Seth9's picture


Member since 10 March 2011 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 30 | Leaderboard

Voting Record: 0 / 0

Recent Activity

Comment 14 Jul 2011

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.

Comment 14 Jul 2011

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.

Comment 13 Jul 2011

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 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.

Comment 12 Jul 2011

That's not the important point in ESPN's argument. The important point in their argument is that the emails are not covered by FERPA because they are not education records.

Comment 12 Jul 2011

If ESPN is not a journalistic organization (which again, it has never completely defined itself as), it has no legitimate First Amendment grounds on which to stand.  For example, if Batelle (a Columbus area chemical company) wanted these records, the FOIA wouldn't apply, because they have no legitimate interest in the records, and Ohio State could state as much in its defense of its position. 

Ohio law does not require that a person who requests records be a journalist. Nor does it require a person requesting records to give an explanation for why they want said records. It doesn't even require a person requesting public records to disclose their identity. Here is a link to the Ohio Open Records act, and to save time, here is the relevant segment of the law:

(4) Unless specifically required or authorized by state or federal law or in accordance with division (B) of this section, no public office or person responsible for public records may limit or condition the availability of public records by requiring disclosure of the requester’s identity or the intended use of the requested public record. Any requirement that the requester disclose the requestor’s identity or the intended use of the requested public record constitutes a denial of the request.

Comment 11 Jul 2011

When you go on a rival blog and spend time gloating about your team's accomplishments at the rivals expense, then you are trolling because such statements will only serve to antagonize the blog's readers. Case in point:

If Hoke's first year on the field is as good
as his first year recruiting , there will be a
2011 Big Ten championship banner hanging
up in about 6-8 months.


It goes beyond stars, though. Pulling him
straight from OSU' s grasp is HUGE. Going into Tsio backyard landing your top, I
say top, priority is a really big deal. This
would be like you comin in and takin our
2013 commit Shane Morris . Hoke is really
something special of a recruiter.

Welcome Kyle to the best university in the
world. You will be part of something really
special in the years to come. Go Blue!!!

Here, you brag about Michigan's success in recruiting against OSU, a matter directly connected to the Tressel scandal which is a major source of pain for OSU fans. You follow this up by rubbing in what a big deal the Kalis committment is. And then you finish by welcoming Kalis to Michigan, which you brag about some more. Now, as a Michigan fan, I share the sentiments you expressed. However, I would choose to express these sentiments on a Michigan blog, where I could celebrate with other readers, rather than here, where I would simply irritate people.

Comment 10 Jul 2011

When you take over with less than a month to go before signing day, inherit very few recruits from the previous coach, and have to do all the other things associated with a coaching transition (put together a staff, start building relationships with the guys already on the team, persuade guys not to transfer away when you're installing a new system, etc.) and you manage to land a top 25 recruiting class, then you did pretty well.

Comment 09 Jul 2011

This line of reasoning is flawed for three major reasons.

1. Precedents are not considered binding by the COI and the sanctions in the USC case were significantly greater than previous sanctions for similar violations. In addition, the noise about enhanced enforcement coming out of the NCAA is also ominous.

2. None of the precedents are applicable in this case because Ohio State is considered a repeat violator, as they conceded in their response to the NCAA, which was not a factor in any of the cases cited above. As a repeat violator, Ohio State will presumably be subject to more significant sanctions than non-violators in comparable cases.

3. The precedents you cite regarding Minnesota and Baylor are inaccurate. Minnesota lost 15 basketball scholarships (5 per year), had a year's postseason ban, took significant recruiting restrictions, and paid back 90% of their NCAA Tournament earnings from the years involving violations. This was tied to a LOIC charge because Haskins violations included organizing academic fraud and then covering it up. The Bliss violations, meanwhile, also included a one-year postseason ban, scholarship reductions, and significant recruiting restrictions. This is because Bliss committed flagrant violations in the fields of both NCAA regulations and basic human decency. 

The NCAA's newly increased commitment to enforcing regulations, OSU's repeat violator status, and OSU's atrocious handling of this situation all lead me to believe that OSU will receive some scholarship reductions (something in the neighborhood of 12 over 3 years) and possibly a one-year bowl ban (which would not be in effect for next season as OSU would definitely appeal on that count). However, with the NCAA apparently looking into the country club thing (and possibly other reports) and various media outlets looking around Columbus, the probability that OSU will escape another NOA is low.

Comment 12 Jun 2011

Constitutional rights do not exist within the NCAA. When an athlete joins an NCAA team, he is expected to abide by their rules and fully cooperate with their investigations. If he screws with them in any way, they can suspend him or revoke his elligibility.

Comment 10 Jun 2011

That is the least convincing line of reasoning I've heard to cast doubt upon and/or explain away any of these allegations.

Comment 10 Jun 2011

Wetzel's point is that a school should be acting on allegations of an active player because the NCAA faces a far more difficult challenge of investigating inactive players than investigating active ones. Thus, if a school's compliance department does not conduct a full investigation until a player leaves, even when they know of potential violations while the player is still in school, then they are effectively throwing away evidence and thwarting the NCAA's ability to investigate potential violations. Furthermore, by failing to conduct an investigation into the player's elligibility, they effectively allow a player to remain elligible even when he shouldn't be.

On the other hand, Wetzel also made an analogy referencing Nazis, meaning that Godwin's law dictates that he loses this debate.

Comment 09 May 2011

What can the ncaa really do?  Piss and moan about some kids selling and trading their own shit?

For starters, they can suspend them...

Comment 09 May 2011

If I recall correctly, SMU shared your attitude in the '80s.

Comment 02 May 2011

As a Michigan student, I have to say that was awesome and I wish that our second semester hadn't ended last Thursday. GO USA

Comment 25 Apr 2011

Bruce Pearl is likely to get a show-cause for lying to the NCAA and attempting a cover-up. Sampson mislead investigators after committing a major violation through impermissible recruiting practices (not that any compromised a player's amateur status) and was a repeat violator, although he did not get hit with the huge 10.1 violation (outright lying to the NCAA). Tressel is accused of having committed a major violation by deciding not to inform OSU compliance that two players had taken actions that rendered them inelligible and then committed a 10.1 violation by lying to the NCAA and stating that he had no knowledge of the situation during the investigation.

Tressel has generally been a stand-up guy and a good ambassador for both OSU and college football. However, he attempted a cover-up and lied about doing so. Considering that the NCAA is putting this entirely on Tressel (and not OSU) and based on similar cases, it is, in my opinion, likely that he will get a show cause penalty.

Comment 18 Mar 2011

While I agree with you with regards to self-reporting will probably allow OSU to avoid a post-season ban or scholarship limits, I doubt it will have much to do with whether or not 2010 will be allowed to stand. As I understand it, the NCAA will likely consider the following questions when determining whether or not OSU's 2010 victories will be allowed to stand:

1. Did inelligible players a) play in and b) have a significant impact on the victories in question?

The answer to both of these questions is obviously yes. Pryor and co. became inelligible when they violated NCAA rules regarding selling football-related items and receiving improper benefits in exchange for autographs. And obviously, Pryor alone was a significant contributor in every game this season. Incidentally, this means that OSU will probably not have to vacate the Sugar Bowl*, as the NCAA reinstated all the players in question for the game.

2. Were the players ruled inelligible based on a major, or at least significant violation of NCAA rules?

Again, yes. Hence the five game suspension.

3. Should the players have known that they were committing significant violations?

As far as the NCAA is concerned, they did not receive adequate education on the rules pertaining to these issues. So this is a qualified no, which is important because typically shows a lack of intent by a program to break NCAA rules. However...

4. Should the university and/or program have known that violations had taken place?

Yes. Tressel was informed of the violations and failed to report them or act on them in any way. At this point, the program has knowingly played inelligible players whom committed significant violations to become inelligible. Furthermore, the program covered up these violations so that the NCAA couldn't rule them inelligible. As a result, the season is likely to be vacated.

*The only way I see the NCAA forcing OSU to vacate the Sugar Bowl win is if they rule that the defense used regarding lack of knowledge on the players' part is baseless in light of Tressel's conduct. Or to put it another way, they would rule that OSU's defense to keep the players elligible for the Sugar Bowl would not have been accepted had the NCAA known about Tressel's conduct.

Comment 10 Mar 2011

Assuming that Tressel forwarded the emails, then the offense is almost certainly worse. If he forwarded them to a coach, player, or anyone like that, then the confidentiality argument is completely gone and as you noted, it introduces co-conspirators in the violations. If he forwarded them to anyone in the OSU administration, then some of the blame goes away from Tressel, but the NCAA will see that multiple people in the university were involved in the decision to not report the violations, in which case there's a potential lack of institutional control case which is far far worse for you guys than what you've got now. He could have forwarded it to a lawyer and the lawyer told him to tell compliance, in which case he's in a worse situation than he is now for ignoring legal advice, but not incredibly because it only serves to weaken his explanation for what he did.

There are two possibilities I can come up with in which forwarding the emails is a positive:

1. Tressel forwarded the emails to a university lawyer not associated with compliance and the lawyer told him to sit on it to avoid interfering with a federal investigation. If that's the case, Tressel's still on the hook for not coming forward in December, but there is something of an excuse here. However, this is almost certainly not the case because it would involve the lawyer being very dumb and telling him to keep quiet when he was under an obligation to report the contents of the emails to compliance.

2. He forwarded the emails to someone associated with federal law enforcement and they asked him to be quiet. If that's the case, then Tressel is somewhat exonorated, although he still should have come forward in December. However, if this is in fact what occurred, it makes no sense for the university to not have made note of it at the press conference or in their letter to the NCAA.

There is also a third possibility, namely that Tressel did not forward the emails to anyone, but that Smith didn't want to allow a line of questioning concerning the specifics of the investigation. That is probably the best case scenario here. because the others I listed are highly unlikely.

Comment 10 Mar 2011

Thanks for allowing me to post here. I am a Michigan fan, but I do have the ability to be objective when actually analyzing things. And I'm pretty sure that you're wrong about losing the Arkansas win should the season be vacated.

The Arkansas win wouldn't be vacated because the violations were uncovered and punishment was handed down before the game, so the players were elligible for the Arkansas game. Every regular season win, however, would be vacated because Tressel knew the players to be inelligible and played them anyway.