YEAH (i should add that gary is a terrific human being and also serves his country as a captain in the army, in case he feels like driving up to cbus and kicking my ass)

haha well my argument was that tiramisu has cake IN it (ladyfingers), but because that only constitutes like 20% of the dessert, it's not cake. technically, tiramisu is a trifle. damn I hope gary sees this shit

while that's true, how he handled the cardale/barrett situation is pretty similar to the boeckman/pryor situation. the nice thing about 2018 (and to your point), is that there's no QB controversy here

honestly in the absence of any new info, that's exactly what we'll be doing

the university conducts it, and the resolution is a definitive framework with how to proceed with whatever is going on with zach legally. it's not a criminal investigation, but public employees can be and often are subject to internal misconduct investigations all the time. i'm not surprised that this isn't the route it went, because this makes the process much more public than urban would want, but that's kind of the point: zach and urban are public employees. they're subject to the same public scrutiny anyone else with their kind of profile would be.

think of it this way: if michael drake was accused of domestic violence in the way zach was, would ohio state let that go? or would they do their own investigation? would he have even been hired?

immediate suspension pending investigation, same as what he's done for his players at ohio state

I think both of your answers are very reasonable. imo, I don't think it looks like urban did the due diligence that I personally would expect or demand from that position. all available evidence suggests that urban knew zach was potentially abusive. you don't warn an employee about DV "just because." but that's just me. And as I said in both the podcast and the post, we don't know the extent of the potential actions urban took. there could be a lot that exonerates urban that the investigation uncovers, and id accept whatever conclusions that they come to.

please share how you know these things you say because I for one do not just take it for truth just because I read it on the internet. 

that's fair. kevin knows because he's been involved with the newswriting process for several years now at 11W, and we would never pay or compensate any interview subject involved in a story of this magnitude. i've been writing for 11W for 8 years now, and been a co-owner for 6, and i can tell you that our official policy on this mirrors the policy of virtually every other major news outlet: you do not compensate sources or interview subjects. the potential for blowback is just too high; a source who "shops" their story around might not be telling the truth, for example, and news outlets don't want to risk that in the case of a high profile story (the UVA rape story from rolling stone, for example).

in 2010 and 2011, there were several reports about outlets like abc news paying people to give interviews. after a public outcry, they stopped (at least officially), and several other outlets followed suit. what these news outlets realized is that getting into a bidding war with each other over sources is a huge mistake in terms of both optics and practicality. i'm sure the practice continues occasionally (and of course, excepting tabloids), but the new york times is famously very anti-paying for interviews, and many other papers and outlets have followed suit.

the reason why ohio state would've contacted courtney would be to complete their own internal investigation into zach smith. her attorney is implying that ohio state didn't do their due diligence when it comes to zach. if you're saying "but it's a bad look for a university to talk to the wife of a high profile coach about said coach's potential abuse," you're right, depending on who is doing the internal investigation.

kevin's correct, this almost never happens, for a whole litany of reasons. i very much doubt that courtney smith received a penny for any of her interviews.

i think it was danny, but honestly i couldn't remember for certain and didn't want to short change anyone

you're right, that's a mistake on my part. thanks man

thanks, that's my magnum opus

i feel attacked

i honestly read through the thing five times because i was afraid that i was missing some kind of joke and didn't want to make an idiot out of myself

that's what drives me crazy, love still skyped in! he still took inane questions from the media, but because he wasn't PHYSICALLY PRESENT dodd lost his mind

woody was there, talking with students, but remember that a) he was solidly pro-vietnam, b) pro-Nixon, c) was also trying to see if his players were involved in the protests, and d) (from what ive heard) basically was just telling everyone to go home. still, the people I talked to gave him credit for being literally the only person that high up who was willing to talk to the protesters in person