Bundrew's picture


Member since 02 June 2011 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 24 | Leaderboard

Voting Record: 0 / 0

Recent Activity

Comment 02 Jun 2011

Re: "Tressel's argument" -- He could have suspended the players for a generic "violation of team rules" without any reference to the federal investigation.  His argument was pretty clearly a post hoc justification.

Re: Discipline -- When the school self-reported Tress' violations to the NCAA, this document was made public and did not mention any internal discipline.  If there had been any, the University seemingly would have mentioned it; it would have been a good fact for Tress. 

Comment 02 Jun 2011

I think this is a fair point.  A couple of things though:

(1) If Tressel did impose discipline on the Tat5 behind-the-scenes, it certainly didn't include loss of playing time.  This seems pretty soft in light of what Tress learned from Cicero / the U.S. Attorney's Office;

(2) If Tressel did impose discpline on the Tat5 behind-the-scenes, one would think he / the University would have mentioned this mitigating fact at some point during the last several months.  Their silence on this point seems to indicate there was no in-house discipline in this case.

Comment 02 Jun 2011

I think Tress doesn't exactly get the benefit of the doubt at this point. Absent evidence, I would not assume he was a behind-the-scenes disciplinarian in this case.

Comment 02 Jun 2011


"His intentions weren't entirely pure, but I truly think that Tressel felt that his methods were for the overall benefit of his players, by protecting them from punishment from a faceless and uncaring entity and by allowing him to teach them the kind of lesson he felt was appropriate."

What exactly did Tressel do "teach" the Tat5 a "lesson?"  What "methods" did he use?  So far as I can tell, Tressel did nothing to intervene to stop his players from continuing to receive improper benefits after he learned about this mess in April 2010 (except, of course, forward a Cicero email to Pryor's "mentor").