vegasjeff

March 18th, 2011 at 1:10 AM ^

The tenor of the board is growing ridiculous. The media may be screaming for blood (and the board, obv.) but five games is a long stretch. Competing coaches still respect Tressel and, since he's 9-1 against Michigan (incl. 7 in a row and counting) and so do I -- he's coached and won more BCS bowls than any other coach, and he's won a consensus national title.

The suspension includes three decent OSU opponents: Miami (Fl.), Colorado and Mich. St.

I think the penalty seems appropriate and will be surprised if NCAA significantly increases the penalty.

BRCE

March 18th, 2011 at 3:04 AM ^

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

No program, not even USC, has had more incidents of smoke than OSU in the last ten years. You really think that now that there is a paper trail as obvious as can be they are going to skate?

What exactly does five games - two of them being layups - mean to Tressel of all coaches? He's not some brilliant gameday coach. He is an expert program CEO.

justingoblue

March 18th, 2011 at 3:06 AM ^

You realize that every comperable offense (NCAA 10.1 violation) has been punished with a show-cause penalty, right? (Except Herron, who was fired and will never coach again.)

That means that every other head coach who is guilty of unethical conduct (which Tressel admits) has had to stay out of the college game for multiple years. There is no reason to think that five non-conference games is anything approaching a reasonable penalty.

If Hoke admitted he was guilty of lying to the NCAA on three separate occasions, as well as knowingly playing ineligible players, I would immediately call for his firing, and I don't think it would even be debatable. If it was RR, I would be all for M testifying that he deserves a show-cause. It's not about OSU, it's about coaches being able to lie and cheat and get away with it, even when caught red-handed, and Tressel got caught worse than maybe any coach, ever.

Wolverine318

March 18th, 2011 at 8:53 AM ^

Wait what? So you respect a coach that lies and sweeps serious NCAA violations under the rug just so he can win a bcs game? I bet you were Pete Carrol's #1 fan. I see no difference between Tressel and Carrol. I guess it is the sweatervests that make Tressel so respected.

GunnersApe

March 18th, 2011 at 8:57 AM ^

I'm trying to be fair and balanced and take off the maize glasses. As others have said about being a PR move I think is correct. The NCAA upheld the five game suspension for the TAT5 and low and behold the same day Tressel up the suspension to 5, Chris Spielman said Tressel should own up and double the suspension and fine on ESPN after the first press conference.

-LARGEST Compliance Deptment in the country.

-Got caught lying 3x for the 2010 season

-10.1 violation

-370somthing secondary violation (is this football alone or all OSU sports?)

-Former player tweets that have been taken down. (Pitman/Holmes)

-Moe C, T. Smith, A.J. Hawk $$$/grades/lend-lease car program.

 

Is this an OSU version of a PR grifter ?

-Give out some BS punishment of two games

-49 state's go batshit, 1 thinks it's fair save the ESPN poll.

-Wait till TAT5 rule gets upheld.

-Tressel comes off as the white knight and ups his suspension to throw off the dogs.

 

If the NCAA buys this...I truly would want to pull out of the NCAA and not abide by it anymore.

 

/rant

Urban Warfare

March 18th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^

375 violations is for all 36 varsity sports at OSU. 

I'd point out that the NCAA did a pretty serious investigation into OSU after Maurice Clarett made all the accusations, and they determined Mo was insane and/or lying.  There was one TA who corroborated Clarett's stories about grade fixing;  she had been fired for erratic behavior before the story broke, and when the NCAA interviewed her, she was in a mental institution in Kentucky or Tennessee. 

I'd also point out that OSU suspended Troy Smith for the 2004 Alamo Bowl and the first game of the 2005 season.  Moreover, Tress voluntarily held Troy out for most of the 2005 Texas game, even though it meant playing Justin Zwick (sort of like holding Denard out in favor of Sheridan) and costing us a chance at the MNC. 

I'm not aware of anything involving AJ Hawk during his time at OSU. 

elaydin

March 18th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^

You can be sure that if the NCAA comes down significantly harder on OSU (it won't), that 375 number over the next ten years will go waaayyyy down.  It won't be because anything has changed.  It'll be because the NCAA will be telling OSU that self-reporting isn't worth it and you might as well take the SEC approach of denial and cover-up.

I find this notion that the Ohio State has more issues than any other popular program because Ohioans are naturally evil to be silly homerism.  They've just taken a different approach to reporting than the SEC.

In general, the NCAA is a lot more lenient against programs that self report, versus those that stonewall investigations.

OMG Shirtless

March 18th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^

Please don't take this the wrong way, this is one of the few times I'm not trying to be a jackass.  

You've said a few times that OSU consulted with the NCAA to determine the proper penalty and the NCAA wouldn't impose something much stronger.  Why do you think Tressel more than doubled his suspension if OSU consulted with the NCAA and felt that the 2 games was appropriate?   It gives the appearance that OSU now thinks its initial penalties may not have been strong enough, because they could have initially given him the same suspension as the players received.  Did he just do this as a sign of solidarity with the players who may have been ineligible last year?  Or are they conceding a little bit, as if this was some sort of negotiation?  In my attempt to look at it rationally, it looks more like they're trying to increase the proposed penalties because they've gotten word that the initial proposed penalty wasn't harsh enough and the NCAA was going to impose something stronger.  

I don't think Tressel needs to be fired over this, that's OSU's decision.  However, I think the original 2 game suspension was a little weak.  Including only non-conference opponents doesn't effect Big Ten standings or a potential Rose Bowl bid.  If they were going to stick to 2 games, 2 conference games seemed more appropriate sort of like the Bruce Pearl suspension for only conference games.  I really don't care if they have to vacate wins because that doesn't really do anything.  Vacating wins didn't screw up Michigan Basketball.  It was fucked by the other sanctions that were imposed.  

/I've already had a few drinks for the game, so this may not even be coherent.

elaydin

March 18th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^

Yes and Yes?

I think, relative to what Pearl and Calhoun got, they thought 2 games seemed about right.

I also think they thought maybe the Tat 5 would get appealed down to 4 games.

There were some rumors about players parents not being happy that the players will miss a lot more games than the coach.

So yes, I think a part of it is to appease the NCAA and part of it is to keep from losing the team.

Urban Warfare

March 18th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^

Some of both, most likely.  I think they probably felt the original penalties were legit, given what Pearl got for offenses that, IMO, were much worse than Tressel's.  I'd be surprised if the NCAA were to hit OSU with the type of penalties that they gave USC, or really anything more than probation.  If it wasn't for OSU's decision to self-report, the NCAA would never have known about this issue.  As Elaydin said, if they drop the hammer on OSU after OSU voluntarily self-reported this and everything else, schools are going to lose any incentive whatsoever to cooperate with the NCAA. 

That's not to say that OSU doesn't need to get its shit together and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.