krenzelmoni's picture


Member since 06 November 2010 | Blog

Recent Activity

Comment 21 Oct 2011

To quote Oscar Wilde, "the truth is rarely pure and never simple."

JT seems like a good man from a moralistic standpoint, but the plain fact is that he covered up information which would have kept his best players off the field for a number of games, knowingly fielded players who - under the rules - should have beeen ineligible for accepting impermissible benefits, lied about it, and left the program subject to forthcoming NCAA penalties that may or may not affect bowl appearances and recruiting (we'll see what happens).

It's too bad that this will be a major factor in his legacy - at least nationally - but it is what it is.

The portion of the Lantern's story quoted is subject to debate. Is OSU football in a better spot now than it was in 2001? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Is ten years of dominance worth the program being shamed nationally, a year's worth of torture, and forthcoming penalties? I don't know, but I'm not sure I'd be so quick to dismiss the comments as "something this dumb." At the very least, it's subject to debate.

Comment 14 Jul 2011

Schools are alleged to have committed "violations;" generally speaking, they're "sanctioned" for whatever violation they're found guilty of committing. See NCAA bylaw 10.3.2, for example.

Comment 14 Jul 2011

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that the NCAA has sure been talking tough as of late. Stories are out today that it's still investigating Auburn. And I totally agree with you - the NCAA isn't bound to anything; it can do whatever it wants to. But given that it didn't charge OSU with LOIC or FTM, and that the current charges - historically - have not yielded much in the way of actual penalties, it sure seems likely to me that if it wants to punish OSU in addition to the self-imposed sanctions (vacated wins and probation), it's going to have to rely upon the repeat offender charge - which is very, very scary, to me at least.

Comment 14 Jul 2011

Do you think the NCAA lives in a vacuum? There's no way that it's going to ignore the public outcry over this, or ignore the fishy-ness re: TP's loaner sleds, or that, from an optics standpoint, it appears osu is paying Tressel to take the fall for this (Gee said Tressel was paying the fine, then OSU is paying it; Smith said Tressel was forced to resign, then Tressel is allowed to retire).

The NCAA isn't bound by anything on repeat offender charges. It can do whatever it deems fit, with the maxium penalty being the dealth penalty. OSU won't get hit with the death penalty, but anyone who thinks the NCAA is going to issue decisions on five players selling trophies to some degenerate tat parlor owner or Tressel intentionally lying and misleading the NCAA is out to lunch. We're going to get hit as a repeat offender; and get hit hard. Probably not at the USC level, but close.

Comment 14 Jul 2011

It admitted that it's subject to the repeat violator legislation. It wouldn't be saying that unless it knows that charge is on the table.




Comment 13 Jul 2011

As I understand it, USC was charged with LOIC and and was subject to repeat offender status (for earlier major violations in its basketball program).  OSU is only subject to repeat offender status violations (and admitted it in its Response); hence, my opinion that OSU will get hit with slighly less than what USC received, given the current climate nationwide on cracking down on cheating in college sports.

The bylaws only prescribe a maximum penalty for repeat offender violations (the death penalty). The Committee on Infractions can do whatever it wants for that violation. My guess is that it's slightly below what USC received - perhaps 20-25 docks and a one year bowl ban.

Comment 13 Jul 2011

Right; basically UM didn't have to worry about repeat offender status during sanctions re: RichRod. OSU admitted it's subject to repeat offender status. Apples and oranges.

Comment 13 Jul 2011

The wording of bylaw says that the second major violation has to occur within 5 years of the "starting date of the first major violations." When did the Ed Martin/Chris Webber sanctions START at Michigan? My guess is it was long before the fall of 2004, but I'll take you at your word. I don't think the NCAA could have hit UM as a repeat offender even if it wanted to under the bylaws, but again, you know more about UM than I.

We don't have to argue sanction predictions (you gave your opinion and I gave mine), but I think it's completely unrealistic (and borderline wishful thinking for those who agree), given what the NCAA has recently said about getting tough on rules violators, along with it facing a serious credibility issue nationwide, to think that the NCAA drops 6 schollies and impose a one year ban (with probation) when USC got docked 30 over 3 and was slapped with a 2 year ban (I believe). Granted, USC was charged with LOIC as well as being deemed a repeat offender, but my guess is OSU gets something much closer to what USC got than what you propose. Time will tell.



Comment 13 Jul 2011

Actually . . .

The statue of limitations is five years for repeat offender violations. OSU accepted the NCAA's violations in March '06.  Tressel received the email in April 2010 (I believe). The wording of the repeat offender bylaws (bylaw provides that an institution is a repeat offender if a "major violation has occured within 5 years of the starting date of a major penalty."

If the starting date of the hoops major penalty is March '06, and Tressel failed to alert compliance about the Tat 5 or knowingly lied to the NCAA (the major violations) at any point before March '11, then it appears OSU is on the hook for repeat offender charges (should the NCAA wish to impose them).



Comment 13 Jul 2011

You're right. I apologize for that inaccuracy. That said, in that hearnig, the NCAA dismissed most, but upheld some of the violations involving O'Brien. For purposes of when the violations were considered imposed, my guess (I'm not an NCAA lawyer - one would need to comb through the bylaws to know for sure) is that the March 2007 deadline is controlling for purposes of the repeat offender violation.


Comment 13 Jul 2011

Correct. And then OSU appealed, and the NCAA Appeals Committee issued a final ruling in April 2007.  It's on the table for repeat offender purposes.

Comment 13 Jul 2011

6 schollies and a one year bowl ban (and probation)? You honestly, truly believe that in light of the looming repeat offender charge? Who cares about there being no LOIC or FTM charge in the Notice of Allegations? The NCAA bylaws allow the Committee on Infractions to impose any punishment it seems fit (up to the death penalty) for repeat offenders. Given: 1) that the 2007 hoops violations are on the table under the 5 year statute of limitations; and 2) the NCAA having massive credibility issues nationwide given what has recently gone on at Auburn, Tennessee (hoops admittedly), OSU, and now Oregon, you think OSU is looking at 6 schollies lost and a one year bowl ban (and probation)?

We'll see, and no one can say for sure, but from my perspective, I don't think your prediction is grounded in reality in the least.




Comment 13 Jul 2011

Fair enough. "Just the facts" is a figure of speech. Apologies for the semantics.

As for opinions and rumors, this is a message board; it's all about "trotting out" opinions.

Again, I THINK the fact that OSU wasn't hit with a LOIC or FTM charge is largely irrelevant. The Notice of Allegations refers to past violations (see page 6 of the Notice of Allegations). The NCAA Appeals Committee's final ruling on the hoops team was in 2007, which puts it within the 5 year statute of limitations governing the NCAA repeat offender by-laws.

Long story short, I THINK the NCAA will hammer OSU as a repeat offender.  It's dealing with major credibility issues and is talking a very tough game recently about rule violators.  IN other words, it's not going to take kindly to being directly lied to by Tressel after it allowed the Tat 5 to play in the Sugar Bowl. Any talk about there not being a LOI or FTM charge in the Notice of Allegations (and that OSU will escape significant penalty for that reason) is largely irrelevant, IN MY OPINION.


Just the opinion.

Comment 13 Jul 2011

As an alum, a Buckeye football fan, and someone who cares about the integrity of the university and how it is perceived (as well as the value of my degree), I completely agree. Tressel's, Smith's, and Gee's actions have been nothing short of shameful.  

Bottom line - OSU's response to the Notice of Allegations is fine IF one looks only at the actual allegations noticed. ( 1. preferential treatment for players and; 2. unethical conduct by Tressel for failing to report and intentionally lying to the NCAA) However, the "REPEAT OFFENDER" charge is the big one (the 2007 hoops violations are on the table), and it's looming. Anyone who thinks OSU won't get hit hard by the NCAA as a repeat offender - which is dealing with major credibility issues right now - is absolutely dreaming. Be prepared for a 2 year post season ban and roughly a 20-25 schollie loss over 3 years. It's gonna happen, folks. The NCAA risks losing all credibility nationwide if it doesn't drop the hammer. Just the facts.