that's unfortunate, but at least the interest is there on both sides
Rumor: SI set to release latest Buckeye findings on 5/31
NCAA investigation staff for YEARS has been describes as understaffed. They are running from fire to fire -- not looking at just smoke.
When you have minimal resources, you go where you think the most likely violations are occurring. With Tress's squeeky reputation and tSIO's massive number of self-reported secondary violations, there probably was just no momentum to go investigation tSIO.
Really, the best single finger-pointing about this was leveled by ... Maurice Clarett. It's like Ron Artest complaining about the refereeing in a game -- he might be right, but, odds are he's not. However, in hindsight, Maurice might have been a complete Loser but maybe he was dead honest!
Someone really doesn't know how to consider opposing opinions. I posted above that we shouldn't rush to conclusions, and that I feel at least some of these allegations are far-fetched. If an individual on this board thinks that's flamebait, then that's just idiotic.
Has this board degenerated to the point where opposing opinions are immediately negged just because someone doesn't agree with them? I sure hope not.
Flamebait is trying to get a rise out of people for the purpose of seeing people get angry or upset. It's NOT offering detailed opinions on serious topics.
I justflamebaited you for bitching about being flamebaited.
But don't you agree it's all a little ridiculous? Discussion and differing opinions are healthy.
and sometimes frustrates me, preventing me from posting. Usually when it's an insightful, nonflame post that I know someone who disagrees with some nuance just swept through mass negging. It's partly frustrating because I've never really had a disagreement with a Michigan fan in person, so it makes me wonder why, on here, we all have to wear masks and then pretend we're not friends.
This has been going on at MGoBlog for a long, long time, unfortunately.
It's been going on here, at work, home, church, city hall, and every single public forum/message board since the beginning of time.
If I thought someone had posted a totally assinine response that I did not agree with - neg
If they posted something I didn't agree with - no vote
If they posted a contrary opinion, and supported in a way that made a good counterpoint for consideration - plus 1
We need to get the modifiers right. Maybe adding:
good counter point
don't agree but OK
you sir are an ass
There also needs to be a "WTF?" option. Just my two cents.
I give someone "flamebait" when it's really deserved, i.e. when a comment is designed to elicit an emotional--often angry--response that serves no other purpose than to deliberately tick off others. I give someone "trolling" when they purposely drag conversation way off topic, or otherwise purposely annoy, attack or taunt others.
If I don't agree with someone, and they're doing none of these things, then I either respond to them or I move on and keep reading. Differences of opinion are GOOD for a message board. Otherwise it becomes a boring, trite place.
This guy says it aint heppening. Who to believe?
"From talking to someone today who has intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the editorial operation at Sports Illustrated, I can confirm that Torgensen has something in common with Dohrmann: the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist doesn’t know what his story will be about either.
Because it hasn’t been written. Nor has the decision been made by Dohrmann to write such a piece. Or by Sports Illustrated to publish it.
Yes, Dohrmann has been in Columbus chasing down leads but no, there are zero immediate plans for a story from him about Ohio State football to be published in Sports Illustrated."
They have more journalistic integrity than The Freep. They have been "chasing leads down" but have not yet decided to publish because, either:
A) Someone at SI is an OSU slappy (unlikely)
B) They can't get 2nd and 3rd sources to confirm what they've been told (more likely).
Without a corroborating source, it's conjecture and heresay. Publishing might well lead to a lawsuit, and they're not risking it.
this morning. However, I wouldn't be surprised if SI is keeping a lid on it -- especially from Brooks.
Going back to first page of comments people talking about the statute of limitations keeping OSU safe from violations committed in the past unless they fall under the exceptions.
That's not the way it works. Even in the bylaws it says......
32.6.3 Statute of Limitations. Allegations included in a notice of allegations shall be limited to possible
violations occurring not earlier than four years before the date the notice of inquiry is forwarded to the institution
or the date the institution notifies (or, if earlier, should have notified) the enforcement staff of its inquiries into
That should have notified part is important. Even if it doesn't qualify as an exception (which it probably does) Ohio State can't find out about some violation then hide it from the NCAA for four years and then go HA! We gave tons of money to all those recruits and got away with it!
The "enforcement staff" would have just received notice and the four year rule would START then.
In short, Ohio State is screwed.
"going back to the first page of comments," this exact section was already discussed and placed on display by Erik_in_dayton.
I see you're new here. If you are discussing something specific like this you should make your comments on the first page by clicking on the reply box in Erik's post. It maintains the flow of the blog. This prevents bringing up the same discussion numerous times in a single thread.
Flow of the blog? I didn't realize we were writing a research paper here.
I thought doing reply was dumb when there were already 200 comments. If you were going to check the thread again you're only going to look at the end for the new comments and not in the beginning or middle (like I just did).
Next time I guess I'll just keep the correct information to myself.
Maybe outside of the Horseshoe OSU can erect a statue of the statute of limitations.
In the link below, Dohrmann apparently provides a Twitter response to Brooks' denial of the SI report (cited by RedGreen and linked below). While it is admittedly cryptic, the tweet may suggest that Dohrman did not confirm his SI report because he did not
want to get "scooped". In support of this interpretation, Biddle--a supposed "journalist" on Bucknuts-- appears to have recently confirmed the upcoming article.
Also, contrary to Brooks' suggestion that OSU would sue SI, I suspect that OSU would be foolish to do so, as that would invite further inquiry into their program in court---which could be far more powerful than an NCAA investigation.
In any case, I suppose we'll all find out the truth about the article next week.
"To hell with Tressel"