TTUN FAN IS OBVIOUSLY HURTING FROM THE YEARS OF BUCKEYE BEAT DOWNS.
Like duh. Obviously you didn't experience the 90's.
TTUN FAN IS OBVIOUSLY HURTING FROM THE YEARS OF BUCKEYE BEAT DOWNS.
Like duh. Obviously you didn't experience the 90's.
Bespoke/custom is the way to go if you want a suit that looks great and fits, particularly if you workout or have a unique build. They are a little more expensive, but not terribly so depending of course on the fabric you choose. I'll never go back to off the rack. But, I also wear a suite like once a year. I don't know if there's one near you, but I've had great experiences with Alton Lane. You sit down, get a free beer/wine/cocktail, pick a fabric and color, get measured with 3D scans, then in about 3 weeks get your custom suit with unlimited adjustments.
I wonder how much handling athletics is involved in the search. Is it just a small part of what the board is looking for or a big part? On the one hand it seems small in relation to a universities' mission. On the other hand at a blue blood football program it seems quite large in terms of national exposure, revenue, and fan interest.
This is similar to the ESPN case where the court ruled FERPA covers information about a student athlete’s NCAA issues.
OSU provided ESPN with a lot of information during that scandal that is specific to scandals so I don't think you can throw that under the umbrella of "it set precedent for all violations information to be protected by FERPA. Even after the trial OSU was required to provide several more documents with redacted students' personally identifying information. What was denied was an original trail of emails regarding the investigation between Tressel & superiors and the list of people banned from the student-athlete pass, and some communication with Ted Sarniak. But, there was no such precedent like "all NCAA violation information falls under FERPA". The real issue is that lawsuit was about the folks providing these benefits, not which athletes received them or how much. So, while that case may set precedent to not release the family friends name that provided the loan or the athlete's name (which is already out), it seems as though the dollar amount is a specific area with no precedent. I see nothing in that case that would suggest that information is any different than the other details they provided.
You're making a valid argument supported by data with a reasonable conclusion. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I respect your opinion. I'm merely asking you to recognize that I am also making a valid argument with data that supports my conclusion.
There’s precedent in Ohio that these things are protected so that’s what Ohio State is going to (rightfully) operate under.
Did this new precedent speak specifically to loan amounts by athletes? If not it appears up for debate and at the very least reasonable to question.
Do you really believe the NCAA gave him less than they thought he should get?
I'm already on record for thinking the whole rule is dumb. But, that's not really what we're discussing.
You have ignored that the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in the past that information surrounding student athlete NCAA violations is protected under FERPA and you continue to claim Ohio State is choosing to withhold information.
I'm not ignoring them, I just don't think those are compelling enough to ignore the rest of the data. You're cherry picking one case study and ignoring the body of evidence on the topic or assuming that one will extrapolate to this situation....maybe it will and maybe it won't. There is a study by Humi and Mooreman a few years ago on this very topic. I'll summarize some of their points.
So, it's clear universities release some information and not others and, do so incorrectly. It's not unreasonable to think they are doing so to shield themselves from scrutiny while highlighting their strengths.
So you've taken it upon yourself to place more value on certain parts of the guidelines and less value on others?
I, like you and the rest of us, are trying to extrapolate the information we have to a complex situation. So, of course I am providing an opinion that is up for debate, which is supposed to be welcomed on this site regardless of your rooting interest. The reason I place more value on one part of the language in the NCAA rules than others is because it is clear and objective. Dollar Amount = Suspension Time. Nothing to argue there. However, cooperation and "other factors" are not clear or objective. What other factors specifically increase or decrease the suspension time? It's not clearly spelled out So, I feel it's less important. But, of course this is merely an opinion.
You, as a michigan fan, WANT Ohio State and the NCAA to have let Young off easily because you want to be able to put an asterisk on the assbeating Ohio State hands michigan next weekend. Sound about right?
This is all feelings talk and irrelevant.
I sure hope so, but then again UM is also slated to play Washington and they're only 6-4 (and they open the season playing each other next year). But...identical records don't always play each other as it's not unusual for one team to have 1-2 wins/looses more/less than the other.
So sick of playing Florida, I hope not!
You’ve seen snippets posted that suggest punishments based on dollar amounts, and you’ve chosen to ignore the other language that’s in there that has been pointed out to you.
I'm not ignoring. But, that information is subjective in nature and unspecific whereas the references to dollar amounts are clear and objective which IMO makes it more valuable as a rule because it ensures fairness when deciding on penalty lengths. Because that language is clearly referenced it seems reasonable and pertinent to include that information.
Donovan Peoples-Jones might get more attention
I've always been curious why the OSU fanbase seems abnormally respectful of DPJ. Is it just because he was recruited heavily by the Bucks? He is a fantastic talent, but has never been UM's best WR and tends to get more hype than his production would warrant.
Michigan fans are really, really pumped about beating Mark Dantonio's crappy team
I think this is something that OSU fans can't relate to. Although OSU is UM's biggest rivals, they still have 3 of them (OSU, MSU, & ND) of which they all hate and hate them. OSU only has UM. PSU is a quasi-rival for both but not a true rival of either.
But the real question as to whether Michigan has actually evolved into a team capable of running with Ohio State is still up in the air for me.
For me it's not up in the air. No discredit to Willekes, Lewerke, et. al, but they are not Young, Fields, etc. UM won't be able to block Young or stop Fields.
Until then, credit for a big win. The Threat Level, for obvious reasons, is now ELEVATED.
Makes sense. Good read, thank you :)
You’ve been proven wrong on this. You’re either trolling or being willfully ignorant.
I haven't seen any compelling argument that would trump the objective language in the rules regarding the penalty being tied directly to the dollar amount of the loan. That information is pertinent, reasonable to expect, and objective. The rest is just posturing to distract from it and/or avoid providing it.
Should Myles Barrett be banned from the NFL?
I don't think so. He's a good guy, admitted wrong upfront and accepted responsibility for it, and appeared genuinely regretful. Sure, it's possible it was criminal. Guys like McSorely have had legal ramifications for hitting guys with their stick in the head in hockey, but those generally ended in more sever damage than what Garret's act seemed to inflict. He certainly deserves a hefty suspension because you can't allow that. But, I see no reason no ban him.
You are basically saying that either Ohio state is dishonest, the NCAA is dishonest or that they are colluding and both are dishonest.
I don't think OSU is dishonest. I think they provided the loan amount to the NCAA and asked for leniency because Young was cooperative. But, I do think it appears like the loan amount called for a harsher penalty then they received and are withholding the amount because it contradicts the penalty and they don't want to open themselves up to more scrutiny.
I think this is the wrong move. I think you divulge it and say what happened...the kid was cooperative and paid it back and this is important information and why we requested a shorter penalty than the rules would otherwise call for and the NCAA agreed. It's not OSU's decision. They have nothing to lose there. Of course they want a shorter penalty....nothing wrong with that. That way the NCAA takes any potential scrutiny for the length of the suspension and OSU can shield themselves by being transparent.
I don't want harsher penalties. I think it's silly he gets any penalty for a loan he paid back to a friend. I borrowed money when I was a college athlete and paid it back like anybody would. I'm just curious why they don't release the dollar amount. The only reason I can see is that it would contradict the language in the rules and cause more scrutiny. If it supported their recommendation it seems like a no brainer to release it.
Further, anecdote does not mean what you think it means. An anecdote would have been Desmond saying something along the lines of “back when I was in my early 20s, I had no intention of paying back any money I borrowed”. An anecdote is not lumping an entire class of people together and accusing them of being deadbeats.
I think you don't understand the nuance of the terms anecdote and anecdotal information. An anecdote is a story that typically entertains in order to support a point. It is not necessarily about ones self. Anectodal information is unscientific experiences which also could be from personal experience, but also from observation and involves anecdotes. In the realm of scientific evidence anecdotal information is generally as you described..."I tried the keto diet and it worked..." But, it doesn't have to be. It could also be "People try the keto diet all the time and get great results". Long story short, this is an anecdote. It is a story with weak supporting data that is meant to entertain or draw attention to his point of the amount of the loan or as Des put it "The smoke and guns is the money."
Oh that’s right, you wouldn’t trust the NCAA or Ohio State or let me guess... anybody.
Would you trust it if was Clemson?
just the dollar amount (which I’d guess to be between $1k-$2k) to evaluate the punishment ignores any mitigating factors, which are absolutely taken into account.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules don't speak to these mitigating factors. They only speak the loan amount. It's the only objective data we have. So, basing a penalty on cooperation seems in contrast to the point of the rules in the first place, which should be a systematic way to give penalties. That would remove all objectivity and just make it a popularity contest, which is why a rival fan might question it.
Personally, I think people only want to know the amount for confirmation bias.
Possibly, but if the loan amount is the only factor left in question in the rules speaking to the length of a suspension what else is there to go on?
11W literally published the NCAA Bylaw and punishment guidelines.
Ahhh! I searched this a number of times and couldn't locate it.
Spend less time trolling and more time reading
If the penalty is tied directly to the amount loaned, questioning the dollar seems like a fair question, no?
I don't know about your field of study, but in exercise science when someone makes an argument it's generally their responsibility to cite their source. If no source is provided it's generally dismissed.
If we’re going to pierce FERPA to figure something out, why don’t we start with how “academic all American” Rashan Gary stayed academically eligible at Michigan while scoring a 9 on the Wonderlic.
MODS going off topic? I thought you were supposed to know the posting rules ;)
ESPN sued Ohio State in an attempt to get the university to release more information about Tatgate. The case made it all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, who sided with Ohio State and concluded the information was protected under FERPA.
I didn't realize that. Do you have a source? I'd be curious to read the details. The only reason I'm questioning it is because Herby reported the suspension length is tied to the loan amount. If that's the case, once Young has admitted to the violation, that's the only pertinent information to decide on a suspension length. So is the public just supposed to trust the school, which is obviously vested in keeping the suspension as short as possible? It seems reasonable to question it. I'm just asking what would seem like obvious questions from someone on the outside looking in.
I think we all agreed Des' commentary was in poor taste. I don't support his "black athlete's under 25" anecdote. Race has nothing to do with it just like Taylor Lewan, Brendan Gibbons, and Rashan Gary have nothing to do with it. And, I've yet to see the NCAA language that lays out the penalty length by games based on the loan amount. However, Herbstreit reported the length of the suspension is tied to the value of the loan. If that's the case doesn't it seem pertinent to know the value?
His point is simply that black people under the age of 25 don’t pay back loans. That’s the entire basis of his argument.
That was not Howard's point, that was just an anecdotal story to support his stance. His point is the amount of money needs to be released since the suspension time is based on how much was loaned.
You are arguing that not releasing the dollar amount is suspect, which could be valid. So go start your own thread and make the argument and quit trying to justify Desmod’s racist bullshit.
That seems like overkill for it's own thread. This is all within the context of the topic of the thread.
where in the NCAA rules is there anything tying punishment to a dollar amount for a LOAN
According to Herbstreit quote...
The length of the suspension is tied to the monetary value of the loan