Guessing he was referring to 15 years since they won a conf championship.
A B C G E F H I D
Demas is c/o 2020.
I guess I didn't pay close enough attention. My wife has the same complaint about me.
Translation: "OSU has much better players and depth, but I have to say LSU is close cuz otherwise my teammates and fans will kill me".
If it was even close, he'd have to say LSU is better. The only way he's giving his old team a "slight" edge over his new team is if his old team is actually head and shoulders better.
I gotta say Bryant-Denny, cuz you have to play Bama there...
trademark intensity of Gary Patterson calling defenses, guys flying around..
Translation: Well, at least they're trying hard... A for effort.
All sarcasm aside, I agree ESPN doesn’t hate us. They love money. So whatever gets the most clicks/views is what they roll with. I believe they overdo it on the anti-OSU side, but not because they hate us... because a lot of the population hates us. And so they click on the articles to get their anti-OSU porn fix. On the flip side, they’d like to see us on their channel as much as possible. So what they really want is to be able to bash as much as possible while we win as many games as possible.
Nick Bosa almost unblockable
This implies our O-Line sucks. Also, "almost"??? C'mon, totally underselling his skills. He clearly hates Bosa.
Eager to see how he handles a pass rush.
Obvious dig at our schedule so far. Plus he's saying our D-line is terrible, because they can't get to him.
Proof ESPN hates us.
One thing to keep in mind is Browning at MLB is out of position. He’s a natural OLB. So playing MLB takes a bit of a learning curve. Your comment on playing SLB was probably spot on in terms of best fit for his skill set.
Feels to me like the board has 3 hats on a table (reinstate, suspend, fire) and everyone is trying to figure out which hat they'll pick based on clues that don't really exist.
St Petersburg, FL
Wish I could give this 1000 upvotes.
In re-reading my post, I think I understand the confusion. Here's point b)
b) Place a short leash on ZS with termination being the outcome of any additional (reasonable) charges of wrongdoing
I think the wording in general wasn't clear. What I was referring to was anything additional that comes up in the future, i.e. new charges or new evidence. Not based on investigation OSU does, but future issues with law enforcement. For instance, if the original incident happened in 2015, but no charges were filed, Ohio State may say "we will not fire you, but if you there are any future incidents, we will at that time". If, then, in 2018 ZS gets arrested for, say, criminal trespass, then he no longer is an employee at Ohio State.
Thanks, but I don't need you to save me from myself. You have completely misread the point. I stated very clearly that Ohio State is not in the business of investigating and that they allow the professional investigators (the PD) do the investigating. After that investigation (performed by the PD, not Ohio State), you then use those results to take your actions. You can at that point either fire him, retain him with specific requirements (in many business known as a PIP) or take no action at all. There is nothing wrong with deciding that there wasn't enough to fire him, but putting together a plan that shows if additional issues come up, you will be fired at that point. I believe this is exactly what happened.
Once again, just because the police didn't find enough evidence to arrest him because they didn't think they could convince a jury of his guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't mean that the employer can't still take any action based on what they did find. You have to separate burden of proof for the legal system vs burden of proof in the workplace. I once got in an argument with my boss and said some unflattering things. I didn't get arrested or go to jail, but I did get fired.
Point being, I think they let the professionals do the investigating, which is why they wouldn't have contacted CS (they would let the PD do that) then take the appropriate action after that investigation. And retaining him with behavioral stipulations would be very common (which was my point b).
I did a quick search on DV and found this article. As you note, it is really about rape, not DV, but I think they could be considered similar. I believe the issues (specifically with reporting, arrests and convictions) are similar. And I feel the need to reiterate here once more. I'm not speaking to the veracity of CS's claims, only stating that we don't have the facts, and that speculating about her character and truthfulness without the facts has downstream consequences.
That wasn't my point. My point was a) OSU most likely took appropriate actions; b) just because ZS wasn't charged doesn't tie OSU's hands in terms of taking action; c) we have no more proof that CS's accusations are unfounded than we do that they are true and that we should all wait until the facts come out before rushing to any sort of conclusion. Making accusation against alleged victims causes other real victims to remain silent.
But since we've opened this can of worms, consider the following:
According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, out of every 1,000 rapes:Only 310 are reported to police
57 lead to arrest
11 are referred to prosecutors
Seven lead to felony conviction
Six rapists are incarcerated
Of American women who didn’t report their sexual assault, 20% feared retaliation and 13% believed reporting it to the police wouldn’t help, according to the Department of Justice. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center notes a number of emotional reasons for choosing not to come forward, as well, including:
fearing they won’t be believed
worrying about how it will affect friends and family
difficulties surrounding rape kits, which require an invasive exam after a traumatic experience – and without which later prosecution is difficult due to lack of physical evidence
As I said above... burden of proof in the workplace is not the same as the burden in a court. OSU absolutely could take action if there is a reasonable assumption that he committed the acts alleged, regardless of whether charges are filed. I am seeing so many similar comments stating that OSU's hands were tied because charges were not filed. This simply isn't the case.
However, again as stated above, I don't think OSU would or should perform their own investigation, and I think the most likely outcome would be to keep ZS, but let him know that the next allegation would result in his termination. And I believe this is exactly the action that was taken.
I do think that victim shaming in this situation is both not a good look for OSU and fans, but also harmful to other victims of DV. I have no doubt ZS did bad things to CS, the extent of those bad things, I don't really want to speculate on. Plenty of theories out there, no evidence. And I do know that many many victims of DV remain silent, often because of the fear of victim shaming that we are either insinuating or outright claiming against CS.
Having said that... here is my view of the proper timeline of events that should happen.
- CS reports DV allegation agains ZS
- Powell PD notifies OSU/Gene Smith of the allegations
- Gene Smith notifies Urban and calls ZS back to have conversation
- OSU/Gene Smith/Urban (who are not investigators) allow the PD to do the investigation and await results
- Based on results of the PD investigation, OSU/Gene Smith/Urban Meyer take action
- Regardless of whether PD finds enough evidence to press charges, OSU would still use whatever they find to take their own actions.
As stated many times... proof required in a legal proceeding is not the same bar as proof required at the workplace. Based on the evidence, I would expect OSU to take one of three actions: a) Fire ZS; b) Place a short leash on ZS with termination being the outcome of any additional (reasonable) charges of wrongdoing; c) Nothing.
In none of this do I have OSU contacting CS because, as I stated above, OSU should allow the PD to investigate.
Furthermore, as best I can tell, all of the above happened with the exception of 6, and the jury is out on that one. My very strong suspicion is that they likely took step 6 and followed outcome b), giving ZS a very short leash, which resulted in his termination when new charges were alleged.
One thing in particular I think you are misreading... the suggestion there may be substance addiction issues for ZS was not showing disdain for Urban, it was actually a comment that could help Urban. i.e. if there is an addiction issue, it would tie Ohio State's hands in terms of their ability to fire ZS with cause. Medical issues, including addiction, create a protected class (not a lawyer, but I believe this to be Ramzy's point here), and Ohio State would be required to try to help him, rather than fire him. If so, it could put Urban in the clear.
Moreover, I think Ramzy's overall stance, from reading his tweets, was not to show any disdain for Urban, but to show that there are bigger problems in the world than the fate of a millionaire who is already set for life. We could, if we chose to reassess our priorities, focus on those in far greater need.
Logged in just to give you a HS for that. Brilliant idea and hilarious.
If so, I wonder why he didn't post the text message where the pics were sent... he only posted text conversations, which were vague at best. If he has the texts with the pics being sent, he should post them, too. He's very free with opinions, accusations and assumptions, but highly selective with the proof...
What I'm saying is this portion:
Courtney: “(Zach’s) trying to make me look crazy bc that’s what Shelley is saying (he’s doing)”
Lindsey: “He (Urban) just said he (Zach) denied everything”
Is not in the text message. And without that portion, there is no link to Urban ever having a conversation with Zach.