Fox Sports: The incovenient truth about Tressel

Submitted by psychomatt on April 28th, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Bruce Hooley (Fox Sports Ohio) lays out the facts, in detail, in the case against Tressel. The story that is being spun in Columbus that Tressel is actually a man of integrity who just made an inadvertent mistake is the casualty. IMO, Tressel is done at OSU.…



April 28th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^

"No one reads a mystery novel by starting in Chapter 9, jumping to Chapter 2, ahead to Chapter 20, then backward again to Chapter 6."

It is clear that Mr. Hooley has never been introduced to the Choose Your Own Adventure series!  Amirite?  Clutch reading material in 4th grade.



April 28th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^

That vid is very disturbing. Mom in robe with curlers, Dad sticking it in ( i mean up) for JR and  JR jacking off at the library all day instead of, you know, his bedroom?!?!

Ohio needs to be fenced in with escape routes to Cedar Point allowed.

The Harbaughnger

April 28th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^

Isn't this the same guy who was voluntold to leave his job at an Ohio radio station?

Nothing like dismissing a guy for not being a homer and then seeing his opinion reach the masses anyway...

The Harbaughnger

April 28th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^

It's one of my favorite as well- it's basically what was printed on a shirt given to me at a very young age...that's what started me on the path to becoming a Michigan fan.

Anyway, I basically tried to find the best image of it that was available online which ended up being a picture of a t-shirt on M-Den I believe...  I took a screen shot and then touched it up in MS Paint until I had just the logo with no distortions...

On yet another note- I live in GR, MI but I'm from Dayton (specifically Trotwood)...


April 28th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

I've played devil's advocate and defended Tressel multiple times on this board.  I still think he's a guy who's done a lot of good.  I have a former co-worker whose grandson, now a player at Toledo, Tressel helped out with no real gain to himself. 

That said, Tressel's response to OSU on Dec. 9 and 16 that he didn't really know anything about the situation seems implausible given what we know now.  The only arguably good reason I can think of for saying what he said would be to keep Cicero from being outed as someone who broke attorney-client privilege while trying to help the team.  

Wolverine 73

April 28th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^

Cicero did not ask for confidentiality in the first email.  And do we know Cicero was representing Rife?  Just because he is a lawyer and talked with a guy doesn't make the guy his client.  Lawyers interview people all of the time.  Unless he was actually engaged to represent Rife or was discussing representing him, there is no attorney client privilege, and Cicero would not be "outed" as having done anything improper. 

03 Blue 07

April 28th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^

mI don't want to go down this road again, but we discussed this ad nauseum back when it came out. And by "we" I mean the board, including a bunch of lawyers. Let's not go down the rabbit hole again. I think it can best be summed up as this: we have no proof that a fiduciary, attorney-client relationship was in place at the time of said communications. I'm a lawyer. People come into my office all the time. Sometimes as prospective clients, sometimes not. Sometimes as actual clients.

It got so detailed in that other thread (too lazy to look it up), that we got into citing the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Can we just say that more conjecture without knowing* facts is really jumping the gun and invites a shit-ton of assumptions and disinformation? We just don't know enough to cast aspersions on a guy. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, accusing someone of professional misconduct (which accusing Cicero of breaking his fiduciary duty would definitely be) is defamation per se.  I actually have a case right now involving this in Illinois and the medium in question was, in fact, an internet message board. . . like this one. The commenter is being sued. (FTR, we represent the guy's employer, who had no idea his employee was using the internet to spread falsity's about a third party's professional reputation and, yes, we will get out on summary judgment).

*  I use "knowing" loosely; there's certain to be an argument over whether an attorney-client relationship ever existed, and really, a court would likely have to decide if it were fleshed out. Or at the very least, the Ohio board governing attorney conduct


April 28th, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^

According to this report, Rife went to Cicero looking for advice but then chose another attorney:   

What (if anything) Cicero learned that was privileged and that he passed on to Tressel, we of course don't know. 

I should have been more clear about what I meant: Tressel could have been concerned about the appearance of impropriety by Cicero, whether there really was any or not.  He also could have wanted Cicero not to have to deal with being part of a public story, which could of course happen regardless of whether Cicero did anything improper himself. 

Just to say it one more time: Tressel could have felt the need to protect Rife even if Rife did nothing wrong.  I have no idea whether Rife did or didn't.


April 28th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^

That sets a dangerous precedent.  We'll probably see more "delayed suspensions" from schools in the coming years.  Letting players who have broken rules to play in the most important games and then sit out unimportant ones makes a mockery of the whole process.


April 28th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

A theory I've heard tossed around is that the NCAA is likely to be pretty wrathful toward OSU b/c the NCAA let the players play in the bowl with the understanding that they (the NCAA) knew everything about the situation and that OSU was fully cooperating...Of course, that could be complete crap.  


April 28th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

The only reason that the Sugar Bowl win is safe is b/c the NCAA specifially declared the five players eligible for the game-  there's some weird rule that lets them postpone the suspension if it's a championship game or bowl game.

If the NCAA had not ruled them eligible for the bowl game, that could be vacated as well


April 28th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^

I know everyone keeps saying that, but the NCAA easily could vacate the Sugar Bowl on the basis they were lied to as part of OSU's request to reinstate the ineligible players in December. Also, the loss against Wisky will not be vacated.


April 28th, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^

I'm pretty sure all games involving ineligible players are vacated, whether won or lost.  For example, our all-time basketball record against MSU is 93-74 counting all games, and 86-71 counting non-vacated ones.


April 28th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^

Maybe i'm just that cynical and jaded but I don't think he had to do a thing to get those players to play in the bowl game. I'm pretty sure the Sugar Bowl execs probably just said "okay, so Posey, Herron, Pryor are all going to be out for OSU? How exactly to you plan to compensate us for our ratings you've just murdered? They'll play or we're going to have a problem."


and in reality how can the NCAA have any jurisdiction over players playing in a bowl that they don't govern?


April 28th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

Would ratings have gone down that much without them?  Pryor was the only one with any kind of a national profile at all.  I really don't watch college football to see any one individual player, or handful of players.  I just like watching the games.  To me, a team trying to win shorthanded is arguably more compelling, if anything, than them playing at full stretch.  


April 29th, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^

Posey also has some recognition, but I think the important effect on the game would have been along the lines of "With tOSU's starting qb and other players out, they won't even be competitive." So, with tOSU out a bunch of guys, why watch what becomes a boring game?

...Even I didn't make it to the end of MSU/Bama.


April 28th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^

It was the B1G and Sugar Bowl lobbying. Basically the story went like this: players suspended by OSU, B1G/Sugar goes to the NCAA and lobbies for reinstatement, that happens, OSU asks seniors whether Pryor & Co. should play, they say yes, whole team says yes, Tressel goes with team sentiment.

And the NCAA has jurisdiction in two ways:

  1. They license the games, and an NCAA team can't play in a bowl that isn't authorized by the NCAA.
  2. Same reason we have a de facto legal limit of .08. Feds can't mandate that, but they sure as hell can pull highway funding. In other words, if they can't control the bowls, they can bring raining fire on the schools who thumb their noses at a ruling regarding bowls.


April 28th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^

I remember that was the big issue around Christmas.  Jim Delany found a loophole in the rules so the players could play.  Then the NCAA left the decision up to Tressel and OSU.  And many thought that was a joke since a decision like that should not be left up to Gene Smith and Tressel.  Obviously they were going to let those guys play in the bowl game. 

How convenient that Tressel's solution (come back next year and sit out the first 5 games - against opponents who had a combined 39 losses last year) left him with those players in the Sugar Bowl. 

This makes his image stay clean because he had "ethics," when in reality, he had already been keeping secrets for 8 months by then.