I'm sorry but I don't follow. I just made essentially the opposite point: Big Ten support for its member schools goes far beyond the CFP rankings. The CFP rankings are just one example of how public perception of a university and a conference can affect a university. It extends to recruits, donations, and even beyond to applications, admissions, etc. It seems you're being willfully stubborn on this point, for reasons unknown. I, the OP, explicitly stated in the original post that this post/thread was not specifically about the CFP rankings, but rather the larger issue of lack of support from the Big Ten and its member schools hurting the overall public perception of OSU and the other member schools. Further, OSU's has done far more for the conference's brand than the conference for OSU. Delaney's tepid response to the CFP rankings are just the latest example.
That's just one aspect of it. Donations, recruits, public perception, etc. are all swayed by public support or the lack of it. OSU has carried the conference for nearly two decades. The conference should be willing to go to bat for OSU when needed. Right now they have not done that.
I would disagree that having a similar opinion constitutes "support" but even if we agree that it does constitute support, I'd say it's not enough. Delaney and the conference coaches and administrators should be out waving the Big Ten and by extension OSU flag all year long. Public perception matters when decision about the the CFP are made. The public perception was that Oklahoma was ahead of OSU. Public perception was that Georgia was ahead of OSU. The CFP rankings are just a manifestation of a larger problem. It matters with recruits, and beyond with donations, how attractive the Big Ten universities are as a whole as athletic universities and beyond. OSU gets very little support from the conference despite being the only thing keeping the conference from total football irrelevance.
From the original post:
**Please note, my point here is not to say that Ohio State should be in the playoff. I think the debate between Oklahoma and Ohio State this year is very difficult to solve. The point is that Ohio State appears to receive no support from the Big Ten as a conference, or from the individual programs/universities/administrations. It would be helpful if some of these other teams, schools, and administrators helped push Ohio State as a brand and the conference as a whole, because right now only Ohio State is doing anything to help the Big Ten.
So no, this was not about the CPB rankings.
This is completely irrelevant to the original post.
Again, this post was not so much about OSU not getting in the CFP, but rather the apparent lack of support OSU receives from the Big Ten conference and the rest of the coaches/administrators in the Big Ten. I have no problem with the CFP saying OU and OSU's resumes very close and in the end, OSU's big road loss was enough to separate them for us. Similarly, if the CFP would have said, "OSU and OU are very close and in the end OSU had two better wins than any on OU's schedule and that was enough to separate them" I could have agreed with that logic.
The point of the post was not to complain about the CFP, that's been done. It was to argue that Delaney and the rest of the Big Ten's lack of support hurts the national perception of OSU and the conference in general.
The ball was near midfield. There’s no guarantee of a win even with a first down. That’s why the two (!) timeout calls was such an egregious mistake by a coach who consistently blows big games. Beyond a terrible play call, calling timeout twice meant they had no chance to get the ball back if they didn’t pick up the first down. All around terrible game management by Franklin. Same as last year.
The point of the targeting rule is to 1) protect players and 2) rid the game of vicious, unnecessary tackling. The hope is that strict enforcement, players would be forced to learn new techniques and strategies when going in to tackles. I fail to see how a targeting call on Pryor last night does either 1 or 2. The NCAA cannot possibly expect Pryor not to try and make a tackle on that play. Additionally, Pryor did everything possible to avoid helmet-to-helmet or unnecessarily rough contact.
The larger point about targeting, at least with regard to OSU, is that it sure feels lie we are on the wrong end of the judgment in these decisions all the time. From the Haskins hit in the TCU game, to the call last night, to Bradley Roby against Iowa a few years ago, to Denzel Ward against Maryland, OSU seems to nearly always be on the wrong side of the most questionable targeting calls. This probably speaks to the larger point about how much more OSU gets penalized than their opponents, but that's another discussion.
Franklin is an embarrassment. He makes a fool of himself routinely and it was almost a guarantee he would over-coach his team. He was out-coached (again) and I couldn't imagine this idiot coaching my team. Penn State fans must feel very conflicted after last night's game. He's a good recruiter but one of the worst in-game coaches in the Big Ten, and has been for some time.
The hit on Haskins is exactly the type of play the targeting rule is meant to eliminate from the game. Haskins was already down, although this happens quickly in real time. At minimum he was on his way down to the ground when the TCU player hit the side of Haskins helmet with his facemask, helmet, shoulder, etc. The point of the targeting rule is to teach the defenders to not launch themselves at defenseless players. Haskins was, by definition, defenseless in that situation and the contact was clearly forcible. The defender needs to pull up in that situation, which there was plenty of time to do, to avoid helmet to helmet contact. Even if you don't like the rule, this is exactly the type of hit the NCAA and others are trying to eliminate from college football. It's too dangerous of a play.
He looked like a slightly above average Power 5 QB. He missed plenty of throws, was bailed out by his receivers multiple times, and had 3 bad turnovers (two resulting in defensive TDs). He seemed like a good athlete but his passing numbers were inflated because a huge RAC number because of the variety of screens they ran. The game plan for TCU looked very similar to what other teams (Oregon, Clemson, etc.) have tried to do us the past several years: quick passes/screens and up tempo. It appeared their pace wore them out as their run defense steadily worsened throughout the game.
I'm not sure "all of those red flags" aren't just the product of hindsight. First, none of the accusations of domestic violence have been proven to be true. Would it change your opinion of "all of those red flags" if, for the sake of argument, it was demonstrated that the accusations of domestic violence were demonstrably false? Second, the investigative committee's report makes clear that Zach's job performance suffered as a result of a messy and contentious divorce. I think we can all see why, in such a situation, Urban might have tried to offer help rather than outright firing the guy. As far as we can tell from the committee's report, this behavior ended with Urban's reprimand as they do not mention any further episodes beyond late 2015 and early 2016. It seems Urban's "discipline" worked in this instance. Perhaps Urban didn't include it in his review because he felt the problem was resolved? Third, Zach's referral to drug rehab was for a prescription stimulant used to treat ADHD. This is far different than referral for illicit drug or alcohol and one in which Meyer's actions could very reasonably be interpreted as compassionate rather than reckless. Fourth, Zach Smith was a good recruiter. He was good at a main part of his job, but was still the lowest paid assistant on staff. Fifth, the majority of work-related or performance issues were unknown to Meyer (e.g. OVI arrest, sexually explicit photos, sex toy deliveries, 12/2017 trespass warning, etc.). Sixth, the committee makes it clear both Urban and Shelley, who were present during these tumultuous times in Zach/Courtney's relationship, did not feel the claims of abuse were true. Seventh, Urban Meyer has a track record of being a consistent supporter of respect for women (does Storm Klein being kicked off the team ring a bell?). Of course he gets no credit for that, but don't you think the charges getting dropped in that case and the charges being dropped in the 2009 Zach Smith case might shape how he might have approached these situations going forward after 2012?
In the end, those who want to interpret Urban's behavior(s) will ill-motives, will do so regardless of evidence to the contrary. It's not that hard to imagine a scenario where Urban genuinely feels he did nothing wrong and was suspended for it and is getting raked over the coals. His reputation has been tarnished, and I'd argue inappropriately so, and I think it fairly obvious at this point his career at OSU just got a lot shorter.
Are Urban's personal text messages (for instance, between he and his wife) subject to "public record retention requirements"? What if he deletes an OSU email? Is he in violation of his "public record retention requirements"? Urban has every reason to have an expectation of privacy in his personal text messages, unless his device has been issued by the University. If his device is like the rest of us, and is a personal device on which he conducts some work-related functions (email, text, etc.) - even if he is reimbursed for the costs of use of the phone - , I think there are significant privacy concerns involved. Could you imagine the potential damage that could occur if Urban's (or any coach's text messages) were subject open public record review? Any personal comment he made with the reasonable expectation of privacy about another coach (either at OSU or another institution), a recruit or a recruit's family member, his boss, etc. could be reviewed. Heck, any public employee (read OSU employee) could then be subject to such review.
Although already noted in another comment, it appears multiple administrators within HR, Title IX compliance, etc (at least per Gene Smith's attorney). had been informed. Also, are we sure this language was in his 2015 contract? I know this language was included in the 2018 extension but hadn't seen confirmation this type of language about mandatory reporting to "compliance" was in his 2015 contract.
This is stupid. First, Deputy Title IX Coordinator for the Athletics Department, Michelle Willis, knew of the police investigation.
In October 2015, Miechelle Willis, then the Deputy Title IX Coordinator for the Athletics Department, received information from the Ohio State Campus Police about the Powell Police investigation; Willis immediately notified AD Smith, who in turn notified Coach Meyer during a football practice that Zach Smith was under investigation for domestic violence and could be arrested at any time.
Who was Meyer supposed to report to? Did Michelle Willis ever document this issue? Second, why then, aren't his assistants also being held to the same standard? Shouldn't they also be suspended?
No one thinks he's an angel. Perhaps there were private things he didn't want to become public? Conversations with his wife, conversations about other people, poor language or off-color jokes, etc. These are all perfectly reasonable things someone with an expectation of privacy might not want journalists who are actively targeting him personally and professionally to be able to review.
I worry that no matter the outcome of the committee's investigation, this will not be the end of this saga. Going after Urban sells. Going after OSU sells. "Truth" has become irrelevant. OSU/Urban could be shown to have done everything correctly and it will still not please the masses who want to see OSU and Urban go down.
This is exactly why an employer should not be expected to be involved in investigating situations such as these. As it turns out, and something I said initially, OSU most likely approached this appropriately and elected to let police/investigators sort out this messy home situation. But the damage from McMurphy's story is already done. If OSU doesn't fire urban, you will hear the cries that OSU, the OSU fans, Powell PD, etc. are all covering for a domestic abuser. This is why McMurphy's negligent reporting should be roundly criticized.
At the same time, when we write that Meyer lied to the media in Chicago, it's a statement of fact, acknowledged by Meyer and supported by the transcripts.
This is an editorial position. "Meyer lied to the media" is, by definition, not a statement of fact. It is your opinion ("editorial position") that what he said amounted to a lie (an intentionally false statement). It is my (and many other's) opinion that he did not lie, but rather chose to use a colloquial terminology ("It was nothing") to describe the 2015 non-incident.
I don't think your line of reasoning demonstrates Urban lied, nor does it demonstrate he admitted to lying.
Q. You said earlier that you were aware of the incident with Zach in 2009. Your inquiry into 2015 was unfounded. You couldn't find anything. Why fire Zach now if you had kept him on staff after 2009?
URBAN MEYER: ...2015, I got a text late last night something happened in 2015. And there was nothing. Once again, there's nothing -- once again, I don't know who creates a story like that.
And then this recent one was you press pause, it's something our team lives by, E + R = O, you press pause and get your mind right and step up, press pause and gather information, get your mind right, gather energy, and then step up to do the right thing. That's the position I hold. That's how we did that.
He states that he received a text the night prior about the 2015 incident. This was presumably in response to the article. He stated "And there was nothing. Once again, there's nothing." I take this to mean 2015 was a non-incident. As it seems is likely the case at this point, Courtney Smith made a police report regarding possible domestic violence against Zach Smith. Police were involved and determined a crime had not been committed (bearing in mind the low standard for arrest in DV cases in Ohio). The administration (including Gene and Urban) were aware, but because of the sealed/redacted nature of the report at the time could only ascertain that Courtney's claims were unsubstantiated and could not be verified. An analogy would be a person falling and scraping their knee and a bystander asking them, "Are you ok?" To which they reply, "I'm fine. It's nothing." They are not denying an injury has occurred when they say "It's nothing", but rather using a colloquialism to note the insignificance. In this analogy, is the person lying? I think we all agree we understand the use of colloquial wording here.
once again, I don't know who creates a story like that.
This is clearly a statement about the article/story itself. Here I see him saying what so many of us have been saying. McMurphy blew this 2015 "incident" up into something far greater than it turned out to be. In so doing, he "create[d] a story", as Urban put it.
In fact, Meyer handled these questions poorly and did seem to answer untruthfully when asked about the 2015 incidents. He acknowledged as much in his own statement.
That is not how I interpret what he said. I think it's clear here that Meyer is referring to his lax use of a colloquialism to describe the 2015 incident rather than admitting he was untruthful. This is wholly consistent with his statement that he wasn't as prepared as he should have been to take specific questions about the 2015 incident. See how much more informative his answer regarding the 2009 incident was. My impression is that the 2015 "incident" registered as a complete non-incident of unsubstantiated, unverifiable claims of abuse for Urban, Gene, OSU, and the Powell Police Department. That seems to be supported by the facts presented thus far. If what Courtney Smith and Zach Smith's mothers have said is to be believed (that she frequently contacted 9-1-1 to the point the police did not find her credible), this makes complete sense.
Wow. Amazing McMurphy didn’t even try to learn both sides of this story. Unfortunately for Urban and OSU, significant damage has already been done.
This is completely idiotic. Shelley intervening could have exposed her to potential harm ("he scares me"). She, as a private citizen, is in no way obligated to intervene in a domestic matter between two other adults. Did you ever think the answer to this question could be in texts that were somehow not released by McMurphy? It is possible that Courtney, the woman who had Zach's named redacted from an sealed the report from the 2015 incident, asked the wives not to tell Urban for fear what harm Zach losing his job could bring onto herself. We don't know yet.
What about the explanation that claims of physical domestic abuse in 2015 are overblown and/or exaggerated? I mean is it plausible that the reason that Urban referred to the 2015 incident as "nothing" is because it was, in fact, nothing? Of course that's plausible. Police were involved in this incident and determined there was no evidence a crime was committed such that no arrest was made nor were charges filed. The problem with this discussion is that most have taken the approach that we have to assume every aspect of Courtney's Smith story to be true, when we all know that is never the case, particularly in messy divorce situations. The question I have is why haven't the Powell Police had to answer any questions about their investigation into this incident, and or other calls/investigations into the Smiths. If it's true that Courtney "weaponized 9-1-1" as stated by Zach Smith's attorney, that should be easily verified by the Powell Police. That's a relevant issue. It would make the assumption that there was an easily identifiable "pattern of abuse" much less clear as it would cast doubt on Courtney's claims. If there wasn't some readily identifiable pattern of abuse, what more could be expected of Urban than to report the incidents to his higher ups (as he apparently did in both 2009 and 2015) and to fire the guy (as he did in 2018).
I don't think people are saying Zach Smith is innocent. Most of the replies I have seen are along the lines of "What did Urban or OSU do wrong in this case?" - or something thereabouts. The media is acting like this abuse was widespread, well accepted, and well known. That doesn't appear to be the case and at this point it's debatable whether domestic abuse even took place. It appears any police who investigated Courtney's claims did not feel they were credible enough to make arrests or press charges.