Final tOSU Punishment Prediction Thread

As a college football fan I think Gene Smith came out looking good from the press conference, but Tressel came out looking like a dufus. First, the whole confidentiality defense seems contrived. Why couldn’t he simply say, “I receive X number of emails everyday and finding the ones that are true and relevant is not easy, I made a mistake.” I believe that is a more convincing argument than, I thought this was confidential so I couldn’t tell anyone. Second, how is missing the Toledo and Akron games any punishment at all we are going to roll them by 50 points anyway.

Personally I think he ends up getting a larger suspension and loses the 2010 wins including the sugar bowl for playing with players he reasonably should have known were ineligible.

Prediction

Wins Vacated : all 12 including bowl game

Tressel out: 7 games he was the adult in the room and his actions were more egregious

Probation : 2 years sounds right

Scholarships Lost : 5 for 1 year

Money : nothing i think $250k is a pretty big hit even for tressel.

I can’t imagine anything less and wouldn’t be surprised if it were more.

Also, can one of the moderators ban the troll from the last post? Someone like that contributes nothing and is only out for personal gratification and destruction of the community.

Though you have to keep in mind that even though OSU doesn’t have a (SEC) slew of infractions since the Tressel era began, the program has endured a couple black eyes. As far as the conference is concerned, Meat Chicken and Happy Valley are the only two other programs with issues that come to mind off hand…but I may be forgetting something.

Obviously, the infractions themselves didn’t cost the program or future student-athletes anything, but this takes on a whole new level of implications now. The head coach knowingly playing an entire season with ineligible players could certain cost them scholarships or even bowl eligibility. Playing that many games with ineligible players seems to me to be much more dire than recruiting violations and “should have known” scenarios. I can see the program itself being taken down a few pegs for this one.

Wins Vacated: 11 (Same)

Tressel Suspension: 5 Games (Same)

Years of Probation: 3

Scholarships Lost: 5-10 total over the next 2-3 years? Just a wild guess

Additional Fines: Some amount to the university, no more to Tressel personally

First, in line with the topic,
Kiss the appeal for the player suspension reduction goodbye.
Tressel will have to sit the same number of games.

Second

I’m one who, shall we say, never had to be concerned about NCAA eligibility rules so there are more then a few things I don’t understand. Could someone please hit a couple softball questions.

Is there an eligibility rule which says a coach is to consider a player ineligible if there is an investigation into possible wrong doings? Is this one of those smoke probably equals fire situations where a veteran coach is supposed to just ‘know’?

For this purpose, did Tressell knowingly play two or six players? According to the press conference the email suggested 2 players were involved, but it turns out 6 were involved.

At what point did OSU officially ‘know’ players were definitely involved in improper actions? Does the first email start the clock, or does the official result of the investigation?

I’m also trying to understand what he ought to have done.

Obviously he ought to have informed the AD and the schools legal counsel. But where do you go from there? Is there any validity to his stated thought process that to sit the two players (at the time there were only two players) is to potentially tamper with the investigation?

My hypothesis is that the phrase Federal Drug Trafficking Investigation caused his brain to lock. That is not on the same level as an internal investigation into say ‘tutors doing the homework, or boosters giving cars’

I’d tack on a sixth game added to the suspension and a 3rd year of probation. The suspension could come from the Big Ten for the first four games of conference play, or just straight from the NCAA. I say this because Michigan took a 3rd year for the practice thing and Tressel will get more than the players for lying to the NCAA in addition to playing ineligible players. And I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if they were even harsher.

I made my prediction on a previous thread; admit that I was a bit wrong, a bit too optimistic (tho’ ya can’t blame a fan for wearing the appropriately-colored glasses). And the fig leaves may not have been big enough, particularly with Pres. Gee inserting his leg into his mouth. Seriously, the man should not be allowed near a microphone.

Clearly, the story has legs and has lasted quite a bit longer than the two days I predicted. Not much fun reading CFB blogs of late. Now that the Bball Tourney is in full play, I DO think the story disappears for awhile.

Anyway, prediction: Tressel is forced to sit out six games (one more than the players); fined more money; some sort of official censure/reprimand and 2-3 year probation for the program. I say no finding of lack of institutional control (mostly because the University was going to self-report) and, thus, no loss of scholarships.

Also I say no vacated wins. The NCAA has already ruled on the players’ eligibility and no wins were vacated back in December. Further, the NCAA allowed the players to play in the Sugar Bowl. The players are being punished by being ineligible for the first five games of 2011.

Those who are arguing that wins must be vacated are relying on the argument that the players were ineligible. There were not. That was decided in December and no wins were vacated in December.

And Tressel’s transgressions do not/will not re-open the question of the players’ eligibility. Consequently, since the players were eligible, no wins will be vacated. Further, since the players were eligible, Tressel was not knowingly using ineligible players. Thus, again, no wins will be vacated.

Argument:

To re-open the question of player ineligibility creates a host of problems. First, if the 2010 wins are vacated, then will the players have to sit out the first five in 2011? If yes, then the players are being punished twice. But if you vacate the wins and then allow the players to play all the games in 2011, then there is outrage and consternation. NCAA doesn’t need that PR headache.

Further, before being allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl, all agreed to return for 2011 and accept their punishment. If the Sugar Bowl win is going to be vacated, it would be really really unfair to sit them out for 2011 since at least a couple would have been drafted.

Second, vacating the wins means the NCAA is reversing its decisions in December about the players’ eligibilities which, in turn, re-opens the issue about why they were allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl. Another PR headache. Personally, don’t think the NCAA is going to do that.

Third, there is a lot of collateral damage to the other players and the University in vacating the wins. I think the NCAA will be reluctant to do that particularly given the “I-thought-the-info-was-confidential” fig leaf being provided by Tressel.

So, in the end, re-opening the question of player eligibility is a hornet’s nest that I think the NCAA will avoid. I think the wins will not be vacated.

That’s my argument and what I predict.

If I am wrong and Tressel’s transgressions DO open the door again re: the players’ eligibility, then only four or five wins are vacated and the Sugar Bowl win stands. That is, like A.J. Green, the affected players would have sat out the first four games (maybe five like 2011). Further, if any 2010 games are vacated, then the players get to play all games in 2011. This half-way position avoids much of the “hornet’s nest.”

As noted in an earlier thread, the NCAA is going to pass judgment on Bruce Pearl before they get around to Tressel. So, what happens to Pearl will tell us a lot.

We will see.