Interpretation of OSU fan response

Submitted by Jivas on

I commented in another thread where I made this analogy, but I'd like to take it further.

As I read the response from a significant chunk of the OSU fanbase over the last few days, all that sprung to mind was this....

Chappelle's Show - Celebrity Jury Trial Selection

(Sorry, don't know how to embed).

Here is my interpretation of Buckeye fans as Chappelle:

___

Us: "You know, Tressel has been accused of this more than once."

Them: "So?!  Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled."

Us: "Huh?"

Them: "What?"

___

Us: "So, what exactly would it take for you to believe that Tressel knew of these improprieties?

Them: "If there was video of Tressel watching Pryor receive cash from Dennis Talbott in exchange for autographed goods ... and Talbott was holding up 2 forms of government ID ... and then Tressel was over at Fine Line Ink watching Pryor hand over stolen goods, then supervising while Pryor received a new tattoo ... with Devier Posey and Boom Herron in the background smoking blunts and playing XBox, someone from Eleven Warriors there taking notes ... and with Ted Sarniak there to confirm Pryor's identity."

___

Us: "Can you at least acknowledge that Tressel more than likely knew what was happening?"

Them: "I'm sorry, sir.  My buckeye-ness won't allow me to admit that."

___

Note: I believe that last quote came from a different Chappelle skit.  Oh well.

orobs

June 9th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^

I think it sounds pretty similar to what was going on with practice-gate last year.

 

We thought it was a witch hunt, and were saying: "this is bullshit! everyone does this."  The violations were obviously much, much less significant, but I don't think their response is that irrational.  

Blue-Chip

June 9th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^

The difference in severity makes what a rational response is a little different.  M's situation was essentially "Does stretching count or not?"

TSIO players blatantly violated rules that are well known, and effect their eligibility to even stop onto the field.

Minimizing one is certainly a little bit more rational than minimizing the other.

/ my 2 cents.

CalifExile

June 9th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^

The difference is that the freep Jihad A) was based on anonymous sources (except for two freshmen whose comments were taken out of context, and B) was based on an incorrect interpretation of what is considered countable time. That's why, in the end, you had minor transgressions plus the quality control guys breaking a clear cut rule against observing voluntary practices.

The Ohio violations are proven by documents that were produced pursuant to Public Records Act requests.