Cliffs Notes - Tressel Transcript

Submitted by jbr12 on

This Diary is brought to you by MGoBlog user Michael Scarn. I posted a link to the full 139 pages of Tressel's interview last night and Mike went through and pulled a number of notable quotes and banter... Enjoy


 

I planned on laying out a grandiose narrative to introduce this diary, but decided most of the analogies, hyperboles, and myriad other literary devices had already been used by writers more talented and creative than me to discuss this topic.  That, and the several tumblers of Macallan 18 I’ve consumed this Friday evening while writing this have left me with only so many remaining grammatically correct sentences in the keyboard.  The bottom line is, we have access to the transcript of Jim Tressel’s February 8, 2011 NCAA interview, in all 139 pages of its glory.  Knowing that you all are probably interested in the interviews substance while turned off by its length, I tried to highlight the most interesting portions.  What follows is a mix of amusing quotes, the most interesting questions and answers, and just generally relevant stuff.  Enough chit-chat, let’s get down to it:

 

Jim Tressel, and apparently others in the OSU athletic department, referred to his speeches to players as “sermons”:

Tressel (describing interactions with members of the compliance department):

“Or, there’s times when it’s just the opposite.  Doug’s office gets the call.  Doug comes into us and says, ‘Hey, you know, I don’t have a whole bunch on this, but I’m hearing they’re going to this bar a lot.  And the word is that, you know, they’re letting ’em, you know, have a couple pops because they want the football players,’ or the basketball players or, you know, whether, the athletes, ‘there.  In your sermons, you know, you need to weave that in.’” 

 

Ted Sarniak wanted Terrelle Pryor to go to Notre Dame

Tressel: “Ted wanted him to go to Notre Dame.  Strike that from the records.”

 

I, personally, prefer him taking this rival down.  Charlie Weis took care of the Irish for us.  Tressel also discussed how during Pryor’s recruiting process, there were some benefits waived in front of Pryor, but everything was so heavily redacted it’s not possible to get a remote clue of whom he was referring to.  Tressel paints Sarniak as a great guy that kept Pryor’s head on straight. 

Tressel claims the reason he didn’t move forward with information was that Cicero’s email that discussed a federal investigation scared him:

“But probably the thing that knocked me off my socks was at the bottom when there was a little description of this criminal.  And, again, I didn’t emblazon in my mind his name.  I just emblazoned in my mind, ‘Oh, my God.  There’s a homicide.  There’s drug trafficking.  There’s possession of criminal tools.  This is a bad situation.  This is, you know, this isn’t like the girl that called from the hot dog stand.  This is not like the guy that calls from the bar and says they might be getting a drink.  This is frightening.’”

And, you know, it – I was scared, quite frankly, as I read that.  I answered ’em and said, ‘You know –‘ I think we were in practice, and I got back after practice and happened to start grinding through my e-mails again and saw this one.  I thought, you know – I said,

‘Thanks, Chris.  Blah, blah, blah.’  And, you know, I guess I had a lot of the scared part of me elicited some things, you know?”

I know what I say when I’m scared.  Happy Easter!

 

Tressel was scared the players Cicero was talking about in his emails were in a drug trafficking ring and involved in criminal activity.  With the benefit of hindsight, he would’ve gone to the university’s legal counsel because he was scared of the federal investigation:

“Knowing what I knew – not knowing who all was involved with it– I mean, I knew one name. So you sit there saying, ‘Oh, my God. Do I got 25 guys drug trafficking? Do I got, you know, X number of people selling their stuff so they can feed their drug habits?’

You know? I mean, you go through a million things. If I fastforwarded to today, I think I have the answer to what I would do. I would go to the university legal counsel because it’s a federal issue. I wouldn’t go to the athletic department legal counsel. I wouldn’t go to the compliance office.”

When pressed on the fact that Cicero’s emails focus on his player’s involvement in memorabilia, not on any criminal activity by them, Tressel went back to his fear, and felt that any NCAA sanctions might end up being moot.  He thought:

“I guess it won’t matter what NCAA problems you have if you’re in jail.”

Tressel Claims he went to Sarniak to protect Pyror:

“I don’t wanna be dramatic, but I would have a hard time having a second guy murdered or a second guy get incarcerated.”

When another name comes up from Cicero (Pryor was the only one at first), no parent or mentor for that player is contacted.  So, he was concerned for Pryor’s safety, but not the second players…

When Chuck Smrt (I guess vowels were expensive the day his family got its surname), who was one of a few outside consultants for OSU present, offers to take a break, Tressel says something that comes off a little like he’s performing, rather than just speaking the truth:”

Tressel: “We’re rolling…I don’t wanna go and have a halftime, and come out and play a bad second half.”

Tressel says he sat down with the Tat5, and said that he vaguely told them to avoid people they were involved with, didn’t mention Rife, and never asked any questions about drugs or memorabilia, or anything really.  No great quote for this, just a lot of rambling, so either take me at my word or read the whole document yourselves, ya filthy animals. 

Tressel seems to have a slip up and talks about a plan for the “inevitable”(Chuck and Beth are members of the outside compliance firm hired by OSU:

And the last thing that I mentioned to Chuck and Beth was that what was critical in my mind was that preparing for this inevitable, we had to come up with a way to make sure our student athletes stayed in the educational process, because witness too often that when our guys error, then they’re some consequences, then they’re outta college.  And I go back to sitting in that living room and saying it’s gonna be safe.  We’ll do our best to help take care of ’em.  It’s gonna be paramount in my mind that they get their degree because I know if they stay here long enough to get their degree, their maturity level will have been enhanced.  

And so we better be thinking through and talking through, and even planning seeds, you know, about the importance of making sure, you know, we stay through this process, through the educational process.  Didn’t plant seeds by saying – calling ’em in and saying, “Hey, you’re in some serious stuff,” you know, and all that.  “And, by the way, you’re gonna get some consequences.  But after you get the consequences, you gotta stay in school,” you know?  We didn’t say that.

But just ways to, you know, to come up with a plan, you know, for when the inevitable occurs.  And interestingly enough, when the inevitable did occur, which was a lot further down the road than I thought it might, seeing how we were sitting there with June 1st

with someone supposedly going to prison, well, now we know that they were using him, you know, obviously, ’cause they – I don’t think they sent him to prison, did they?  No.  He pled out, I think.  So they were using him for all that time to go get the next guy, or whatever.

But when the inevitable happened to us and the letter came, you know, the hallelujah letter, in my mind was – from the US Department of Justice was there was no allegation that any of these players were involved in or had knowledge of Mr. Rife’s drug trafficking.  I’m like, “This is the greatest.”

Now, we got issues.  And all along, you know, we’ve known that one of the things that we’ve gotta be preparing ourselves for is we gotta find away to keep these guys here.  Now when the NCAA, after all the reinstatement discussions and all that, decided that the guys could play in the bowl game and then they would be sanctioned later, okay, at first, I was really disappointed.

Later, on the “inevitable”:

Chuck Smrt:So what is the inevitable?

Jim Tressel:The inevitable is are we gonna be drug traffickers?  Are we gonna be drug users?  You know, are we gonna be a group of folks that sell their memorabilia, you know, as cash to buy my drugs that I gotta have?  Who knows?  Are we gonna be a group that violated selling memorabilia, which we know we can’t do?  Inevitably, something’s gonna come from this.  And I’m rooting for the least.

Chuck Smrt:You said earlier, back when we talked about the first e-mail and what you did and why you did it.

Jim Tressel:Mm-hmm.

Chuck Smrt:Now we’re six weeks later –

Jim Tressel:Mm-hmm.

Chuck Smrt:– almost seven weeks later, and it’s gonna be resolved, it looks – there’s a resolution.

Jim Tressel:Yeah.

Chuck Smrt:Why not go at this point then to compliance or to Gene Smith or someone?

Jim Tressel:Well, I don’t know that it’s gonna be resolved from a drug trafficking standpoint.  Just because they put one guy in jail doesn’t mean, you know, that there’s not drug trafficking going on or – I mean, kinda like I mentioned, you know, when the feds want our help and our involvement, they’ll, you know, request it.

 

This is something that I’m just going to let you read on your own, nothing to really introduce, this is probably the most interesting part of the interview, and requires no interpretation, other than your own.  I will say that there is a RIDICULOUS amount of hand holding/help by the NCAA ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT.  He sounds like Tressel’s attorney, not an investigator:

Tim Nevius(NCAA associate director of enforcement):

You were aware that violations regarding student athletes, particularly and  had either occurred or likely occurred.

Jim Tressel:Mm-hmm.

Tim Nevius:Is that correct?

Jim Tressel:Yes.

Tim Nevius:And you did not report that those violations to anyone in athletics or compliance or the NCAA.  Is that correct?

Jim Tressel:Correct.

Tim Nevius:Okay.  And were you aware that as a result of those violations that the student athletes would likely be ineligible then for participationduring the 2010 season?

Jim Tressel:No, I didn’t think of it like that.  You know, I didn’t take that progression of thinking.  I mean, I knew that inevitably they were gonna have a problem.  I don’t – you know, I can’t sit here and say I thought, “Oh, these guys are ineligible.”  I didn’t think it of it that way.

Tim Nevius:Okay.  But you knew that the young men who were involved in the violations were going to participate in the 2010 season then.

Jim Tressel:Mm-hmm.  You talking about –

Tim Nevius:(Redacted).

Jim Tressel:Right.  You’re talking about we’re sitting here at what point?

Tim Nevius:Anytime before the 2010 fall season –

Jim Tressel:Yeah.

Tim Nevius:– you knew they had engaged in violations – 

Jim Tressel:Right.

Tim Nevius:– and that they were gonna then participate that season.

Jim Tressel:Right.

Tim Nevius:And that you had not reported any of that information to –

Jim Tressel:Correct.

Tim Nevius:– the athletics or compliance.

Jim Tressel:And I knew why.  But, yeah.

Tim Nevius:Okay.  And I understand, and you’ve explained your reasons why.  Do you understand that it is an NCAA violation not to report information concerning violations?

Jim Tressel:Yeah.

Tim Nevius:Okay.  And then in that regard, can you provide us with any further context or explanation as to why you didn’t report that information?

Jim Tressel:Outside of what I already have?  No.  Outside of the gravity of what I thought the federal criminal investigation was, outside of the confidentiality request that was in front of me, you know, those – outside of that, no.  I mean, just what we’ve talked about.

Tim Nevius:Okay.  Did you think it was against the law at all to reveal the information that Chris had provided to you in those e-mails?

Jim Tressel:You know, I didn’t know.  I didn’t know that.

Tim Nevius:Was that a thought that crossed your mind?

Jim Tressel:You know, it crossed my mind about, you know, the attorney/client privilege kind a thing as, you know, I think I had mentioned earlier in the day of like, “Is he allowed to do this?”  You know?  And did I know for sure why he wanted it confidential?  Was it that?  Was it that, you know, you could interfere with the federal, you know, investigation?  Could you, you know, obstruct justice?  You know?  Exactly why, I did not know.

So to answer your question, did I think it was against the law?  Yeah, I guess I thought it could be.  I wouldn’t have said it that way.  But –

Tim Nevius:Well, then is that why you did not report the information?  Does

that help explain why you did not report the information?

Jim Tressel:If it helps explain the compliance – or the confidentiality part.  But, no, I would say as I have been saying, I thought this was first and foremost a criminal investigation and that anything I would do to interfere with that would be against the law.  You know?  I did feel that way.

Tim Nevius:And did you feel that reporting the information would be interfering with the investigation?

Jim Tressel:You know, anything I would do with it, you know, I would think would have been, yeah.  

Tim Nevius:So any action that you would have taken, you felt would have interfered with the –

Jim Tressel:Yeah.

Tim Nevius:– federal investigation?

Jim Tressel:Yeah.

Tim Nevius:Even if it’s just simply telling someone?

Jim Tressel:Well, now I’ll say this.  If you’re talking about how did I feel then, yes.  I thought anything I would – now, I would say to you as I’ve learned is if I would have gone to the person in our world that’s, you know, at that level that, you know, could speak to that federal criminal investigation part of it appropriately, that that’s what I could have done.  Did I think there was anything I could have done, you know, that would have been appropriate?  No.

Tim Nevius:You’re saying at the time?

Jim Tressel:At the time.  Yeah.

Tim Nevius:You didn’t think there was – you thought the most appropriate thing was to not do anything.

Jim Tressel:Right.  It was to let the federal investigation happen, you know, and that – again, you know, hopefully, that wouldn’t be something we were a part of.

Tim Nevius:And you felt that even though you knew that NCAA violations had occurred, and that you were gonna go forward with those student athletes participating in the 2010 season.

Jim Tressel:Yeah.  Then we would – there would be, in my mind, as I mentioned it there somewhere, is that inevitably, we were gonna get as our works deserve, as we say.  You know, we were gonna pay the fiddler, you know?  And how – what, and how many, you know, who all?  I mean, you know, I didn’t have a clue, nor did I have a clue to who and how many and all might be involved in a federal drug trafficking thing that might be, you know, huge in the federal arena.  I mean, I didn’t know.

Tim Nevius:But did you anticipate that that would include – the consequences would potentially include NCAA sanctions?

Jim Tressel:Even if we were guilty of drug trafficking, you know, I’m sure we would, you know – I’m sure we would, along the way even though I suppose the guys wouldn’t be here.  You know?  I mean, there’d be record of that I guess is the way I’d put it.  It would be, you know, somewhat irrelevant.  But – and I tried not to infer that I really think these guys are drug trafficker.  You know, I don’t think I’ve tried to say that.

But I also think it would be a poor defense to say, “Well, you know, I knew my guys weren’t involved in that.”  (Ed: NO SHIT, SHERLOCK) And so I wasn’t gonna ignore any of the federal investigation.  That’s their problem.  I gotta go get my guys squared away and, you know, take care of their NCAA issues.”  I just felt that there was a hierarchy.  I don’t know.  

Tim Nevius:I appreciate that, yeah.  And I can understand what you’re thinking there.  But I guess what the problem is that there was no action taken on either the NCAA issues or the federal investigation.

Jim Tressel:Right.

Tim Nevius:So despite the concern of one of those issues being more problematic than another –

Jim Tressel:Mm-hmm.

Tim Nevius:– I don’t think that you – the facts are that you didn’t address

either.

Jim Tressel:Right.  And the federal ones weren’t over.  So I couldn’t address.  I had established in my mind, right or wrong, that there was a hierarchy, and that there was a confidentiality.  And that there – in the higher part of the hierarchy, it had not been – there’d been no action.  And I don’t know if all of a sudden, just ’cause – and I guess what I’m hearing you say is, okay.  Now we’ve moved to September in your mind.  And we’re talking about playing in the game.  Okay?

That’s the way I’m feeling it, anyway.  It’s not you decided to put ’em in a game.  Okay?  Well, to me, you know, it wasn’t tied to time.  You know, just because, well, it’s the summer and there’s no games and, you know, we’ll wait on the federal, you know – the hierarchy is bigger federal now.  But now when the games start, you know, the NCAA becomes bigger.  You know, I did not think that way, no.

Tim Nevius:And I’m not suggesting that – I wasn’t necessarily jumping to September.

Jim Tressel:Oh, okay.

Tim Nevius:But it is important for a head coach to recognize that if student athletes had engaged in violations and they’re aware of that, that that information needs to be reported, and the student athletes have to go through the appropriate channels to be reinstated before they can participate in competition.  You’re aware of that, too, right?

Jim Tressel:I am, yeah.

Tim Nevius:And you were aware of that at the time?

Jim Tressel:Yeah.  I don’t know that I was thinking of it that way.  But I mean,  if you would have asked me the question, you know, if a guy sells memorabilia and we’re aware of it and so forth and so on, we have to deem him ineligible.  You know, we’ve done that, you know, numbers of times.  You know, not necessarily just memorabilia,  but things come up and sometimes you have to declare ’em ineligible for a day ’cause something’s not paid or, you know, all that stuff.  So I’m aware of that.

That didn’t all of a sudden come into my thinking and catapult over in my mind what was, you know, the biggest part of this situation.  You know, and so then I was gonna shift gears and say, you know, “Now it’s – hey, now it’s different.  We got games.”  Well, I didn’t think of it that way.

Chuck Smrt:Did you – when – ’cause the first game, whether it’s August or September, before that first game, did you have a thought process, “Okay.  I know in those e-mails I’ve got athletes that –” and I don’t know if the word is could be or are, but, “there are potential

eligibility issue.”  Did you think about that in the fall prior to the –

Jim Tressel:In that context?  No.

Chuck Smrt:And if you can, what were you thinking about their eligibility of at least those two guys –

Jim Tressel:I was thinking that when the situation is resolved, that they will certainly have penalties.  And whoever else because, you know, the inference is in there where there were multiple, you know, X number of jerseys and, you know, stuff.  So that, you know,

whether it be those two or those two and anyone who was involved, you know, there’s gonna be – you know, as I pointed out when I got off of my rambling thing there, is that, you know, we had to prepare for the inevitable, and there was gonna be an inevitable.

Chuck Smrt:All right.  Okay.

Beth Chapman(Compliance Consultant hired by OSU):Can I ask just to – just so I’m clear, the letter from the feds that you eventually received, we you expecting that?  Did you believe you’d get that at some point?

Jim Tressel:Yeah.  I mean, I didn’t know anything about what form things take.  I mean, the only reason I was given that is I was invited to a meeting to discuss the violations, the reinstatement process.  “Here’s, you know, how this has come to fruition.”  And I mean, I

didn’t know it would come, you know, just in this form.  Nor did I know it would say so clearly, you know, the thing that, you know, was important.

Beth Chapman:But you thought at some point understand be notified that that investigation had concluded?

Jim Tressel:Yeah.  Yeah.  I mean, whether the guy went to jail or – I think in this case it says he pled.  And I didn’t read it that close.  But yeah, there was gonna be a moment.  And, you know, I guess you could say, “Well, gosh.  That could take three years, and these guys

could be long gone.”  I don’t know.  I guess it goes back to my – I don’t know what you’d call it – old-fashioned thinking that, you know, you’re gonna get as your works deserve.  You know?

It’s gonna – you know, there’s no such thing as getting away with something.  It’s not gonna happen.  And now had all of these guys – whoever else – we knew how old  were, okay?  But let’s pretend that there was like nine other guys involved and they were all seniors, you know?  And theoretically the only thing they could get sanctioned would be a bowl game.  You know?  I mean, that could have happened.

You know, I guess it – I guess in my – I use the phrase, as I was thinking about this whole thing is that I know there was times when I was paralyzed in the federal moment.  I just was.  And I guess I wasn’t concerned that that might happen.  Now as I started to say before Chuck said I was rambling –

Chuck Smrt:I didn’t say rambling.

Jim Tressel:– all of a sudden, this happens, okay?  They come to us.  They say, “Our federal investigation is complete.  Here’s a bunch of stuff.  This guy claims he bought from your guys.  We wanna know is it stolen or did they buy it?”  We call our guys in.  They say, “You know what?  Yep.  We got paid for it,” okay.  Here’s the process. 

Thing comes back saying they can play in the bowl game and they’ve got X number of games later.

And like I woulda felt a little bit better if they’d a said, “Don’t play in the bowl game,” because then I would know for sure that there’s no such thing as getting away with something.  But the more I tried to think through what I had been thinking about for some time, which was there’s gonna be an inevitable day for whoever – for whatever.  And we have got to find a way to make these kids be in school because they can’t run from their problems.  They can’t run from their mistakes.  You know?  The worst thing they could do is flee and think that the world would be better over there.

And then it dawned on me, you know what?  I think the NCAA did me a favor, because now I can say to those guys – it just so happened, none of ’em were seniors.  And I can say to these guys,

“If you wanna play in the bowl game, ’cause the NCAA says you can, and your teammates want you to –” by the way, we went to the seniors first ’cause we always give the seniors – “Hey, if you don’t want these knuckleheads around, they won’t be around.” 

“No, we want ’em, you know, blah, blah, blah.”

Went to the coaching staff.  Went to Mr. Smith, you know, I’m sure he checked with the people above him.  I said, “Well, here’s my opportunity to do just what we had been thinking about we need to get done to finish this job that we’ve said we were gonna

do when they were in their living room when we said, ‘Hey, you know, you have to sign this sheet of paper –’” which is not a legal document.  I mean, it’s, you know – “But you have to sign this piece of paper telling me that you’ll live up to these things at the bowl game,” which is earlier curfew, go to the community outreach project, all the boloney, okay?  “And that you are gonna be back for your senior year at Ohio State.  And can’t get on the plane if you won’t sign.”

And so in my mind, the NCAA ended up doing me a great favor ’cause five guys signed the letter, had some moments at the bowl game where had to tell one guy I was gonna put him on the plane and send him back ’cause I had heard rumors that he was – you know, the head coach hears everything.  I had heard rumors that he said, “I ain’t sticking around.  I’m gonna play this game and have a great game and get drafted high.  I’m outta here.  I’m not sitting out five games.”

He was in, in his early curfew on New Year’s Eve.  I said, “We’ll going out early.  I can’t look at the NCAA in the eyes and not have any sanctions.  Can’t do it.  I can’t.  Ohio State can’t.  You know, can’t do it.”  And so did I think about that there are sanctions, you know, and you have to, you know, live by the rules?  Yeah.

Did I think about it preemptively before the federal issue was done?  No, I did not.  But I certainly did not – I guess my whole point in that ramble was that I don’t wanna give you the impression that that’s not something we don’t take serious is the fact that our guys, you know, and ourselves, have to take the consequences for the decisions we make.

Now do I wish he hadn’t a sent me an e-mail?  Yeah.  At the end of the day now I know how it turned out and I know our kids are gonna be in college and I know they’re gonna get a fourth year or a fifth year in some case, and I know they’re gonna be bet they’re prepared when they leave here, and I – yeah.  No, it’s been painful and I know it’s been problematic and all the rest.  But, you know, things happen.  You gotta deal with it.

 

“Most of the time” #HALOL:

Chuck Smrt:Tim asked you earlier did you know it was contrary to NCAA rules not to report information.  And what – and, again, what’s your answer to that?

Jim Tressel:Did I know?

Chuck Smrt:Did you know that it was contrary – do you feel like you have a responsibility –

Jim Tressel:Yeah, I definitely have a responsibility.

 [Crosstalk]

  That’s why I do it.

Chuck Smrt:Okay.  Okay.

Jim Tressel:Most of the time.

Chuck Smrt:Okay.

Jim Tressel:I mean –

 

 

Takeaways:

So, that’s most of the substance that I found interesting.  I’ll admit this was rushed more than a little bit, because I figured MGoFanatics like myself would want it quickly.  This is not intended to be all-inclusive – I was trying to strike a balance between brevity and depth.  Feel free to comment below with additions or changes or comments.  Last few comments from my perspective:

  • Tressel tries to play several sides.  He likes to play ignorant, innocent and scared, but often sounds like an attorney in a deposition with phrases like “strike that” and repeated use of hearsay to describe why he doubted the substance of Cicero emails.
  • The NCAA staff was disgustingly friendly to him.  There were at least 3 or 4 times that I had to double and triple check that the NCAA staffers weren’t from OSU or Tressel’s attorney or something.  To paraphrase Larry David, pretty, pretty, pretty,  RIDICULOUS. 
  • Tressel didn’t worry about suspending his players or asking them about their involvement in terms of NCAA violations because he figured that would be moot if they were in jail? So not only was he playing ineligible players, he was playing players he at least somewhat suspected were involved in criminal activities. 

 

 

 

Comments

skunk bear

July 23rd, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^

What your hearing from Tressel and OSU more generally is what is known as bullshit.

The disgusting thing is not that Tressel would BS. Or even an educational institution would BS, because we all know how desparate and ruthless OSU is to win, but that the NCAA laps it up as if they were hearing the truth and does so uncritically.

TrppWlbrnID

July 23rd, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^

Tressel messed up big time, tressel was hired by the university, the university will bear the burden of the punishment. Probably less than we would like, more than osu fans would like and we can get back to winning football games.

Bodogblog

July 23rd, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^

A detailed account of 1) OSU becoming a bullshit clownshow of an institution, and 2) the demise of the NCAA as an enforcement body.

NCAA will try to save face with schollie reductions (but no bowl ban).  OSU will try to act like it's all in the past.  Both have fundamentally altered their cultures through this process, the former has done so fatally. 

Can't respect OSU after this, and you don't really have a rival if you don't have (hatred +) respect.

The team the t…

July 23rd, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^

It will be a different rivalry.   Good v. Evil!

I enjoyed watching the discussion that was posted yesterday of Bo and Woody talking about the game/rivalry.  One part that stood out was how they both talked about how each side did it the right way and how everything was above the table.   The way it should be.

IncrediblySTIFF

July 23rd, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^

Before you guys rip my head off for this, let me explain something.  What Tressel did was cheating.  At one of its most basic forms.  It's like playing go fish and telling the person who asked for your sevens that you don't have any when you really have three.  It is like taking extra money from the bank in Monopoloy.  It is like claiming your dominican republican adopted kid is three years younger than he really is in order to play him in the under 14 baseball club.

I didn't have a chance to read this whole report, but I did look through it a bit yesterday and a bit this morning.  There is a whole bunch of malarky spewing from Jim Tressel's mouth.  I'm starting to worry about the sanctions though.  Unless the NCAA decides to make an example out of tsio, the only case the NCAA has against tsio is that Jim Tressel lied to the NCAA when he clearly should not have.  What is worse about this to me, is Jim Tressel had a valid excuse to do this.

Now, lets not confuse excuse and reason.  An excuse his used when one makes a mistake, and then tries to shift the blame of making said mistake on to something/someone else.  An excuse is a pleas offered in extenuation of a fault.  A reason is a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.  Reasons are more generally considered to be true than excuses.

I am curious to see where the NCAA goes from here.  I feel like tsio should be punished severely, but I'll get over it if it doesn't happen.  There is a lot of money that comes from tsio, and if the program gets damaged to the point where they stop selling all their tickets....that would be a big deal. 

Franz Schubert

July 23rd, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^

about how much money OSU makes the NCAA and I dont see it? What money does OSU currently give/make the NCAA that it would not continue to if serious sanctions are levied? Tickets? OSU is going to sell out every game regardless and if not attendance would not drop significantly. The NCAA is going to get the same payout from the BCS whether OSU or any other school goes to the games. Am I overlooking something here? Or is it the Big Ten conference that is actually the body that is tied to OSU financially and not the NCAA?

IncrediblySTIFF

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

That tsio would probably continue to sell out their games for ten years even if they got hammered by the NCAA.

If Utah makes a BCS bowl game, do you honestly think they could come anywhere close to the amount of money that tsio pulls in from a BCS game?  Yeah, the television rights and ticket sales are probably still going to be there, but think about it on as a national fan base.  One of the reasons why ND generally goes to a prestigous bowl game is because stupid people all over this country like Notre Dame, which means tickets are going to sell, people are going to travel, and money is going to change hands.

The Big Ten Conference is tied to tsio financially, Ohio State's football program was $31,304,47.00 in the black this year.  The B1G gets part of that.  So does the NCAA.  So does the state of Ohio.  So does the US government.  You see what I am getting at?

Michael Scarn

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

I think it's just a general notion that you don't bite one of the hands that feeds you the most.  If you want concrete ways they could lose money, with this whole recent movement towards wanting to pay players, there's been rumblings that if the NCAA doesn't adapt, some of the big time money programs would break off from the NCAA and form their own league, which would obviously mean a lot less money for the NCAA.  I'm not saying these rumblings are accurate or even based in any sort of fact, but that's one argument that someone COULD make. 

ILwolverine

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^

Which makes playing them even worse. He thought his players were addicted and/or dealing drugs with a serious criminal and he played them anyway without reporting that to anyone. In his eyes the best case scenario was instead of playing drug dealers he was just playing NCAA rule violators.

IncrediblySTIFF

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^

sorry, I didn't really articulate that as well as I wanted to.  I should not have used valid.  Let me trouble shoot.

Legitimate. No that one's no good either.

Acceptable. Not there yet.

Plausible at best.  I think we have a winner.

Also, I guess I didn't draw the connectin between whether the players were felons or not, more that he was told to keep it quiet because of a federal investigation.  Clearly he shouldn't have kept it quiet, but I can understand why he did.

In order to protect the confidentiality of those involved

In order to win football games.

Yeoman

July 23rd, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^

Who told him that? In the published e-mails with Cicero (and we're informed that he didn't have any discussions with anyone but Cicero and Sarniak) he's not asked to keep it quiet for a couple of weeks after he's informed of the violations, and even when he finall is there's no basis given for the request, which seems more likely to have been because Cicero knew he was violating client privilege.

Three possibilities:

(1) he really was told this by someone and his discussions went beyond Cicero and Sarniak

(2) he realized on his own that he should keep it quiet so as not to jeopardize the federal investigation

(3) this was an ex-post-facto justification dreamed up by OSU (possibly with the help of NCAA enforcement)

I'm inclined to lean towards option #3.

Zone Left

July 23rd, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^

The NCAA makes $0 off of OSU football (or any other FCS program). It's main revenue source is the CBS contract for the basketball tournament. A primary reason the BCS exists is so the big schools don't have to share football postseason revenue.

The argument that OSU is a primary benefactor of the NCAA only flies in that the NCAA exists because all 300ish members want it to exist and that big football schools like Michigan and OSU have a disproportionate amount of influence.

kb

July 23rd, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^

in treatment of coaches is ridiculous.  It boils down to this: Rodriguez was a little abrasive, so the NCAA was harsher on him.  Tressel comes off as a nice person, so the NCAA goes easier.  It happens in all facets of life - dickheads get punished more for the same thing than nicer, more polished people do.

 

The team the t…

July 23rd, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^

Wow.  100 pages of Tressel rambling BS and 39 pages of him stuttering "you know?".  That was extremely tough to read.

It now appears that additional punishment(s) will be limited.  At least we will beat a good Ohio team and not a 4-8 squad decimated by, albeit well deserved, NCAA sanctions.

The team the t…

July 23rd, 2011 at 2:15 PM ^

Just brutal.   It sounds like a 14 year old, like, you know?

 

Here's a typical example of Tressel failing to articulate anything.  Has he always spoken like this?

"And so we’ll call and say, “Hey, what’s the updated vehicle

registration form,” because it’s – you know, that’s one of the

things we chase. And, you know, so Doug and his office are

forever on the phone, you know, trying to – you know, so anytime,

you know, something from that standpoint comes up, you know,

we, you know, we try to help the cause."

 

vegasjeff

July 23rd, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^

Bo didn't call Ohio State "Ohio."

Gary Moeller and Lloyd Carr didn't call them "Ohio."

Neither did Rich Rodriguez.

So along comes Brady Hoke and, because he decides he's not going to call them Ohio State the fan base that has been calling our rivals Ohio State for years is now going to drop the "State" and just call them "Ohio"?

The crazy thing is that Ohio State fans don't care. They call the school "Ohio" in their fight song.

I don't care if Hoke wants to do it. Fine, if it works for him. But why people are such lemmings that they immediately imitate a coach with a 0-0 record and abandon their life-long habits, I don't know.

As far as I'm concerned they're OSU or Ohio State. Beating them on the field will do just fine; messing with their name just seems juvenile. I wouldn't mind it if Hoke and our fans didn't say the name (like the Mississippi State coach who won't say Mississippi or Woody Hayes, who called Michigan "The School Up North") but there is an Ohio, the Bobcats, in the MAC.

I support the team and the coach, but that doesn't mean I'm going to imitate his weird habit.

Yeoman

July 23rd, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^

and if you don't put the "U" after "Ohio" no one's going to think you're referring to the Bobcats.

Around here it's just usually "State", but that means something else on a Michigan board. Ohio's been an alternate shorthand for as long as I can remember. I don't use the name as an insult and it has nothing to do with Hoke.

Yeoman

July 23rd, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^

...how far the NCAA's, and especially Nevius's, conduct in the interview is from what you'd expect from an investigative or prosecutorial body. Nevius isn't just lapping up Tressel's excuses; he's planting them. The notion that Tressel thought he might be breaking the law if he gave notification comes from Nevius's questions, and it takes a few rounds before Tressel starts to see the light and go along with this line of thought.

There are really only two possibilities here: either OSU staff sat down with Nevius to discuss their intended defense against the allegations and when Tressel couldn't remember what he was supposed to be saying Nevius helped out with some leading questions, or it was NCAA's own enforcement body that came up with OSU's defense. .

It's also not obvious to me whether this was a particular favor done by one individual for a preferred institution, or if this is SOP for an NCAA investigation. Have any interview transcripts for other investigations ever been made public?

I used to think NCAA enforcement was understaffed and incompetent. I was wrong.

AFMich

July 23rd, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^

Nevius did start to sound like a lap dog for the Ohio cause. Still, I think we have to remember the lack of authority and subpena power the NCAA has. It's not like Nevius can compel Jimbo to answer any of the questions he asked of him. Had he been hostile or belligerent in his questioning, Jim could have stopped the interview and lawyered up at any time. I think Nevius's (possible) tactic of sounding understanding allowed Jimbo to feel like he could be more revealing.

This of course is just speculation, but I did read the whole document and could sense a marked difference in the tone from the beginning to end of the interview. At first Tressel seemed standoffish and non-forthright. Toward the end his answers became more detailed and seemed to flow more freely. Tressel did almost stick his foot in his mouth about other violation, but only after he became comfortable and was giving longer, freer answers.

Yeoman

July 23rd, 2011 at 5:18 PM ^

I agree that there's every reason to be understanding, as you say. It's a long way from there to actively suggesting alibis the defendant hasn't even thought of yet.

Or how about this odd exchange towards the end, which someone recently pointed out on the other thread. Would it be too much to ask of the NCAA guys to come back to Tressel's question of himself and get his answer on the record? Or, better, when Archie asks for a break just as Tressel seems about to hang himself, they could say "let's just finish this point first"?

 

Chuck Smrt: There’s a coach under 11.1.2.1 that has it has to – the head coach has to promote an atmosphere of compliance. Do you think you do that generally in your program? And do you think you do that generally in your program, an did you think you do it – that you did in here in this situation?



Jim Tressel: I think we definitely do it generally in our program. I don’t think it’s just my doing. But I think we do that, you know, very, very well. Did I do it in this particular situation?



Doug Archie: Can we take a break for a minute?



Chuck Smrt: Okay.



Tim Nevius: Okay. All right. 1:09. We’re taking a short break. Yep, definitely. Oh, back on the record at 1:15 PM with Coach Tressel.



Chuck Smrt: Coach, I had asked you about an atmosphere of compliance, and I think you’ve answered that question. So is there anything else you want to talk about?



 

Michael Scarn

July 23rd, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^

Thanks for posting jbr. 

One thing to add to my analysis is that I didn't do a good enough job conveying just how sickening it was to read this.  The whole thing struck me like a Congressional hearing with the wrong people doing the questioning.  Tressel played the politician Dohrmann described, to a tee. The NCAA staff played the part of the Congressman who was "grilling" one of his biggest campaign contributors. 

If, in fact, OSU gets off easy because "Tressel was the only one who knew", that, to me, strikes me as a perverse incentive for schools going forward.  When a coach learns about an NCAA violation, he now has two choices:

1. Report the violation, lose his star players for a few games, keep his job.

2. Tell no one else at the university (allegedly, or at least leave no paper trail about it), keep your players eligible for a while, take a risk with your job security, and see how it all shakes out.  If you get caught, you will nebulously resign/get fired, the school will temporarily lay the blame on you, and then when the NCAA is all finished, you can go back to your status as a martyr. 

To me, a head coach is like the CEO or president of a company, and his actions should be imputed to the whole program.  If he lies to NCAA repeatedly, the athletic department should be punished harshly, even if "he's the only one who knew".  Otherwise that's dismissing his role in the hierarchy as much less significant than it is.

Also, after reading JT ramble for that long, I really, really felt the need to shower.  And maybe go hear a real sermon. 

 

clarkiefromcanada

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^

Perhaps in Ohio Tressel will revert to his status of "St. Tressel" or become "Jim the Martyr of Cheated Wins" in the long term but, truthfully, everywhere else he is going to be a coaching pariah. Whether or not Ohio fans wnt to believe the obvious it is clear that Tressel lied repeatedly and acted completely opposite to his 'Senator' personae. If Fickell is a total failure (quite possible) then does the perception of Tressel move to 'the guy who caused all of this'?

What interests me is the linkage, now, between Fickell's success (or lack thereof) and Tressel's legacy going forward. If Fickell is successful over time then, perhaps, fans will forgive Tressel's transgressions and see him somewhat like Woody. In the modern era Woody is now seen as a batshit crazy competitive asshole who happened to be very talented at coaching football. Tressel could be seen as a very talented football coach who also happened to lack a moral compass (obvs. quite opposite to the image he sought to project). Both would be remembered for their worst offenses but recalled also as talented coaches.

What is secondarily interesting to me is that while some fans in Ohio might see Tressel as a martyr they somehow forget (see the Troll celebratory posts yesterday) that they have moved from having a very talented coach to an unknown entity running the show... 

Michael Scarn

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^

My point was more that, in balancing the equation, the cost/benefit analysis for this type of behavior has had its costs reduced. Obviously not everyone will love Tressel, but the fact is that without the investigation that was completely separate from compliance, there's a decent chance this never sees the light of day. If the deterrent isn't great, and the odds of detection are small, why won't coaches risk it in the future?
<br>I just think this warrants more penalties than will be handed down (obviously from a biased perspective).

IncrediblySTIFF

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^

I'm not sure about this one...

 

To me, a head coach is like the CEO or president of a company, and his actions should be imputed to the whole program.

 

So, If I'm working for BP, and my company spills oil in the ocean after a drilling platform blows up, I deserve to be directly punished for it?

Maybe not the best examplel; because I most certainly would be affected by it, but do you see what I am getting at?

Michael Scarn

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

Maybe I wrote that incorrectly, I meant that it should run the other way.  I meant if I'm the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and I engage in insider trader (especially to the short term benefit of the company), I go to jail, and the company also get's punished severely for my actions.

In torts, it's known as respondeat superior - roughly translated to - let the master answer for the servant.  If I am a pharmacist at Walmart, and I negligently mess up someone's prescription (even though stringent measures are in place to prevent it), the customer can sue Walmart, not just me. 

Obviously OSU will be receiving some punishment for this, I just think it should be more and the "it was just one guy" excuse is a little ridiculous when that "one guy" was your head coach. 

IncrediblySTIFF

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^

I understand what you're going for here.  I agree you absolutely can not lame all the blame and the sole blame on Tressel.  But you've got other situations that come up from this.  For example, if I work for you at Goldman Sachs, and you screwed me over with your insider trading because you broke the law, you can be held financially responsible for what I lost.

Better example.  At walmart, you're right the parent company can be sued as well, but a judge can also find that Walmart had no wrong doing in the situation and the blame can be placed solely on the aforementioned pharmacist.

I think paralells can be drawn here, with walmart being tsio and Tressel being the pharmacist who negligantly screwed up.  The NCAA can, and it seems like they will, come back and say that Jim Tressel created the issue and then compounded it before anyone else had gotten wind of it.

 

Also friends...I know I'm taking a pretty objective view on this, purely for the sake of conversation.  Not everything I say is going to be how I feel, ya feel?

Michael Scarn

July 23rd, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^

I don't think anyone's mistaking your points for your opinion on the situation, I know I personally am just happy to engage in a healthy debate. 

I think you're dismissing a company's responsibility far too quickly in most respondeat superior cases.  Often times, a plaintiff might choose to not even sue the employee, just the company.  Unless it's strictly willful conduct outside the scope of his/her employment on the part of the employee, the company is on the hook.  A company requires absolutely no tangible blame to have it be the one paying the bills.  Walmart could have industry-leading company policies to prevent it from happening, fire the pharmacist after, and have nothing to do with the mistake, but they'll likely be paying. 

Anyway, there's no point in getting into a philosophical legal debate (he says after starting one).  My main idea is that Tressel isn't just any other employee, he's to the level of one of a few personifications of the university (or at least the football program/athletic department) entity.  As such, LOIC seems appropriate to me, but again I'm a delusional Michigan fan, as we all are here. 

bluebyyou

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^

I will never understand Tressel's arrogance, unless it is a lie, as I suspect it is, in not taking the "tat"  problem to his legal department or his compliance staff.  How does a football coach without a background in criminal law take it upon himself to make decisions about a federal investigation.

maizenbluenc

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^

I haven't found it yet if it exists: did the NCAA ask Tressel why did he forward the emails to Sarniak if he was so afraid and worried that he didn't take the email to OSU legal or compliance?

The maddening thing about this whole case is the way OSU constructs it's investigations and reports so narrowly, and the NCAA seems to totally stick within those blinders.

Michael Scarn

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^

His awful excuse was that he wanted to protect Pryor.  He says the relationship with Sarniak was one where they spoke so frequently and Sarniak was basically his errand boy, so he hoped he could stop Pryor from his involvement with Rife.  Also felt he owed it to Sarniak, but apparently didn't owe that same favor to the other player's parents/mentor whose name he learned. A terrible excuse, but the one he proffered. 

hart4eva

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^

Tressel says "you know" so many times that it's definitely suspicious. Whether he's uncomfortable because he's no telling the whole truth/spinning or whether he's grasping for straws to find some way to contain this as only his problem and not the school's, this doesn't pass the smell test. Maybe he's just nervous because of the investigation, but when I read that, I get the mental image of a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Combine that with the NCAA enforcement staff's behavior and this investigation and disciplinary process starts to look like a sham. No wonder the NCAA issued its letter to OSU on a Friday that said the enforcement staff absolved OSU of ANY major violations (or at least failure to monitor and lack of institutional control charges). Release it any other day and people have a chance to look at this transcript and see the buddy-buddy nature of the interview and connect the dots to the lack of charges.

I have to stop before my blood pressure gets too out of wack.

BigHouseBlue18

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^

The whole thing is a farce. I do not understand how the NCAA could say there are no more violations. All the stuff that came out and not one thing stuck? The NCAA didnt even bother simple as that.

Callahan

July 23rd, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^

The NCAA guy's "handholding" is simple cross-examination. The problem is that he's poor at it. He had a guy hanging from the gallows on the failure to report charge and chose to simply grab the low-hanging fruit rather than smash away at the glaring holes in consistency and logic.

I guess he did his job because he'll get a "conviction" but the NCAA is about to convict Al Capone for tax evasion.

hart4eva

July 23rd, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^

I think it goes from cross-examination to hand-holding when you start volunteering a way out for the person that you're interviewing. The NCAA employee seemed to be leading him towards the "I was afraid I was going to break the law and interfere with a federal investigation" defense. Tressel may have been trying to take that angle anyway, but he was doing so in a meandering, incoherent fashion. The NCAA investigator appeared to be helping Tressel focus his defense toward a coherent yes in response to a leading question.

 

Yeoman

July 23rd, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^

"You know, I didn't know. I didn't know that." "You know, it crossed my mind about, you know, the attorney/client privilege kind a thing as, you know, I think I had mentioned earlier in the day of like, 'Is he allowed to do this?' "

It doesn't sound like he's ever even thought about the issue until Nevius brings it up, and he has to be beaten over the head with it three times before he realizes he's being offered a possible alibi. That Cicero might have done something illegal or improper, yes. But that he himself might be breaking the law? Totally new territory, is the way it looks to me.

hart4eva

July 23rd, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^

I agree with you. I was just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt to try and make a better point about Nevius. At best, Nevius is helping steer Tressel toward a more coherent form of his own defense. At worst, Nevius is offering Tressel and OSU an alibi. I tend to lean toward the latter, but I was trying to be dispassionate.

trueblueintexas

July 23rd, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^

I have only read the OP excerpts, but was anyone else amazed at how poor spoken Tressel was? I know the circumstances were not conducive to eloquent speech, but that was barely coherent. You know, yeah, you know that's right. You know.

jackw8542

July 23rd, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

at least to me, is that Tressel did not interrogate the players involved to find out precisely what was going on and who was involved.  If, as he says, he was concerned about players being involved in criminal activity, it would seem to me as if he would want to determine the scope of that activity - who was involved and exactly what they were doing.  Beyond owing it to his employer, he also owed it to every other player in the program.  If he had 1, 5 or 25 players involved in drug trafficking and possibly worse, then one would think his FIRST CONCERN would be protecting the other kids in the program from the felons in the program.  From the synopsis, he did nothing to determine the scope of the problem, which is step one in every damage control procedure I have ever studied.  That Tressel did not do this is what makes me most suspicious of his true motives and totally unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt.

When you look at what Tressel did, the only logical conclusion is that he did it to protect his won-lost record.  He clearly did not care about the players on the team or the possibility that a great many of them were being lured into felonious activity.

With respect to the investigation not going the LOIC way, what is most amazing to me is the fact that OSU did so little to investigate back in December.  Why didn't OSU find everything in December that ultimately came to light?  The obvious answer is that it was more interested in playing in a bowl game than it was in policing its program.  This is what would seem to me to be a very strong LOIC argument or, at the very least, a failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance.

news2me

July 23rd, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^

First, as to your above comments, a hearty Amen!!!

Did Tressel solely feel compelled to involve Sarniak at the risk of interferring with an F.B.I. investigation because Sarniak had up to this point done such a fabulous job of "protecteing" Tressel's star player Tryelle Pryor? I can't see what Sarniak had accomplished for the young star, can you, which should compel Tressel to contact Sarniak as if Sarniak was a proven reliable mentor? I mean, the fact Pryor's coach, Coach Tressel himself admits, felt Pryor might be involved in a drug-sales, drug-use, murder, etc. out of control group of associates which Tressel knew someone involved with this group might endanger the lives of other players and the public at large? I guess Tressel would have us all believe (especially the NCAA) how Sarniak was the most welcome contact under these conditions; so Sarniak from what Tressel has said above would be "responsible" for contacting Sarniak as a person Tressel knew for certain was/is absolutely more reliable than contacting the F.B.I., any lawyer anywhere, compliance, the NCAA, or THE Administration of tosu.

Playing felons linked to those involved in murder? What did you say Sarniak's expertise in this was? Just give this to me again; or is it only me who completely missed this information about life and death?

Protecting one player, without protecting him from another player? (How much for the bridge did you say?)

Tressel was frozen, you know, you know, you know, you know, like, like, like, by the F.B.I. thing? Let me set the record straight on this point. Tressel was focused entirely on a fantasy he called belief in his own mind; a belief he could squeeze in a National Collegiate Football Championship and limit the scope of damage because he knew for certain he was working in an institution which did not keep paperwork trails. The NCAA decision not to issue Lack Of Institutional Control is absurd beyond all imagination; and I have no respect for them:  neither should anyone else!!!!!

Put me down as a ditto on your most excellent tag line, too!

P.S.

The very second Tressel was informed the F.B.I. had someone who copped a plea in the case, everyone knows with absolute certainty Tressel was instantly certain in his own mind how very sure he was his moral obligation must be right then to report to compliance immediately if not sooner. There can be no question or interpretation about this "mistake". For, it is absolutely the smoking gun linking Tressel to total and unmitigated recklessness, if not hatefulness, and willful disregard of any and all duty to being a coach let alone as a responsible person in the least - and I sure do mean in the least; which clearly he has not been for a very long time; and THE Administration preferred this type of coach quite wittingly and should stand accused and condemned for this as the record outside the narrow scope of this discussion shows clearly.

Bobby Boucher

July 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^

Why isn't the media gobbling this up?  I don't understand.  Are people really that afraid of TOSu?  I bet the SEC, USC and whoever else who's had to pay for their violations are just livid right now.

MDubs

July 23rd, 2011 at 5:59 PM ^

Personally, I wonder about conflict of interest issues.  I'm don't know about any others involved but I know Rachel Newman-Baker, Director of the NCAA Agents, Gambling, & Amateurism division is an OSU alumn (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/09/16/ncaa-agents/index.html).  Her direct subordinate, Chance Miller, was one of those at the hearing.  Obviously I'm sure the NCAA made sure Rachel didn't have any formal role in an investigation of her own school & probably has a policy in place to deal with those situations, but if your boss/friends attended a school you are investigating, even if you know & are told NOT to take that into account, it sure may be in the back of your mind, you know.  Stuff like that can have an effect, even if its completely subconscious.  The NCAA people are still just people, at the end of the day.  I hope thats not what happened here, based on what people are saying about the investigators going easy on them (I havent read the transcript)