The law does not consider you 'intoxicated' after one drop of alcohol. Here's the definition of the word from the Ohio Revised Code: "“Intoxicated” means being under the influence of alcohol, another drug, or both alcohol and another drug and, as a result, having a significantly impaired ability to function." RC 3793.31(F)
There's no legal rule that requires direct evidence for a conviction. Plenty of convictions are based on circumstantial evidence alone.
I dug up all the numbers and put 'em in a forum thread yesterday. It ain't pretty. Here.
Yeah, the SEC has tiered payouts based on how well a team performs. I'd like that.
I know it's a cliche, but I don't see how schools can afford NOT to spend. I think it has to do with a misconception about how funds are generated (e.g. see the USA Today article from a couple days ago whining about Athletic Dept spending). Yeah, NCCA football is a business. It makes money.
These two paragraphs below are from thebusinessofcollegesports.com and they get at what I'm trying to say about the SEC's rise. The conference revenue has doubled since 04-05. It hasn't always been at the king of the hill in wins and revenue, but its member schools started spending and both followed. The Big Ten was being outspent by the SEC even when it was out earning the SEC.
"What’s even more impressive about the SEC’s revenue numbers is how far they have climbed since 2004-2005. Since 2004-2005 the conference as a whole has almost doubled their revenue, skyrocketing from approximately $600 million to over $1 billion. Over that time the average SEC school’s revenue has jumped from approximately $55 million to a little over $91 million, which is a robust 71% increase."
"Once again amongst the notables is Alabama who doubled their revenue from $62 million to $124 million, no doubt due to recent success on the football field with the hiring of Nick Saban and 2 National Championships in the past 3 years. Also among the big movers was Mississippi State who back in 2004-2005 had a very paltry (by SEC standards) revenue of $26 million. In 2010-2011 the Bulldogs took the SEC crown for highest percentage climb in revenue since 2004-2005 with a 131% increase up to $59 million, but that still leaves them at less than half of Alabama and Florida are earning."
For sure, but it seems like the SEC has been ahead of the curve and that at least the most recent rounds of revenue increases have followed the spending. I think Alabama's annual athletic department revenue has doubled since it hired Saban.
This article looks at it backwards. It's not that more revenue leads to more spending on coaches. It's that more spending on coaches leads to more revenue. The SEC has figured this out. Gene Smith needs to sell it to the rest of the B1G.
It takes money to make money.
What annoys me the most is that I don't think that they've fully grasped the idea that it takes money to make money (like the SEC schools have). The more money they put into football the more money the football team makes.
I know there's a point of diminishing returns, but I don't think we're even close to it. The football program's revenue potential has to exceed Alabama--Ohio State's fan base is bigger, the drawing pool for new fans is much deeper (in terms of students, alums, and in-state population). But Alabama makes more money because it's been winning more championship recently and one of the main reasons is that the university gives the football team enough money to hire and retain the best assistant coaches.
It's possible, I think, that Gee didn't have this information when the school was talking with Urban and deciding on self-imposed penalties. He might not have talked about the situation with Emmert and the others until after the NCAA imposed the penalty. He might have even been prohibited from talking to them about the matter until the issue was settled. I don't think we have to jump to the conclusion that he acted in bad faith when he spoke to Urban or failed to relay this vital bit of information to the rest of the admin.