Irish

June 5th, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^

I don't really agree with your translation at all.  There are correct and incorrect ways of dealing with players receiving extra benefits.  Stoops still has a job, tressel doesn't, its pretty easy to understand who handled it correctly.

I agree with him that its impossible to know everything about your players when there are so many, but that still isn't an excuse to not be as proactive as possible, the anti-usc.

redhousewolverine

June 6th, 2011 at 9:28 AM ^

Although I haven't read the article, just because Stoops still has a job doesn't mean he is a clean coach. Tressel still had a job a year ago, but granted what has come to light one wouldn't say he was a clean coach. I guess it is a very cynical approach to the whole situation, but with the amount of money and interest in college football and the numerous gray areas one wonders the level of cheating that really does occur.

goblue20111

June 5th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^

OU has run a relatively clean program under Stoops' watch unless I'm mikstaken.  Like was said in other threads, there's no such thing as a clean program but they're certainly not dirty, IMO. 

WestSider

June 5th, 2011 at 8:52 PM ^

there, OU was unbelievably corrupt, or 'dirty.' Stoops obviously runs a tighter ship, but the networks of boosters/fans and the sort probably have not cleaned up their act as much as the program itself. I would not be surprised if there were some funny business, but until it is discovered we just don't know for sure.

MGoJen

June 5th, 2011 at 8:55 PM ^

Whenever a high-profile coaching job opens up, Stoops always comes up.  He's a hell of coach and runs a relatively clean program.  I gained a lot of respect for him in '06 when he suspended Rhett Bomar, their starting QB, over allegations that he worked for a private business/violated NCAA rules. 

BLUEOkie

June 6th, 2011 at 12:00 AM ^

And Adrian Peterson never missed a snap.  When the whole Big Red deal went down, OU turned in the player that received the most benefits and money. That player was a junior 4th string wide receiver that never dressed for a game, everyone around here knew it was Peterson getting off the hook.  

Stoops is the king of "handling things in house."  Oklahoma is right behind Ohio State in secandary violations.  My buddy that I work with played golf for Oklahoma and he said you wouldn't believe how dirty their athletic program is.  The story that is suppose to be a 10 out of 10 wouldn't surprise me if it were Oklahoma.

After living here for the last 20+ years and hearing some of the things that happen there, it surprises me that anyone thinks they are a clean program.

BlueinLansing

June 5th, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^

 on probation in 2005, and lost a couple scollies for a couple years due to a couple players having what amounted to no show jobs at an auto dealer.

 

OU was also penalized pretty heavily under Barry Switzer which really pretty much killed OU football for most of the 90's.

the_white_tiger

June 5th, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^

Rhett Bomar? Oklahoma acted swiftly and definitively with that fiasco. He was the #2 recruit in the country, and they dumped him out the door. Stoops =/= Tressel.

MGOUSMC

June 5th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^

I completely agree with you. IMO Stoops was telling Tressel what he should have done. Stoops used his direct response to Rhett Bomar's actions as a spring board to distance himself from Tressel, while showing that he respected him as a X's and O's coach. Its obvious that most coaches are not willing to step out and say, "I think Tressel is a cheater and will get what he deserves." 

 

But we know Tressel is a CHEAT!

vegasjeff

June 6th, 2011 at 12:00 AM ^

Schools (administrators and coaches) need to work hard to make sure players are well educated on the NCAA rules they have to follow, and need to make sure compliance office folks keep a close eye on car ownership, tickets, purchases/sales, equipment usage and off-campus appearances.

Schools no longer can try the see, hear and speak no evil approach. And if players screw up, school representatives CANNOT cover things up.