How Ohio State Athletics Flunked the Bar Exam
by Chadnudj on Mar 10, 2011 12:00 PM CST
in Ohio State
Email
Print
Mr. Tressel, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gee....I think you could use my services.
(Picture from "To Kill A Mockingbird")
At one point, this site called itself "The Rivalry, Esq." Now that may be a name no one would self-apply where you come from. But then there was a lot about The Rivalry, Esq. that didn't make a whole lot of sense. Anyways, The Rivalry Esq. is not the preferred nomenclature anymore. Off Tackle Empire, please.
At one point, however, this site prided itself on a volatile mix of Big Ten football analysis, pop culture references, and, yes, legal research. Given Ohio State's recent "situation," it only seemed appropriate to return to those roots, and show you (after the jump), exactly how much went wrong from a legal perspective in Columbus....
(And since this is a legally themed post, a disclaimer: this article is merely the opinion of its writer, and does not and should not be considered legal advice in any way. If you have legal questions, call an attorney in your state. If you just want to play airchair attorney in regards to Big Ten football, read on.)
- Christopher Cicero Could Potentially Be Sanctioned, Or Even Disbarred.
Let's begin our analysis with this saga's very own Deep Throat: Christopher Cicero. As reported here and here, Christopher Cicero is a former Ohio State walk-on linebacker who lettered at Ohio State in 1983 when Jim Tressel was an assistant at Ohio State under Earle Bruce. Cicero also happens to be the "anonymous lawyer" who blew the whistle to Tressel in emails in April 2010 that a federal drug trafficking investigation of tattoo parlor owner Eddie Rife had revealed that players had sold or traded Ohio State memorabilia to Rife and others for cash or free tattoo inking.
Now, ignore for a moment Cicero's allegedly checkered ethical past as a lawyer. Was it ethical, legal, or proper for him to email Tressel about the players?
Looking at the emails there may be some potentially serious violations of legal ethical standards (yes, believe it or not, lawyers have ethical standards). In the first email, Cicero claims that "a lot of my friends are in law enforcement," and implies that such "friends" are the source of his information regarding the Ohio State players. If Cicero is receiving leaks from federal law enforcement about an active case -- or worse, has information regarding a grand jury investigation (and to be clear, there is no indication that's the case here) -- those law enforcement agents and/or Cicero might be committing a crime by revealing the facts of their investigation to a third party.
But in the second, April 16, 2010 email, it's clear that is not the case -- Cicero says "I had Eddie Rife in my office for an hour and a half last night" followed by the now-infamous "What I tell you is confidential." And then Cicero proceeded to tell Tressel preciselywhat Eddie Rife told him about the players, the merchandise, and the sales/tattoo trades. The implication?
Eddie Rife was Christopher Cicero's client. And Cicero was revealing privileged attorney-client communications in violation of his ethical and legal duties by speaking to Tressel.
Think I'm crazy? Check email #3 from April 16, 2010 at 2:24 pm -- Cicero states that Rife "is in really big trouble. The federal government has told him that his best offer is to take 10 years in prison. He wanted my opinion yesterday on his situation" (emphasis added). So Rife went to Cicero, an attorney, provided Cicero with information about his case, and wanted his legal opinion on the situation. Can there be a more cut-and-dry attorney-client relationship scenario?
Under Ohio Ethical Rule 1.6, "A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client, including information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, unless the client gives informed consent." Unless Rife gave Cicero informed consent to talk to Tressel, Cicero has violated this ethical rule. Cut and dry.
There are, however, exceptions that may apply, that Cicero could claim permitted him to talk to Tressel, but they don't seem to hold water. Rule 1.6 allows attorneys to reveal client-confidential information "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm" (inapplicable here), or "to prevent the commission of a crime by the client or other person" (while NCAA violations are serious, they are not "crimes" in the sense embodied by the rules). In other words, Cicero may be a whole lot of trouble for giving Coach Tressel a "heads-up" on the situation.
- Jim Tressel Does Not Understand The Basics of The Attorney-Client Communications Privilege.
(That single-handedly wins the award for "least-likely sentence I thought I'd ever write as an Off Tackle Empire blogger.")
Say I came up to you and said: "Hi, I'm an attorney for B1G Bank. My client has been laundering money for the mafia and we're about to be indicted. We looked at our records and realized your parents were late on a mortgage payment last month. Since we need money for our upcoming legal defense, the bank is going to foreclose on your parents' house and sell it for cash. But shhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell them! It's confidential!"
Under what scenario would you actually consider that confidential?
Answer: it isn't confidential -- of COURSE you can tell your parents their house will be foreclosed (or, in Tressel's case, tell his athletic department's compliance officials that players were violating NCAA rules). The attorney-client communications privilege requires (a) a client (or potential client), (b) an attorney, and (c) communications between them either seeking legal advice or providing legal advice. And only the attorney is required to keep those communications confidential -- clients control the "privilege" and can choose to waive it (intentionally or inadvertently) by talking about otherwise privileged communications with third-parties (and boy do lawyers hate when clients do this).
Here, (1) Tressel was not Cicero's client; (2) Tressel was not seeking legal advice from Cicero; and (3) Cicero was not providing legal advice to Tressel. There was no "confidentiality," at least in a legal sense, that Tressel had to respect -- he was perfectly free to bring this to Gene Smith, Gordon Gee, or any of Ohio State's lawyers. And even if there was any "confidentiality," Tressel would be the only one free to break it -- only Cicero in this whole scenario seems to be violating the attorney-client communications privilege (and only then violating it in regards to his communications with Rife).
Boom, Jim Tressel. Lawyered.
- Ohio State's Compliance Officials And Lawyers Do Not Know The First Thing About Litigation Discovery....Or Were Complicit In Trying To Cover Up Tressel's Knowledge of The Potential Violations.
Lesson #1 for all of you from an attorney: emails never die. They never disappear. They never go away. Don't write ANYTHING in an email that you wouldn't be fine seeing in a deposition in 10 years.
Why does that apply to the Ohio State case? Because it appears that Ohio State's compliance officials or attorneys never uncovered these emails when the initial investigation regarding the players occurred in December. And that is a huge problem.
How is that even possible? The first thing I would do, as a lawyer, after learning about the violations and the players' alleged connection to Eddie Rife (and knowing that the NCAA would be asking "Did you know about this? When did you know about this?") would be to search all of the emails of the football coaches and athletic department for the name Eddie Rife. Or for "tattoos." Or for "selling merchandise." That's basic due diligence and litigation discovery 101.
A search of Jim Tressel's email for "Rife" would have easily turned up Rife's name in these April emails. So was such a search ever done?
If not, then Ohio State's compliance officials and attorneys are failing the institution -- it's their job to seek out the truth (however ugly) for their client, and then once they know the truth, defend Ohio State to the best of their ability. If they never searched the emails, they failed their client.
On the other hand, if they searched the emails (and it seems astonishing that they didn't -- an NCAA investigation is a pretty big deal), they would (with almost 100% certainty) have found this information. And yet, when the NCAA came calling, and asked if anyone at Ohio State knew of the merchandise sales/tattoo trades, Ohio State said nothing.
And that, my friends, would constitute a conspiracy or cover-up, involving Tressel and Ohio State's attorneys. In this one case, for Ohio State's sake and the sake of the Big Ten, I really hope the lawyers messed up, because the alternative dangerously approaches "lack of institutional control."
124 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My favorite part
is that the sketchy attorney’s name is Cicero.
Does his surname come from the famed Roman orator, politician and lawyer>
Does it come from the town next to Chicago, famed for it rather, ahem, underhanded dealings?
Or is it simply the perfect combination of both?
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Patrick Vint
http://www.offtackleempire.com
Glad someone broke it down in this fashion.
And as I mentioned at Slow States, my boss used to constantly remind us “emails are forever”. Even when you delete them. Even when you triple delete them.
--
A T-bone steak, cheese, eggs, and Welch's grape.
@scrappled
Slow States - Football, music, craft beer, and podcasts with an industrial slant.
by Run Up The Score on Mar 10, 2011 12:27 PM CST reply actions
RE: Discovery
Since Tressel initially stated yes when asked if he had forwarded on the email(s) and then was cut off from speaking further, speaks volumes that others within the program/University knew. This isn’t going gently into the night.
I think that's the biggest story.
I just find it impossible to imagine that no one at Ohio State compliance/counsel’s office saw these emails in December, if not earlier. They almost had to see them if they were doing their job in December, right? A simple Outlook search for “Rife” would have turned all these emails up. And such a search should have been done in December….
If Ohio State lawyers saw this email, and Tressel or Ohio State officials still testified in December to the NCAA that they did not have prior knowledge of these violations, that’s a huge problem. Enormous. Potentially program-threatening.
If you can’t trust the compliance people/lawyers to follow the law, who can you trust?
Quite frankly I find it
Implausible and even impossible to believe that Tressel did not immediately forward the email, or call the compliance office. When you’re at the top, you’re always a target, and cover your bases HAS to be a mantra. I find it impossible to believe that a coach with his experience and less than squeaky clean reputation would sit on this.
Right.
The coach at a school that self-reported hundreds of secondary violations just decided to sit on this one. Beyond implausible.
--
A T-bone steak, cheese, eggs, and Welch's grape.
@scrappled
Slow States - Football, music, craft beer, and podcasts with an industrial slant.
by Run Up The Score on Mar 10, 2011 12:47 PM CST up reply actions
INCONCEIVABLE!
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 10, 2011 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
That's funny!
But seriously it is just unbelievable that a long time coach would not forward this up the chain. The email on April 02 is completely shocking. Having a few days to digest this, I think the NCAA will find 5 major violations, against Tressel, and probably a few against the school (speculation). One count of not reporting a violation, two counts of lying to the NCAA, one count of failure to maintain compliance, one count of lack of institutional control.
There's the rub
IF Tressel did forward the email, then there is a conspiracy to keep this information buried. IF he didn’t, however, then he was deliberately keeping it quiet and not following through on his obligations under NCAA rules. Either way, this is getting worse and worse for OSU, and someone is going to have to fall on their sword.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Is it really the rub?
I mean, given what you’ve stated and what is available, I don’t see how you come to any other conclusion then what you’ve (and some others cough cough) stated.
As of right now
I just don’t think we can state with any certainty that Tressel informed others/forwarded the email on (until recently that is). If that’s the case, Tressel will be alone in facing the firing squad; but if he did inform others, well then he’ll have company facing the guns.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
It's a rock and a hard place...
If Tressel told them and they did nothing, the OSU compliance/athletic department looks complicit in a cover-up.
And if Tressel didn’t forward it along, but the lawyers never found the email in preparing in December for the NCAA investigation, the lawyers/compliance office is incompetent/negligent in their duties.
So are OSU’s lawyers complicit in a cover-up, or negligent/incompetent at their job?
(At least, that’s the breakdown as I see it. Your conclusions may vary…)
No, I agree with your assesment
I guess if I were OSU right now, I would hope it’s the case that the OSU lawyers were incompetent. Always better to plead stupidity rather than complicity.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Since the NCAA is about eligibility, how could (even) OSU lawyering fail to understand what they're supposed to do.
Sorry, no lawyer is that bad.
We play tackle football, most of the time.
Exactly. We're in a Nixonian delusional self-destructive cul-de-sac.
Makes no sense. These guys can roll over in the morning and have the best talent in the big ten.
We play tackle football, most of the time.
They failed the MPRE, not the bar exam
Which is the only thing I’m guessing I’ll have in common with OSU when I get my scores back in 5 weeks.
no way
I learned when not to sleep with clients. That’s important stuff.
Off Tackle Empire
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Graham Filler on Mar 10, 2011 12:42 PM CST up reply actions
Yes, you should sleep with judges like Cicero.
--
A T-bone steak, cheese, eggs, and Welch's grape.
@scrappled
Slow States - Football, music, craft beer, and podcasts with an industrial slant.
by Run Up The Score on Mar 10, 2011 12:46 PM CST up reply actions
But how else are they supposed to work off their bills?
My clients already say it feels like they’re getting rogered when they see our bills, why not make that literally true.
Also, don’t commingle funds, that was the other extremely important take away from the MPRE.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
But I like comingling my funds
It just makes keeping a budget so much easier…
Off Tackle Empire - Ruling on the Big Ten since 2008.
A friend of mine came up with this equation for the MPRE
“WWJD – 1”: What Would Jesus Do? Minus one. Basically, take whichever answer is the most squeaky-clean, proactive answer to being ethical and eliminate it. Then pick the next most ethical choice, more often than not that’s the correct answer.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Bravo.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
A small argument for Tressell
I know, as an attorney, that the email he received was not confidential (for Tressell) under any circumstances that I’m aware of.
BUT that being said…
The email appeared to contain what looked like Confidential information, either the Government’s information, or the attorney’s confidential information. I know that I would be hesitant to share it just on its face. As you say, Cicero could get disbarred for sharing it. That’s obviously not Tressell’s issue, but it looks like Tressell’s is being told something that he shouldn’t be told. So I can kind of understand his desire not to say anything about it.
BUT…that’s just an initial impression, and really, he MUST have known that he could have asked some in-house person at OSU what he should do, if anything, with the information. Not doing anything for months seems to substantially undermine the reasonableness of his actions.
I agree.
I totally understand if Tressel had questions regarding whether he could act on any of this, given the federal investigation, etc.
But that’s precisely why you have your own attorneys — to answer your questions. Tressel not going to them to at least ask “hey, how do I handle this if the drug investigation is still secret/confidential?” is the problem, at least so far as I see it. Once he reports it up, if they gave him bad advice….well, that’s on them (even though Tressel and/or his team might get punished for it).
That’s where the bigger risk is here — what if this is a sign OSU’s compliance officials/attorneys weren’t doing their job? Did Tressel forward it on, only to have the attorneys ignore it or waive it under the rug? And it would appear (again, through inference — no solid proof here) that they either (a) didn’t search emails when responding to the NCAA in December, or (b) did search emails, saw this one, and then willfully ignored it. Choice (A) indicates sloppiness. Choice (B) indicates cover-up, conspiracy, and a lack of institutional control.
I’m willing to give OSU some benefit of the doubt here because, as Run Up the Score mentions, OSU has traditionally been very forthcoming in reporting secondary violations, indicating that the compliance office in normally on top of things. But there are questions that need answering….
Questions:
Based on the email dated April 02:
I totally understand if Tressel had questions regarding whether he could act on any of this, given the federal investigation, etc.
How do you come to the conclusion that ‘given the federal investigation’ he would have questions on whether he could act? I don’t see anything in the email that implies that the players are part of a federal investigation, only that player(s) memorabilia was seized during a federal investigation into Rife. Even if you could reasonably draw that conclusion, what would not stop Tressel from contacting the University’s attorneys since they would be held under privilege?
That’s where the bigger risk is here — what if this is a sign OSU’s compliance officials/attorneys weren’t doing their job? Did Tressel forward it on, only to have the attorneys ignore it or waive it under the rug? And it would appear (again, through inference — no solid proof here) that they either (a) didn’t search emails when responding to the NCAA in December, or (b) did search emails, saw this one, and then willfully ignored it. Choice (A) indicates sloppiness. Choice (B) indicates cover-up, conspiracy, and a lack of institutional control.
I don’t think this would remove Tressel’s culpability. I can’t imagine that a coach as knowledgeable as he would go ‘oh well, I pushed it up the chain’ and leave it at that.
I’m willing to give OSU some benefit of the doubt
I still am too. On what’s available I see this as very bad and the NCAA is going to bring down a very heavy hammer. But, what we don’t know, are there other emails? Has everything been disclosed? (I doubt it) The NCAA’s investigations is going to be interesting and probably the talk of the town for months.
Good points....
On the first one, I guess I’m willing to give non-lawyers (like Tressel) a bit of a break — it’s obvious that he should have done something, but I could at least see why he arguably might hesitate when told this was confidential, and part of an ongoing investigation (although, as you point out, the “confidential” request didn’t come in the first email…it came 14 days later). Not forgiving Tressel (he has attorneys who he could go to for counsel), just saying it’s not without precedent.
As for reporting it up removing Tressel’s culpability, if he did report it up, and his lawyers/compliance people said “Coach, there’s nothing to worry about here, carry on” — well, what exactly was he supposed to do? You have lawyers and compliance officials precisely so that you can follow their instructions when situations arise. If they told Tressel to do nothing (and, keep in mind, we’re deeply in hypothetical world here), it is there fault, not his, that disclosures weren’t made earlier. Now does he still probably get punished if that’s the case? Yes, probably so. But Tressel would be less culpable, in my mind, and due a correspondingly lesser punishment (like, say, 2 games and $250k when his players got 5 games, or when Dez Bryant lost a season for lying to the NCAA?….just saying.)
Probably fair
I guess I’m willing to give non-lawyers (like Tressel) a bit of a break
Except, I’m not an attorney nor did I attend law school. However, I am a member of the Federalist Society. I subscribe to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. And I read slip opinions from the SCOTUS on a regular basis. So maybe I’m an informed hobbyist.
Maybe you’re right on the second point. I guess I’m assuming that Tressel considered the source to be credible considering his response via email. And in my mind, even if you pushed it up the chain yet saw nothing happening you’re still culpable; I would have still been very concerned.
All in all, good points. I love having conversations like this.
There is one other option regarding the lawyers, not that it actually happened mind you, but it could be an explanation.
Tressel could have received the first email, knowing the info was from Cicero, an attorney he has known for awhile (good or bad). Instead of taking it to the AD or OSU’s lawyers, he took it to his own personal attorney. He explains the situation to his attorney, who infers that the info is from an ongoing investigation and (wrongly) tells Tressel to leave it alone until the feds finish up.
When he receives the second email, sees the word confidential, this just reinforces the bad info from his attorney and he just keeps the original stance of silence.
This obviously doesn’t absolve him from the December investigation where he should have come clean. Does it absolve him of the September letter? Maybe if he still thought the investigation was still going on. But most likely not since that signed letter is really not truthful.
Keep in mind Cicero may or may not have given him faulty info in years past as well. But you’ll have to discuss that with others more familiar with the Columbus side (I live on the West Coast).
That might hold water
if Tressel were just some “Joe Six Pack” who doesn’t know what to do with this type of stuff. But he’s a Division I-A college football coach at one of the largest universities in the country. He knows that he has an entire legal staff AND compliance staff at his disposal. Further, he KNOWS that the NCAA requires coaches to be proactive about violations, imposing a duty beyond that of the every day person. When something suspicioius and credible comes across his desk, Tressel knows he has an obligation to inform the proper authorities. He doesn’t get off the hook because he claims he didn’t know, the standard he’s held to is whether he should have known.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
I think it's pretty clear
that at absolute best, Tressel knowingly failed to disclose/pass along information to the proper authorities at OSU. That means only one person is to blame, not that a significant portion of the athletic department was in on a cover-up.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Hoya: With respect, you are not seeing what is in front of your eyes. For getting "off the hook," the only thing needed is fig leaves.
The players themselves and tOSU came up with barely plausible “excuses” for the underlying transactions and still got to play in the Sugar Bowl. Appropriate acts and attitudes of contrition will be sufficient IMHO.
by WarBuck46410 on Mar 10, 2011 4:52 PM CST up reply actions
Again, as I said below
the eligibility decision for the bowl game was done by an entirely different adjudicative body within the NCAA. The reinstatement committee actually only considers evidence presented to them by the school itself and no outside information.
So actually, if they withheld information from the reinstatement committee, that will be another strike against them before the Committee on Infractions.
No way.
This is not how a person functions as an executive in a large organization. No way. Tressel is not that stupid. Your average grade school principal is not that stupid.
We play tackle football, most of the time.
Well, once they get tenure
all bets are off…
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 10, 2011 1:53 PM CST up reply actions
Or...
…is it a How I Met Your Mother reference? Or a combination of both? The world may never know.
Legen...wait for it...DARY.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 10, 2011 2:12 PM CST up reply actions
LegenDAIRY.
/Wisconsin’d
"Carrie, I can't go in there, I'm claustrophobic."
"Well, It's gonna' be a rough half hour for ya then."
-Doug Heffernan coming to grips with the cold reality of an MRI machine
Probably a mistake to assume logical reasoning by the NCAA,
but Tressel stated in a Feb 2011 interview that he knew that it was “inevitable” that the five players would be suspended by the NCAA. This should matter a lot to the NCAA.
Sure he can walk that back. He can say that whatever he said was taken out of context. But assuming for a moment that he meant what he said, he admitted in that interview that he knowingly put ineligible players on the field. Really, is there anything worse, from a compliance perspective, than rolling dudes out onto the field who are (from your perspective) plainly ineligible? Playing eligible athletes is really the objective function of the whole apparatus.
It’s a little more ambiguous than the following but not much: Coach receives email from former player. Email says, “Five of your best are taking $500 a week from the XYZ Construction Company for no-show jobs.” Coach replies with a quick “gee whilickers!” and drops the matter. I don’t think so. Not this coach.
I’m mystified at the idiocy here, and Tressel is not an idiot. There must be more information forthcoming. If this were a corporation I would go sniffing for someone in the hierarchy, not Tressel, who told Tressel not to worry about it.
We play tackle football, most of the time.
When you say
I’m mystified at the idiocy here, and Tressel is not an idiot.
I couldn’t agree more. If he didn’t forward the info to someone in the compliance department as soon as he read this, he’s a dope.
Like you said, Tressel isn’t a dope. So now the question begs, if he DID forward it, and the compliance office did nothing…holy crap. And shame on Tressel for not following up with the compliance office and stay on their ass about it until he got an answer that would be satisfactory in regards to the eligibility of the players involved.
Either way, OSU is going to have to swallow some bad medicine on this.
Ridiculously good rundown, Chad. Best I’ve seen on this yet.
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
it's a buffet
of really bad things
lying to NCAA? check
twice? check
playing ineligible players? check
failing to report violations up the chain? check
really, you’ve got options when you want to figure out what’s the worst of the lot
Pshhh,
Beat Michigan? Check
Big Ten Title? Check
Won Sugar Bowl? Check
FUCK DA HATAZ
"Carrie, I can't go in there, I'm claustrophobic."
"Well, It's gonna' be a rough half hour for ya then."
-Doug Heffernan coming to grips with the cold reality of an MRI machine
by Jon Ross on Mar 10, 2011 11:06 PM CST up reply actions 5 recs
Change that Big Ten Title to SHARED Big Ten Title
and it’s perfect.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 11, 2011 9:44 AM CST up reply actions
Ohio State doesn't share the Big Ten title with anyone
Other teams share the title with Ohio State
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
John Clay disagrees.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 11, 2011 9:51 AM CST up reply actions
Tamba Hali disagrees.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 11, 2011 9:52 AM CST up reply actions
And, I can't emphasize this enough, Terrelle Pryor disagrees.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 11, 2011 9:53 AM CST up reply actions
Thanks for making my point
The only constant in those pics was OSU winning the Big Ten and another team getting to share it, heh heh
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
by Ted Glover on Mar 11, 2011 10:01 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
And that's a rec.
"Carrie, I can't go in there, I'm claustrophobic."
"Well, It's gonna' be a rough half hour for ya then."
-Doug Heffernan coming to grips with the cold reality of an MRI machine
good intentions, bad news
I feel very sorry for an enthusiastic guy who was trying to help tOSU, and may have contributed to a chain of events that will hurt very much. However, it does seem as if there is a serious breach of confidentiality.
On a related subject, I’m still wondering why Mr. Tressel needed “collateral,” if you know what I mean. Was he lending players money? Or did he just mean he wanted leverage over the players?
I don’t feel sorry for him. What a goddamned idiot. He deserves everything he gets.
by Erik T on Mar 10, 2011 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 5 recs
He's a hack lawyer from all reports
"I shoot, I score. He shoots, I score." - Dan Gable
by ClaybornSmash on Mar 10, 2011 3:35 PM CST up reply actions
yep, agree with Erik T. Dumbass alleged tOSU fan should be tarred and feathered.
that’s a face-to-face conversation, not something for emailing.
by WarBuck46410 on Mar 10, 2011 4:43 PM CST up reply actions
That lawyer needs to be disbarred
for breaching attorney client privilege. Don’t know if you can be disbarred for that, but he’s a freakin’ idiot.
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
C.R.E.A.M.
In the grand scheme of things, does the cash flow into OSU change despite what happens – barring single-shot directed NCAA fines? If I’m Gee and thinking with my wallet, I don’t think being right or wrong matters to tOSU besides some fodder for sports fans.
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
You know, I really disagree here
I think Gee and Gene Smith care a lot about how the school runs their athletic programs, and that they run clean and ethical sports programs. Under Gene Smith, the OSU athletic department is VERY proactive in making sure their programs run the straight and narrow, and if they find something, they self report and don’t try and sweep it under the rug.
This case is no different, as they were preparing to self report this on Friday, but had to get out in front of it when it leaked a couple days ago.
If you run a bunch of dirty programs, it’s going to catch up with you eventually. Once it does, the recruits quit coming to your school, the losses outpace the wins, and revenue goes down due to a drop in interest.
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
I've always thought there was something suspicious about a huge compliance department
Like they have a bunch of experts who can find the loopholes in the system and the areas where transgressions are unlikely to be caught and exploit them. Then do all the bureaucratic stuff PERFECTLY to put a good face on their efforts of compliance.
We’re always the first ones to submit our reports! We self-report tons of inconsequential violations as soon as we know about them! No reason to go downstairs and check out what’s happening in the basement, look how clean our house is!
Well, fair point, but
I think OSU’s athletic department is the largest in the country, or maybe second behind Texas. Seems like this is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation in some respects. If they have a large compliance department, they have people with too much time on their hands looking for ways to get around the rules and ‘beat’ the system, and the internal investigations are good enough. Move along, nothing to see here.
If their compliance department is too small, they don’t have enough people to make sure that everyone is on the straight and narrow, and programs can get away with murder. Then there is the dreaded ‘lack of institutional control’ that we find in the typical SEC school, or USC.
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
Case in point - the ESSS EEEE CEEE
Our friends to the south seem to run a perpetual cycle of shady deal —> great success —> NCAA sanctions —> down years —> shady deal, and they’re doing alright. A debate could definitely be waged over short-term, massive gains (SEC) vs. long term growth (B1G).
What’s also convenient is this information came out after the regular season and after the bowl selection contracts were signed. I imagine the bowl organizers would have had better trip through hell than to try to find an OSU substitute after they signed the bowl agreement, essentially locking OSU in place. Obviously the bowl organizers got their payback from OSU and their fan base + ticket sales + merch + ads + TV moneys, but had this information come out in October or November, I think the bowl scene would have changed, especially had the NCAA banned the five players from playing.
My point is what changes in the OSU Athletic Department unless the NCAA shoots at a post-season ban? Yeah, fine, they report findings, but this is quite a bit bigger deal than a player getting a free oil change on his scooter, and the information at this point points to a systemic problem.
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
General Lee furled his
just sayin’
:)
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
by Ted Glover on Mar 10, 2011 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 6 recs
Give this entry...
…a greenish tinge.
+ the 13th thru 15th amendments for this insightful remark.
If I’m a supporter of OSU and was able to speak without foaming at the mouth because I would be so mad at him right now, so that speaking w/o foaming is even harder now. I would probably be stunned to the point of repeating over and over, “What could you have been thinking?” So he was worried about his players? Is that a reason to risk the entire program? Now he’s got 110 others to worry about. He wasn’t just wrong here. He was egregiously wrong, even egregiously wrong with special circumstances. And I find it a little hard to swallow the idea that he reported it and the compliance office dropped the ball. No way. If it was true, that’s a better excuse than the coach was confused about what to do. At least in my book. Well, maybe not for the University, but it take a lot of heat off Tressel. But maybe that’s the point. If they can contain the spill to just the coach, it will go easier on them. Boy, I’ve come full circle in just a few sentences. I should run for Congress.
Ted—I don’t understand why they needed to move the press conference up. Hurrying to set up a poorly delivered pressco seems more damaging than the report by Yahoo. I wouldn’t say the press conference made them look guitly because that would be simple minded, it is suspicious, very suspicious. Why not stick to your planned schedule, Yahoo be damned. They seemed totally unprepared and looked like they didn’t believe what they were saying. When you look prepared and unflappable, you are more likely to convince people of your side. They appeared unprepared and very “flapped”.
by PreachinTotheChoir on Mar 10, 2011 3:10 PM CST reply actions
Well, I agree that the presser execution was bad
Good idea to hold one as soon as the story broke to try and get out in front of the story, but I think it’s safe to say that it didn’t go like they had hoped. I think it actually made it worse in some respects.
I was expecting Tressel to say “I really screwed up here, I have let the University and the team down, and I will accept whatever punishment is given.” And then shut up. But no, let’s throw the ‘fed drug trafficking investigation’ phrase out in the first sentence, act defiant, and then tapdance for five minutes?
I expected Smith and Gee to say “Jim’s going to remain our coach, he’s a good man, but he made a serious mistake and this behavior is unacceptable for anyone at Ohio State, especially as someone as high profile as our head football coach.” Not a big fan of the verbal fellatio that both Gee and Smith gave Tressel. There’s a time and place to talk about all the great things Jim Tressel has done for OSU and the community—and overall he has been a great ambassador for the University—and to reflect on their personal fondness of him and their friendships—but that wasn’t the time or place.
Yeah, the execution of that was as painful to watch as one of Charlie Sheen’s webcasts.
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
As an Iowa fan
I know all too well the damage that can be done by holding a press conference too soon after a story breaks that is poorly executed and doesn’t answer any of the questions raised.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
From Jim Tressel’s Official Statement (written): “I am sorry and disappointed this happened. At the time the situation occurred, I thought I was doing the right thing. I understand my responsibility to represent Ohio State and the game of football. I apologize to any and all of the people I have let down. I will grow from this experience.”
is that the apology called for by the OSU sanctions? I guess I assumed something more was coming.
by WarBuck46410 on Mar 10, 2011 4:45 PM CST up reply actions
Still needed to do it at the press conference
Why have it otherwise?
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
Ah yea, forgot about that one.
But I agree with Ted. How do you go through the presser w/o saying “I’m sorry”?
Because it was on the official statement handed out to the press in attendance at the presser? Who knows.
I'm sorry
we had to defend ourselves against an unwarranted attack. I’m sorry that your crew was stupid enough to fire on a station filled with a quarter million civilians, including your own people. And I’m sorry I waited as long as I did before I blew them all straight to Hell!
/Captain John Sheridan’d
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 10, 2011 5:54 PM CST up reply actions
the verbal fellatio could have been
related to what JT did with the emails (“There’s not intent here.” – Smith). We’ll have to wait for the NCAA report for that part of the story.
But as a whole the presser was disgusting.
In this case, and in all cases, everything depends on the Judge
very well put together legal arguments, but as any practicing, in-the-trenches lawyer will acknowledge, in every case, it depends on the Judge and the lawyers. Please no naivety about how Justice is blind. The blindfold is see-through.
Here I think the “judges” are already inclined towards leniency and the “lawyers” are among the biggest, most-connected in “town.”
The “judge” here is the NCAA and the “lawyers” are tOSU and the B1GTen. tOSU has already said they are not firing Tressel. tOSU and the B1GTen are going to fight for Tressel. This is not a situation where the target of the investigation is being thrown to the wolves. That’s very important. It also triggers support from the huge OSU fan base. A few calls here, a few emails there, a golf game or two, some lunches and a dinner party and now the “judge” is even less inclined to harsh punishment.
And the “lawyers” here are among the most influential members of the community; they know everyone, they know where all the bodies are buried and they have a big institutional “friend” in the B1GTen.
AND, the “lawyers” know how to put on the proper act of contrition (in contrast to the folks at So. Cal.)
I’m talking fig leaves here, ladies and gentlemen. Any size will do, as long as it is there.
So my prediction: more symbolic wrist slapping/self-flagellation and an increase to 5 game suspension. (As an aside, what the “judge” does with Bruce Pearl will give us some guidance as to what to expect.)
A few other thoughts:
First: Cam Newton and Auburn. Unless and until Auburn is punished, nothing really bad happens to tOSU. USC’s bad luck was to get a decision prior to the Newton/Auburn fiasco. No way what Tressel did was as bad as what Auburn and Cecil Newton did.
Second: I think that player-related cases are not good precedent. What the “judge” is doing with coaches is entirely different than what the “judge” is doing with players. So no need to talk about Dez Bryant.
Looking at coach-related decisions by our “judge”: all of those involve suspending the coach for X-number of games (e.g., Calhoun, Izzo).
Third: intentionally or unintentionally, i think the timing was perfect for tOSU. So far, this has been a two day story and it’s very quickly dropping way under the waves as March Madness begins. Don’t worry about the 20 second “discussions” during the OSU BBall game intros and half-times. Those are mostly irrelevant. pay most attention to the fact that no one is writing long stories anymore and the “story” disappears from local tv and newspapers where most CFB fans get their information. (We obsessive denizens of every CFB blog are a small minority of CFB fandom.) Barring more revelations, the story resurfaces again when FBall season starts and again when the “judge” makes a decision. otherwise, the story is already old. Bottom line: JT is sorry, it won’t happen again.
I’m not happy, but I am not particularly worried.
Maybe it is irrelevant...
…but player punishments, in my mind, should generally be less than what a coach receives for the same conduct/violation.
A player is involved with the NCAA for, at most, 5-6 years (and that’s assuming a redshirt and an injury-redshirt year granted by the NCAA). Sure, they should know the rules and follow them and be punished when they break them.
But not to the same extent as coaches, whose multi-decade careers are made in the NCAA. Dez Bryant, I can somewhat excuse (a bit) for not being forthcoming to the NCAA — he’s a kid, he was scared, he might not have known better. Punish him.
But if Dez Bryant gets a year, how can Tressel get less than a year for substantially similar conduct (not being truthful/forthcoming to the NCAA, either in April when he received the tip or in December when they asked if he had heard about it)? I mean, Tressel has, or definitely should have, much more knowledge of NCAA rules and compliance requirements. How can he be suspended for 2 games (or even 5 games), while Dez Bryant got a full 12 game season-long suspension?
Say what you will about the cronyism of the NCAA “judge” and OSU “lawyers” in this case, but that seem unjust to me.
re: player punishment and cronyism
agree with you re: players. players should be punished LESS; but it’s absolutely clear that the NCAA punishes players more harshly than coaches. If I understand correctly, part of the reason is that two different branches/divisions within the NCAA handle the different situations.
as for cronyism: the “old boy’s network” is not quite so harsh as it sounds; it’s mostly about greasing and gathering information; while golfing with a certain Judge, I learn he/she is particularly persuaded by certain types of experts or documents; so now I make sure those are the experts/documents that I choose for my case.
is it unjust? That’s a big book-long topic. I’ll answer with a question: Is it “just” that five dumb-a** 18-19 year-old freshmen players did something stupid and tarnished two CFB seasons and now are tarnishing the reputation of a great coach and good man? Yes, I know, Tressel made his choices and now has to live with them. But still …
I wonder if he has any second thoughts about recruiting Pryor?
by WarBuck46410 on Mar 10, 2011 5:09 PM CST up reply actions
With respect, I think you've got it wrong
Old boy’s networks might have a little more influence over what is investigated and when. But when something comes up before the Committee on Infractions (which is made of full-time employees of several different universities, including law professors, athletic directors, conference commissioners and some lawyers), I don’t greased palms reign supreme.
If it makes it to the Committee on Infractions and there is a hearing, they are going to crush any failure to comply. If we were talking about the reinstatement committee, I think I’d agree with you a little more (that’s who usually rules on more short-term eligibility decisions, like with the Tattoo 5). The Committee on Infractions is much more severe.
So it's cool to deliberately play ineligible athletes, because Delaney will play the turnabout game with the NCAA?
We play tackle football, most of the time.
unfair and false characterization
Tressel did not “deliberately play ineligible athletes.” That is false. At worst, he deliberately chose to ignore the possibility that they were ineligible; at best, he believed he could not pass along the confidential information concerning a federal criminal investigation.
by WarBuck46410 on Mar 10, 2011 5:18 PM CST up reply actions
But here is where the NCAA rules are tricky...
…as seen in the Cam Newton affair. Whether or not Tressel “deliberately played ineligible athletes” or “ignored the possibility they were ineligible” does not matter — if you play a player who is ineligible (regardless of your knowledge), you expose your program to sanction/forfeiting of games/penalties (with the penalty getting worse if you knew or should have known they were ineligible). Chizik and Auburn (and hold for a moment your disbelief regarding what they knew) would have been exposed to sanctions if the NCAA ended up concluding that Newton had been ineligible, regardless of what Chizik and Auburn knew.
That's not what Tressel said. On February 8, 2011
he said that he knew that it was “inevitable” that the subject players would be deemed ineligible. Amazingly, he was right.
So I guess you need to inform your coach that he is making “unfair and false characterizations” against himself, and rewrite your reflexive defense. Probably, the best way to defend him is to say that someone else in the administration told him not to follow NCAA rules in this instance: the “mistakes were made” defense. In no event did he think that the players were eligible. How do we know? Again, he said so himself.
I’m not going to go into the absurdity of saying that a freely offered email discussion of criminal behavior, by a private citizen, was somehow not to be revealed to his organization because of confidentiality restrictions. Emailed tips from lawyer Cicero are confidential? I don’t think so.
We play tackle football, most of the time.
A question then. If he knew they wer going to get suspensions, why wouldn’t he have divulged it that spring/summer so they would basically miss the non-conference games instead of league games?
Also, if he was told not to suspend them by the compliance team because they had not completed the investigation, is that still his fault? (I don’t think this happened though)
He did it because he hoped he'd never get caught.
Not for the 2010 non-conference schedule, not for 2011. And the second part did not happen. But there’s a reasonableness requirement – if it’s clear that players have violated rules, you can’t take 6 weeks to conduct an internal investigation and say punishment is pending the results of the investigation, meanwhile the players play 6 more games against their best opponents.
I don’t believe he thought he’d never get caught. That doesn’t sound like Tressel to me.
My guess is that when it came public in December, he felt that the situation had played itself out. He wasn’t trying to “cover up” anything at that point.
But of course my views are biased, just like yours and avery non-OSU fan’s is as well.
LOL
He wasn’t trying to "cover up" anything at that point.
Really? I’d believe that if they’d show that the email received on April 02 was forwarded to the compliance office around, let’s say, April 02. Or do you mean that by December he stopped trying to cover it up?
Sure there is some bias in the community but I don’t care who’s name it is, including Ferentz, I’d draw the same conclusions.
I can't believe he is this stupid.
It’s the equivalent of lying to an auditor. There must be something else here.
We play tackle football, most of the time.
IOW,
it’s not a big enough deal to lie about.
Maybe there is a bigger deal/bigger problem that we don’t know about that made it more worthwhile to commit this deceit. Then it would, at least, be logical behavior.
We play tackle football, most of the time.
Nobody knows the timeframe, but it could have gone like this:
Tressel beleives he cannot speak on it until the feds finish their investigation.
The feds finish in Nov/Dec. He then speaks to his compliance team. they complete the internal investigation, self report to the NCAA. They want to suspend for the bowl game, the Sugar Bowl/NCAA intervene and push the punishments to the next saeson using the foolish exhibition rule.
Now that the news has come out and the players have been suspended, Tressel figures the situation has played itself out. He feels he did right by not interupting the feds and figures it is over at that point.
January, the lawyers/compliance team now find the emails from April, start the internal investigation again and are ready to self-report again this week. Somebody leaks the info early to Yahoo, who scoops up the info and makes it look like they did the investigation (which they didn’t) and gives OSU 3 hours to go public before they do. OSU cannot wrap up their documents in 3 hours and basically has to speed up the process by hastily scheduling the press conference earlier than they wanted (calling Gee back from New York early).
The news was gonna look terrible no matter what, but with Yahoo’s clout on the USC case, it makes this seem extra seedy even though OSU was going to release this info no matter what this week.
Would they have still gotten hammered this week without Yahoo’s involvement? Of course, but with Yahoo now a player it just looks that much worse.
Where this breaks down....
…is this step:
He then speaks to his compliance team. they complete the internal investigation
If the OSU lawyers/compliance team did their job, they would have/should have found the email at that time. They would have reported it then. They would have told the NCAA everything then.
Instead…nearly 4 months later, we learn that Tressel knew about the player infractions since April 2010? Like I said before — the lawyers were incompetent, or they helped/tried to help cover this up. I’m willing to withhold judgment, but those are the only 2 conclusions you can reach until OSU talks and answers more questions.
It was not four months. They found the email in January, less than 4 weeks after the December flare up.
My guess is that they rushed the investigation in December, as to not look like they were delaying it because of the upcoming bowl game. I think OSU thought they would suspend them for the bowl game and perhaps a couple games in 2011. But then the NCAA stepped in and pushed it to 5 games the following season citing the exhibition rule.
Since January, they have been doing a more detailed investigation (hence the two month Yahoo report). I don’t think the lawyers/compliance officers conveniently omitted this in December, they just rushed it. If they had known it in December, I am sure they would have submitted it at that time. Tressel SHOULD have spoken up, but he didn’t. The compliance guys SHOULD have dug deeper, but they rushed it because the bowl was coming up and wanted to get the suspension handed down.
If they had found in December, Tressel would have been suspended for the bowl game, but the players more than likely would still have gotten that game due to the Sugar Bowl’s influence. There would not be any more punishmnets going on other than Tressel perhaps still missing a few games in 2011. It would have looked bad, but not nearly as bad as it does now.
I'm sorry but that scenario seems completely delusional
I’m not trying to bash/flame/whatever you or anything but that doesn’t even seem reasonable. At all.
Nobody knows the timeframe, but it could have gone like this:
True, but not true. We have been given a time line by the University. Have they disclosed everything? Doubtful. But, we do have a framework to work with.
Tressel beleives he cannot speak on it until the feds finish their investigation.
Based on the April 02 email how would you come to that conclusion? I don’t think anyone in the world has arms long enough for that reach. The only way I think any reasonable person would believe that he thought he might compromise a criminal investigation would be to provide a time line and government office in which Tressel/OSU had communications with. We don’t need the communications, just who they were talking to and when.
The feds finish in Nov/Dec. He then speaks to his compliance team. they complete the internal investigation, self report to the NCAA. They want to suspend for the bowl game, the Sugar Bowl/NCAA intervene and push the punishments to the next saeson using the foolish exhibition rule.
How do you come to that conclusion? Based on the June 01 email:
the federal government appears to have reached a resolution for [redacted] Eddy Rife [redacted] As a result, all communication [redacted] and the district attorney had to cease.
With that information I think it’s safer to conclude that the investigation was complete by June 01.
Oh, and it is my understanding that it was Delaney that pushed for the players to be able to play in the Sugar Bowl, not the bowl or the NCAA.
January, the lawyers/compliance team now find the emails from April, start the internal investigation again and are ready to self-report again this week. Somebody leaks the info early to Yahoo, who scoops up the info and makes it look like they did the investigation (which they didn’t) and gives OSU 3 hours to go public before they do. OSU cannot wrap up their documents in 3 hours and basically has to speed up the process by hastily scheduling the press conference earlier than they wanted (calling Gee back from New York early).
Actually, they had already notified the NCAA; on February 03 per the link below.
Now here is where I’m going to do some speculation. I don’t believe it was the legal/compliance team because of this
The university became aware of this situation on Jan. 13, while reviewing information on an unrelated legal issue.
Found HERE
I’m starting to wonder if the attorney that leaked the information was being investigated and when they went through his email they found the emails to OSU and contacted the school.
It's "quibble with bits"
“At worst, he deliberately chose to ignore the possibility that they were ineligible; at best, he believed he could not pass along the confidential information concerning a federal criminal investigation.”
With no undue respect, I think you are grasping at proverbial straws that are, well, proverbial—not really there. Deliberately ignoring the possibility the players were ineligible is at least as bad as deliberately playing ineligible players. At best, he ignored serious information about his star player (probably) that could have cost the star some eligibilty and Tressel a shot at the national title. T is well aware of the rules and he knew it was serious, but chose to not just ignore it, but to hide it. (I think the first player mentioned was Pryor because if it were anyone else, I think T would have been more inclined to act appropriately. Just a logical conclusion, but not necessarily accurate.)
No one is suggesting he interfer with a federal investigation. But regardless of the federal investigation, his obligation was and is to Ohio State University. He chose to not take the high road. In case you still aren’t aware, the high road is seeking advice from his superior or college legal counsel. He chose to be his own and the University’s legal counsel. Now there is some sound judgment.
So, tell me where the unfair and false parts are.
by PreachinTotheChoir on Mar 10, 2011 8:12 PM CST up reply actions
This is a red herring used to muddy the waters
he believed he could not pass along the confidential information concerning a federal criminal investigation
The email dated April 02 only states that the Federal Government raided Rife’s house because Rife was under investigation for ‘alleged drug trafficking’ there is no mention, or inference that the players are under investigation, or that the information in the email is confidential. In fact, it’s only mentioned in the post script script script (That lawyer can’t write for shit). So basically an after after after thought.
So, basically, we are supposed to believe that Tressel was smart enough to conclude that this information was vital, confidential and could compromise a criminal investigation, yet not smart enough to forward it to OSU attorneys at about 2:34 PM? [I actually snorted when I typed that] Come on man.
And would you prefer ‘knowingly played ineligible athletes’? Tressel knows damn well that what the players did was in violation of NCAA rules and would be deemed ineligible for at least a few games; the ‘standard’ being four games.
Now I’m not saying we have all the facts, but from what information is available; none of the excuses explanations hold water. Will the NCAA investigation and subsequent report exonerate Tressel and OSU? Perhaps. But if little or no more information than what is currently available comes out, no way.
It could be argued that
The lawyers in this case are totally bangin’ the judge…
You tell me.
1. I have said all along that this is self-destructive, inexplicable behavior.
2. I gather you are not working in a company or other large, mature organization. No, he is not off the hook if he violated NCAA rules at the request of a bureaucrat. But more people will go swimming with the fishes.
There must be more to this story, because it is impossibly stupid, the behavior that has been admitted to already.
We play tackle football, most of the time.
you can argue
they’re approaching lack of institutional control even without the lawyer bit. or at least I think so. definitely curious what an actual lawyer would think about it though.
Also, do they not fall under the NCAA's "repeat offender" provision with this?
Basketball had a major violation in the not-too-recent past, right?
--
A T-bone steak, cheese, eggs, and Welch's grape.
@scrappled
Slow States - Football, music, craft beer, and podcasts with an industrial slant.
by Run Up The Score on Mar 11, 2011 8:57 AM CST reply actions
The violation occurred in 1999-2000, I believe, with O'Brien getting fired in '04
Isn’t there a statute of limitations on that?
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
Found it.
Here’s the O’Brien penalty info, which was amended to end earlier than first ordered.:
“The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld a two-year show-cause penalty for the former head men’s basketball coach at Ohio State University, but has ordered that the penalty will run from March 10, 2006, instead of from May 9, 2007, as the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions had determined,” the NCAA said in the statement.
“The revised effective dates of the show cause penalty are from March 10, 2006, to March 9, 2008.”
19.5.2.3 Repeat Violators.
19.5.2.3.1 Time Period. An institution shall be considered a "repeat" violator if the Committee on Infractions finds that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty. For this provision to apply, at least one major violation must have occurred within five years after the starting date of the penalties in the previous case. It shall not be necessary that the Committee on Infractions’ hearing be conducted or its report issued within the five-year period. (Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97)
19.5.2.3.2 Repeat-Violator Penalties. In addition to the penalties identified for a major violation, the
minimum penalty for a repeat violator, subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions
on the basis of specifically stated reasons, may include any or all of the following: (Revised: 1/11/94)
(a) The prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation
for one or two sports seasons and the prohibition of all coaching staff members in that sport from
involvement directly or indirectly in any coaching activities at the institution during that period;
(b) The elimination of all initial grants-in-aid and all recruiting activities in the sport involved in the
latest major violation in question for a two-year period;
© The requirement that all institutional staff members serving on the Board of Directors, Leadership
Council, Legislative Council or other cabinets or committees of the Association resign those positions,
it being understood that all institutional representatives shall be ineligible to serve on any
NCAA committee for a period of four years; and (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)
(d) The requirement that the institution relinquish its voting privilege in the Association for a four-year
period.
--
A T-bone steak, cheese, eggs, and Welch's grape.
@scrappled
Slow States - Football, music, craft beer, and podcasts with an industrial slant.
by Run Up The Score on Mar 11, 2011 2:26 PM CST up reply actions
Idiots.
Here’s why they might not be looking at The Hammer.
The NCAA missed its filing date by two days and the majors were sort of retroactively dropped. Hard to tell if the remaining violations were major, though. The Googles aren’t being helpful.
--
A T-bone steak, cheese, eggs, and Welch's grape.
@scrappled
Slow States - Football, music, craft beer, and podcasts with an industrial slant.
by Run Up The Score on Mar 11, 2011 2:53 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Off Tackle Empire
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
