well that's just, like, your opinion, man
A law professor, in the link below, proclaims Ohio as “national champions” in perfecting the (mis)use of laws about student privacy to protect its own public image. While more qualified people than me can judge the merits of the professor’s legal arguments, the paper should interest many people here. To me, it provides a damning portrayal of hypocrisy, self-serving interpretations, attempts to conceal events from the public, twisting student privacy concepts, as well as caring more for misbehaving coaches than student athletes.
Eg claiming that student privacy precludes the release of information about the Clarret academic cheating scandal while at the same time violating the privacy of students making the accusations—for instance, “lambasting” the teaching assistant who made the allegations—saying she was “mentally and psychologically unstable”.
-self serving legal interpretations and attempts to conceal information from the public
eg selectively releasing information about student athletes’s accomplishments, while prohibiting the release of information that could harm the school, such as student parking ticket records--which are public at many other schools. Thus, the public and the media, which often drives investigations, can never know about NCAA violations that have previously been “exposed by simple parking tickets”
-twisting the concept of student privacy to serve their own agenda
Eg dubiously classifying as “education records” emails about the trading of sports memorabilia for tattoos and marijuana”. If these were “education records,” they would reveal a much clearer violation of student privacy---sending “education records” from the football coach (Tressel) to someone not affiliated with the university (Sarniak).”
-caring more for misbehaving coaches than student athletes.
Eg Ohio St quickly disassociated itself from Terrelle Pryor.”yet it ”reassociated itself with former Coach Tressel, allowing him to retire rather than resign.” (thereby forgiving a $250,000 fine, giving him $52,000 pay with 250 hours of unpaid vacation and sick time as well as insurance).
“It’s hard to believe.. that Ohio state cares about its student athletes when it continues to reward the misbehavior of its coach while simultaneously dissociating itself from the coach’s athlete.”
"Schools like Ohio State seemingly care less about their athletes than they do their own legacies."
I have no idea about the veracity of this information. But, given this qualification, it seems plausible enough to post.
April 13 tweet from:
@PSchrags (FOX SPORTS, FOX NEWS, ESQUIRE.COM)
"Didu kno Jim Tressel hired his brother Dic onto Ohio St. Staff as designated bagman for extra bennies for players? You will soon."
Some may question the sources of this information (and RT), but I I would not be surprised if it is true. I remember when, during the MoC scandal, JT replaced an apparently less "trusted" staff member with his own brother. I asked at the time, why he would do so. The question now seems rhetorical.
If the info in this tweet is true, and JT's brother is now found to be involved in the extra benefits,is this a repeat violation for Ohio (he's still on Meyer's staff, isn't he) ?
I wonder if the predicted revelation of JT's brothers' role has anything to do with new info from the ESPN-Ohio lawsuit.
EDIT ADDITION BY OP: quote from SI's Pulitzer prize winning, George Dohrmann:
"A year later, after he left the university, Clarett told ESPN that he wasn't forthcoming with the NCAA because it would have meant ratting on teammates and coaches. He alleged that Tressel had arranged cars for him to use and that the coach's older brother Dick, who was then the Buckeyes' director of football operations (he is now the team's running backs coach), arranged lucrative no-show jobs for players. (Jim and Dick Tressel have denied the allegations.) Clarett added that coaches connected him with boosters who gave him thousands of dollars.
The NCAA never sanctioned Ohio State for any of those allegations. Clarett didn't respond when investigators tried to contact him after the ESPN story, so they weren't able to proceed. Like the Youngstown State whistle-blower years earlier, Clarett was dismissed as disgruntled."
I know there are a lot of other issues involved with Cicero releasing info and client confidentiality but, still... The board is saying he should have his license suspended for 6 months - hopefully he learns the Herbie lesson and realize that if you in any way condone anything negative about Central Akron State you will be punished/harrased.
ESPN is reporting that for the second time since the firing of Jim Caldwell, the owner of the Colts has spoke to Jim Tressel about their head coaching vacancy.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I care about the NFL very little outside of the Lions and fantasy football, but maybe if Tressel stupidly gets this job, it may make me interested again (at least in the fact that I'll have a team to root against).
Any thoughts from big NFL fans here, or even better, any (possibly soon to be ex-) Colts fans?
According to economists, “a burglar burgles because he finds it a more attractive profession than any other. Without an effective deterrent, he will continue to do so and overwhelm the courts with costly investigations, prosecutions and punishments. So, it is too with the “criminal” schools—like OSU-- that repeatedly violate NCAA rules. In the absence of effective deterrents, they continue to find it profitable to cheat. Such cheating will cost the NCAA vast amounts of time, resources and money..
What can be done? The obvious way to reduce burglary is by raising the costs of the burglar's profession or reducing its benefits.”* So, ask yourself: how can NCAA schools protect themselves from those like OSU, who have allegedly stolen players, titles, bowl games, reputation, and the resulting money that comes to the AD?
Currently, the NCAA relies heavily on information from the press, does a cursory investigation often centered on these allegations, and may then ask the school to suggest penalties. It’s like a policeman asking a mugger to suggest what punishment he deserves. But how has that worked in deterring the crimes of schools like OSU? What did OSU do with their opportunity to self-punish when faced with a deluge of national attention to the increasingly incriminating evidence?
The school agreed to give up their lying coach—with one national title—and replace him by another with two. What a painful penalty! Ouch! Did the self imposed penalties or NCAA investigation slow their coaching search?
To be fair, OSU clobbered itself with other penalties too. Like bank robbers who offer to give back the money after being caught red-handed, OSU also proposed to vacate one years’ victories and return the ill-gotten bowl money. Yet, even the bank robbers now seem more honest. In fact, OSU alums in the national media as well as OSU-controlled Columbus newspapers conveniently ignored the vacated season when they misleadingly reported that OSU’s successive BCS bowls and victories over rivals. So, OSU seemed to say: “we’ll pretend to ignore last year’s victories” (while encouraging alums and boosters to continue the misrepresentations).
Likewise, look at what OSU did to deter future coaches from cheating. First, nothing. Then they let their coach—who admitted lying to the NCAA about ineligible players-- to set his own penalty. A two game suspension….no, raise that to five...and let's call the NCAA's bluff. In fact, the OSU president said he had no intention of firing the coach—he was too afraid of getting fired himself by Tressel. Finally, faced with a PR disaster, OSU reported that they had forced Tressel to resign. But that was not exactly true. Tressel, we were told, himself resigned. Then OSU proclaimed that they had cut ties with him. ….but maybe “cut” wasn’t the right word. After seeming to take the fall for the school, he suddenly was transformed from a resigned or fired employee into an esteemed retiree. So, he got full retirement benefits, was honored in a local parade, with his exploits prominently displayed in the OSU AD exhibition of school honors. In fact, Tressel was not even dissociated from the team. He was allowed to give a pre-game pep talk prior to the UM game—as if he were still the coach
Yet, OSU boosters suggested that Tressel would soon be drummed out of the coaching profession by the NCAA in Indianapolis. Somebody else in Indianapolis must have been listening. He made Tressel an analyst there for the Colts. So, in reality, Tressel was getting paid by the pros, while OSU gave him—hush, hush---pension money---proportional to his past salary gains of $27 million. Seriously. Would the horrible prospect of getting a job in the pros, supplemented by plushy retirement benefits prevent future cheaters from engaging in activities that had already made them rich, famous, and revered as a local God? Would they do so knowing that the chance of even getting caught was small---as exemplified in the Clarret whitewash?
So, what can the NCAA member schools do? First, they can take back control of the NCAA, then they can insist on more effective deterrents.
Economists suggest that the only thing one can do to deter crime, is to make penalties much larger. In fact, the penalties should not merely be assessed so that the expected risks exceed the expected benefits of dishonest behavior. The penalties should also consider the damage done to the victims---the schools that OSU deprived of Bowl bids, recruits, equipment sales, publicity, and the future benefits of an enhanced reputation. For instance, when OSU attended the Sugar Bowl by lying about players’ ineligibility, they cheated another team of attending as well as damaged the record and reputation of their bowl opponent, Arkansas. Who knows how much they decreased the future value of players, like Mallet who dropped much further than expected in the pro draft. Who knows how long OSU had continued to damage other schools by stealing recruits and winning games with ineligible players? Who knows how many schools have suffered losses and prestige by playing a team of paid mercenaries? The length and intensity of the NCAA investigation needs to mirror the number and severity of these questions.
Likewise, it’s hardly enough just to offer the vacation of a season of wins or one game’s bowl money or even to give up a couple of future scholarships. The NCAA must prevent future bowl appearances so that other schools go. They need to take away many years of future scholarships so players can go elsewhere. They cannot be satisfied when a school, like OSU, can get rid of an offending coach, then easily attract another despite the “threat” of impending NCAA sanctions.
The presumed impotence of the NCAA threat is a signal that deterrents to cheating have failed miserably. Now, such empty threats only embolden the worst violators. Until the NCAA penalizes offenders in proportion to the damage they cause, the NCAA will not prevent future violations. Rather, they will find themselves inundated with more and more cases….like they are now.