough so it didn't look like they were taking care of one of their own.

rkylet83's picture

I think Gee probably heard after the fact.  Not to go too far off topic, but in my opinion we'd facing another exclusion that would make us all mad if we didn't have the bowl ban...not getting the BCS title game bid despite being one of the two remaining unbeatens.  I think even being 13-0 we would have still been on the outside looking in.  

Pam's picture

Does anyone think Urban Meyer wouldn't have take the job had he known there would be a bowl ban? You don't turn down the job you have dreamed about for a one year bowl ban.

Iwearmocs's picture

If I remember/understand correctly, the reason we got the bowl ban was not the Tressel lie/tattoo stuff, it was that booster that was paying Boom, Posey and co. over the summer on top of tattoogate. When Meyer got hired, the booster investigation wasn't finished yet.  

yrro's picture

I'm still curious about that. Posey swore he had documentation showing that he was paid legitimately, and it was just a union position that was required to pay a higher wage.

spqr2008's picture

I think his lawyer talked to an agent who told Posey's lawyer that the NFL doesn't like litigious players, so he should not sue the NCAA and provide the evidence to them through discovery (remember, the NCAA doesn't work like court, they have no responsibility to accept or investigate any evidence they don't want to).  However, had Posey done that, most Buckeye fans would have supported him, and hopefully had huge protests of the NCAA in front of the courthouse.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

This is what I've been saying all along.

Bucksfan's picture

Considering the bowl ban was more a result of the Bobby DiGeronimo paying Herron and Posey for jobs they didn't do while the program was already on probation for impermissible benefits involving those two players as well as others, a detail that didn't come to light until October of last season (see link below), Gee's opinion is well-taken and has been voiced by many others over the last year or so.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/34725/report-posey-herron-may-m...
It doesn't necissarily have anything to do with the NCAA increasing their sanctions just because they were pressured to make an example out of a big name program.  I agree that it would have been unprecedented to give a bowl ban for the memorabilia scandal and the coach lying about it, but not unprecedented for a school that was told, "we better not find anything else while you're on probation" only to find a booster was paying not just any players, but the SAME players involved in the tattoo thing.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Just to get some facts straight, they weren't "no show" jobs. The OSU athletic department effed up in not properly documenting their hours and wages and such, and then under pressure from a certain BOT member, they chose not to fight it and instead suspended Posey another five games. And actually, Gene Smith was prepared to fight it before being told not to.

yrro's picture

Exactly. Posey was a scapegoat to keep people from continuing to dig and drag things out.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Can't link to a firsthand source. BTalbert will back me up on this. He knows who my sources are and that I'm not just jerking people around.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Bucksfan, feel free to send me a private message if you're curious and I'll reply tonight if I have time.

spqr2008's picture

Yeah, this was basically memory-holed by the Dispatch, because I remember reading the articles about it, then nothing came of it.  The major thing was that OSU didn't want more investigators in Columbus, wanted to get back to "normal" as soon as possible.  The problem with fighting it would have been a long court battle, which would have worked out in OSU's favor, because the documentation was missing, and it was because someone in the Athletic Dept let at least Posey take a job above the NCAA's max wage ($15/hr.) because it was a union job, and he had to be paid that money, because if you're Bobby Geronimo, do you violate a contract with a shady non profit org (the NCAA), or a contract with the union that represents your employees?

BuckGnome's picture

At the point when that came out, self-imposing a bowl ban right then was even more of a no-brainer.
 
Sigh

OSUBias's picture

Since this entire thread is hypotheticals and guessing games, I'm going to throw my completely unsubstantiated version of how events played out.
Events come to light. NCAA starts investigation. Fans/media/OSU haters freak out. Gene Smith touts his connections and lack of precedent for getting a bowl ban. Emmert gets annoyed. Tressel gets fired/retires/resigns. More poo hits the fan via Bobby D. NCAA eyebrows perk up. Gene Smith continues to tell anyone/everyone there will be no bowl ban. Emmert remembers his annoyance from line 2, re-examines the case, salivates, and issues bowl ban. Everyone finds a way to blame someone other than themselves for not seeing this coming. Fans/players/coaches suffer through an amazing season with no reward, other than pride.
I know Smith is a good AD, and that this was new territory for the NCAA. BUT, even as it was happening and before the punishments were announced, it always seemed like our administration grandstanding about precedent and how there was no way there was going to be a bowl ban was just asking the NCAA to step up and do it. If only to prove that they are the boss, nobody knows the rules like they do, and precedent be damned, they'll issue whatever punishment they want!! And lo and behold, they sure did.
Maybe none of that mattered and they would have issued it anyway, with or without us self imposing one last season. But it sure as hell didn't help matters any.

Shitter's full

CALPOPPY's picture

I've got information, man. New shit has come to light!
Sorry, after the beginning of your post, that's all I got out of it as my mind went on a tangent. Now I'm just thinking about Bunny Lebowski.

I'm a hurtin' buckaroo.

ODEEZ330's picture

i have always felt this was the truth and never fully understod the anger towards gene smith from not banning us last yr.

O'Deez330
stark county football

BuckeyeW's picture

Just for the record:  I think a hypothetical two-year bowl ban for a coach lying about tattoos and trinkets is beyond absurd.

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

It's easy for the people that Gee talked to to say AFTER THE FACT that they would've imposed an extra year of bowl ban if OSU imposed a ban on themselves last year.  However, the committee didn't actually have to consider that situation because self-imposition didn't happen.  In the middle of the whole debacle, before the Bobby D stuff came out...who knows.

Class of 2010.

Schierbuck's picture

I was listening to some people on the radio say that it was contradictory to say that they didn't think we were going to get a ban and then say they thought we were going to get two years.  But I believe that the though process would have been this:
A) Either the committee believes that we do not deserve a ban and then we should not ban ourselves.
B) The committee wants to bring the hammer down and even if we ban ourselves this year they will ban us again next year after a more meaningful year.
Either way why ban ourselves.
In the end it feels like we've lost three years of football. 2010 vacated all our wins.  2011 turmoil.  2012 missing out on a NCG. 
The exception is the 2012 year which even without a bowl game has still felt somewhat magical.  The reason - Faith, Hope, and Love.  Faith in Meyer to bring this team to new heights.  Hope in the future.  And love for these Seniors.  And the greatest of these is love.  To have had three years taken from you and still come through like heroes is nothing short of amazing.  "A team that will not be beaten can't be beaten." - I'll buy the shirt with emblazoned on it.

AndyVance's picture

It's hip to criticize Gee and Smith (Smith bearing more of the blame in the entire situation if you ask me), but of all the things for which to criticize, forgoing a self-imposed Bowl Ban isn't one I can support.
Predicting how the NCAA will act is an exercise in folly, and intentionally giving up a major revenue opportunity with no guarantee the NCAA would swallow it would have done nothing more than look self-righteous.
I think they did the best they could based on the precedent, and the rest is speculation.

BuckGnome's picture

Total spin BS.  We were told, time and time again, NO bowl ban was coming.  So was Urb before he accepted the job.  Once the NCAA dropped the hammer, Smith and Gee had egg all over their face.
So they've been on this salvage operation for a year now, insisting had we self imposed a bowl ban penalty, we would have in effect had a two year bowl ban. 
Sorry, I'm not buying it.   It doesn't add up.  There was so little to lose, and so much potentially to gain by taking the ban last year.  Yet, Smith and Gee(and whoever else) decided to roll the dice anyway and got burned, and looked bad in the process.
Considering the way they collossally mismanaged the tattgate scandal from its inception, the fact that they had botched it one last time should come as a surprise to nobody.
I just wish they'd quit trying to justify their poor decicion.  Its been a year, and this defense has become tiresome.  Either admit you screwed the pooch on this one, or just shut the hell up about it already.