|05/01/2017 - 5:59pm||Job Interview||
I am absolutely in favor of letting them back. When any of us interview for a new job, quitting the old job first is decidedly not a prerequisite, and this is the only means of entry into that job market. The level of risk that current players are being asked to assume is far in excess of anything that almost any of us have to deal with in changing jobs.
Throw on top of that the fact that athletes are already only paid in scrip, and the question has really become "Should athletes be required to forfeit their unpaid internship in order to interview for a paying job?" It's just ridiculous that we are even asking this question.
Translate this to ANY other field: "Should graduate students be required to forfeit their scholarship and fellowship to interview for a private sector job?" "Should music majors be required to forfeit their scholarship to try out for the Boston Philharmonic?" It's literally absurd when properly framed.
|04/29/2016 - 11:46am||Scholarships, etc.||
You are already receiving health insurance, possibly 401k matching, training in your profession, and office supplies from your job. Why should they have to pay you on top of that? You seem to be making out alright.
|04/29/2016 - 11:44am||Why is any of this an issue?||
Why does it have to be "closely regulated"? Why shouldn't a player be allowed to accept gifts, and make decisions based off of that? You selected your job based on who offered you the most money, but god forbid a football player with marketable skills worth millions makes the same decision for the same reasons. And again, so what if they hire an agent? They are already making a decision in deciding what school to attend that will effect their future earnings to the tune of multiple millions of dollars, but if they are allowed to seek professional advice on that decision, clearly the world will end.
|04/29/2016 - 11:40am||Fair Market Value||
What if that player's fair market value, including all of the revenue he generates for his school, is well in excess of even the value of a scholarship? Plenty of private sector companies will pay for employee's tuition as a benefit, plus a salary (and health benefits! and maybe 401k matching!) on top of that, and I doubt you are bitching about it. You are just screaming to under-compensate the players relative to their fair market value because... reasons.
|04/29/2016 - 10:14am||Analogy||
You're off to a good start, but let's hone that analogy a bit.
Let's say that every car manufacturer in the world decided that they would ONLY compensate their engineers in the form of giving them a free car, and they all colluded to provide no salary whatsoever. And that these companies further colluded to fire any engineer who attempted to sell their free car, or allow others to drive it in exchange for money, or have someone else pay for gas or maintenance, or who accepted money from fans of the car brand, such as Ferrari racing fans. Further, those manufacturers set strict rules about where else those engineers could work in their off time (of which they had little, since they were working for the car manufacturers for 50+ hours per week), such that it was impossible for those engineers to provide for their families, even though they are performing a difficult task with an enormous level of skill.
There, now you have a more apt analogy.
|12/07/2015 - 10:03am||*cringe*||
That one just hurts.
|07/17/2015 - 9:34am||Juan Pujol Garcia||
The guy wanted to be a spy for the allies during WWII, and they turned him down. So, he decided to just spy on the Germans on his own. He called up the Nazi's, who told him to move to London to spy on the British - he instead moved to Lisbon, told the Germans that he was in England, and created a whole team of make-believe agents. He even submitted expense reports on their behalf. When the British figured this out, they moved him to England for real, and he kept up the charade - even killing off some of his totally made-up spies so that he could collect a widow's pension from the Germans. He remains the only person during the war decorated by both the Allies and the Nazis.
I'll just let some quotes from article speak for itself:
"Mad Jack was a British soldier who fought throughout the Second World War armed with a longbow, bagpipes, and a basket-hilted Scottish broadsword."
"As the ramps fell on the first landing craft, Churchill leapt forward from his position playing 'March of the Cameron Men' on his bagpipes, before throwing a grenade and running into battle in the bay."
"'If it wasn't for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years.'"
|05/07/2015 - 11:10am||Married one||
I married an MSU grad. Sadly, she stopped me from giving our (now 8 week old) daughter the middle name "Harbaugh."
Edit: An MSU grad from Columbus. We'll always have our mutual hate of OSU, thankfully.
|05/07/2015 - 11:07am||Lincoln Park||
You just described EVERY girl in Lincoln Park/Lakeview.
|12/21/2014 - 8:46am||Gruden||
This is the same guy who said that Oakland offered "double" the reported $8M/yr to Harbaugh, then clarified that he meant $100M/10 yrs, thus $10M a year. Thus, a 25% increase, FAR from "double." Ignoring everything else, how can anyone trust a guy so bad at math?
|12/18/2014 - 9:08am||Timing||
You are correct. I was limiting this to prior to the NFL season ending, before any other team can talk to him. If he could negotiate with Oakland himself, that completely changes it.
Also, I just remembered that he has a no-trade clause. So he likely wouldn't accept a trade of his 1 year deal to a team that he didn't want to negotiate a new deal with anyway.
|12/17/2014 - 11:51pm||Sign and Trade||
[EDIT: Looked at history of past coach trades]
In prior trades for coaches, the team that the coach is leaving simply agreed to release a coach from his contract in exchange for draft picks, then negotiated a new deal with that coach. I don't know enough about this - would that just declare open season on Harbaugh?
Indeed, it REALLY puts the pressure on NFL teams, for the following reason:
1. JH has an 1-year contract with San Francisco. So, in order for SF to actually get anything in return, either a team must trade for the value of that 1 year deal, or SF must sign him to a longer deal prior to trading.
2. What team is going to pony up for one year, knowing that JH can simply walk away before the ink is even dry? Trade value to SF - nil.
3. SF can attempt to sign him to a multi-year deal, and then trade THAT contract to another team. That would require SF to negotiate blindly - if they overshoot and there is no demand, they are stuck with an albatross. If it is too little, there is no value.
4. SF can attempt to act as an intermediary - on one hand, ask Oakland what they want in a contract with Harbaugh, then relay that information to Harbaugh in an attempt to get a deal done. But, why would any side trust each other in this situation? Harbaugh would believe that Oakland and SF are colluding to knock down the value to him, and instead send value to SF; Oakland would believe that SF is screwing them to take a media market rival down a peg; and SF would be at risk of the whole thing blowing up (they sign the agreed-upon deal with JH, then Oakland says no thanks, screwing over a media market rival).
5. A team might trade for JH's current contract with the understanding that they will give him a major contract extension on day 1, on par with UM's offer. The exposure for that team is still huge - JH would have absolultely ridiculous leverage in blowing that new contract completely through the roof, and his new team would be SOL, since the alternative is to have wasted the presumable draft picks it took to get him there.
So, in short, NFL teams wanting his services not only have to figure this out logistically, but have to be prepared to match UM's offer, plus offer compensation to SF, all while being at risk for getting massively screwed if any of the moving pieces falls apart.
|12/17/2014 - 9:50pm||Sources / Revenue||
You are missing the point - it isn't their job to be RIGHT. It is their job to (1) drive revenue for their respective media outlets; and (2) carry water for the NFL as to keep the revenue flowing. In that order. These guys didn't fail, they succeeded spectacularly when you think of it that way.
Also, if you ask them, THEY weren't wrong, their sources were, or the facts were, or Michigan fans were and the circumstances changed, they ran out of gas, they had a flat tire, they didn't have enough money for cab fare, their tux didn't come back from the cleaners, and old friend came in from out of town, someone stole their car, there was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts! It wasn't their fault, they swear to god!
|12/17/2014 - 2:33pm||Unwritten Rule||
No chance, for several reasons.
1. If JH stays in the NFL next season, San Francisco still controls his rights. They can trade his contract as-is, or they can sign him to a new contract, then trade it. It is entirely possible that San Francisco is negotiating with Oakland on one hand to find out what they want the contract to look like, and with JH on the other hand to see what is acceptable to him, but the idea that they are playing intermediary is a bit far-fetched.
2. They could do a trade-and-sign with Oakland, but the risk that the Raiders assume there is absolutely massive. Harbaugh could walk away *after* the trade but *before* the signing. So unless there is a contract to sign a contract (unlikely, IMO), this option must be ruled out.
3. Oakland has separately negotiated a new contract with JH, requiring him to quit his job at San Francisco, without San Francisco's knowledge. In addition to the tampering violation, the Raiders would also be civally liable for tortious interference in contract, and would owe San Francisco a boatload of money, including possibly punitive damages.
4. 3. Oakland has separately negotiated a new contract with JH, requiring him to quit his job at San Francisco, WITH San Francisco's knowledge. This presumes that Oakland has, in writing, a covenant not to sue regarding tortious interference. That is seriously unlikely. In addition, it would still be tampering, which cannot be waived by the clubs (it's an NFL rule).
|12/17/2014 - 2:04pm||Tampering Rules||
They can't even request permission until San Francisco's season is over.
Head Coaches. These rules govern cases involving head coaches:
Under Contract. During a club’s playing season, including postseason if
applicable (excluding Pro Bowl), the following actions are prohibited
concerning a head coach who is under contract, unless the involved head
coach has been dismissed by his club: (1) No head coach may discuss or
accept employment for the current or a future season with another club in the
League; (2) no club may request permission to discuss employment with a
head coach for the current or a future season; and (3) no employer club may
grant another club permission to discuss employment with its head coach for
the current or a future season.
|12/12/2014 - 12:26pm||Considerations||
Yes, clearly if he doesn't feel the "tug" of Michigan strongly enough right now that he can leap at an opportunity without even knowing, let alone considering, his options in the NFL, that means that its all over. Everybody panic!
Also, the guy is so busy and focused that he hasn't been able to take the time to decide where he wants to go.... but I'm sure he's got time to read the comments section of mgoblog! And THAT, more than anything else, is going to take precidence over what he wants his legacy to be, compensation, control, etc.
|12/09/2014 - 11:36pm||Honecker||
Is Erich Honecker really your avatar? Bravo for choosing the third most obscure communist leader of the 20th century. Nowhere but a Michigan blog...
|12/09/2014 - 10:52am||21st Century||
Les Miles' record in the 21st Century: 131-49. Just sayin'. 21st Century is not ONLY equatable to Oregon/Arizona/Baylor/Auburn offense.
|11/12/2014 - 4:10pm||Top Secret Plan||
This could totally be the case! Hoke is playing the long game rope-a-dope. He has purposefully instructed the team to play terrible football in 2014 in hopes of putting future opponents off their guard!
|11/10/2014 - 2:53pm||Philosophy||
I agree with you generally; it would be an interesting debate over how much Hoke's philosophy has been to the credit or detriment of the offense as a whole, and one of the questions I would like answered most is what level of control Hoke exercises over the offense, and how that effects the play calling. For example, is Nussmeier constrained in the formations/plays he is permitted to call on game day? During practice?
In short, my response was generally meant to point out that individual coaches CAN be credited for things that they individually did correctly, and this does not necessarily mitigate any criticisms of Hoke, especially as their responsibilites differ drastically. I personally feel that in the case of the 2-point conversion, Mattison does deserve significant credit, and this doesn't lessen any criticism of Hoke regarding the issues that are in his domain.
Another fun debate would be whether having a head coach be 90-100% hands-off to an entire facet of the game is a good thing or not, e.g., what is the success rate of "delegator" coaches in the long and short term compared to "control freak" coaches who interject themselves in every possible area. My personal opinion is that the "delegator" coach may achieve short-term success, but ultimately his fate rests on continually making good hires for the area in which he is not involved, which may lead to lack of long-term stability due to successful coordinators being hired away for bigger and better things (if that coordinator isn't getting offers elsewhere, that head coach likely isn't very successful).
|11/10/2014 - 2:23pm||Coaching Responsibility||
I think this misses the point - no, Hoke can't be blamed for specific bad play calls on offense (nor credited for good ones), but what he CAN be blamed for is the offensive philosophy generally (barring evidence that he is 100% hands-off, which we have not seen), and his retention of position coaching staff, who are largely responsible for invidual player development; thus, Hoke bears significant responsibility for the lack of player development himself.
Speaking for myself, I do not think that specific offensive play calls are that big of a problem this year, e.g., no "throw the damn bubble screen" issues. Instead, I think that the offense is permeated by a general malaise, lack of identity / trying to force an identity that they truly are not, and lack of improvement at the individual level. I believe that those items can be laid at Hoke's feet.
However, in the instance of the 2-point conversion, it was a specific play call that had it dead to rights - such play calling being the sole responsibility of Greg Mattison. Therefore, it is proper to credit Greg Mattison for making that play call. Likewise, Hoke can be credited with player development, general philosophical issues, and morale on the defense. IMO, credit for that last play goes 40% to Mattison (right players in the right place); 50% to the players (made the play that they were put in a position to make); and 10% to Hoke (general good defensive juju + good defensive philosophy).
|11/05/2014 - 1:38pm||None||
Dammit, I'm a doctor, Jim, not an Athletic Director!
|11/05/2014 - 1:36pm||Changes||
I am in no way advocating keeping Nuss, just pointing out that bringing him in for year 4 doesn't erase the results of years 1-3, or reset the clock for Hoke so his players can "learn a new system." The responsibility for the installation of the first system lies with him, and he doesn't get a full blown mulligan to try something else.
Also regarding the earlier post's comment about "mostly underclassman" - that would be more powerful if the players on the field were not making the same mistakes that have been endemic for 4 straight seasons. There is no evidence at all that these linemen, for example, will magically acquire the ability to block someone simply by being one year older.
|11/05/2014 - 1:17pm||Fault||
Even if that is the problem, that doesn't absolve Hoke in any way. The reason that they are learning a whole new system this year is due to Hoke's decision to hire and retain Al Borges and the offensive position coaches for three years. I agree that hiring Nussmeier was the smartest thing that he could have done, but it has been proven that it was too little, too late. This staff change just doesn't reset the clock on the whole experiment.
|10/22/2014 - 10:28am||What Should Happen vs. What Will Happen||
I agree with all the points made in this post, but it doesn't address the major issue - what WILL happen? I understand that reading tea leaves isn't an exact art, but just because an echo chamber of "small time" (read: not major donor/former player/VIP) fans believe that he should be gone does not mean that he will be.
Brian made the point yesterday that season tickets are on a knife edge - I believe that the desirable home slate next year can superficially cover that wound. On top of that, Sam Webb (who has been touted by Brian as being the most plugged-in guy around) has been continually beating the "Hoke ain't being fired" drum, up to and including a blog entry last night.
In the last half-decade, there are many many things that UM SHOULD have done, or should not have done, but for some reason, took the opposite tack. I sadly see no evidence at all that this time will be different.
|10/20/2014 - 2:04pm||Program Attrition||
We see this argument against change over and over, but it makes no sense. Programs suffer attrition when they make a BAD coaching change, or the program was insanely weak beneath the surface to begin with, not just when they make a coaching change. For god's sake, look at OSU (Meyer), TA&M (Sumlin), Ole Miss (Freeze), Arizona State (Graham), Penn State (Franklin), or MSU (Dantonio). Did any of them suffer massive attrition, with loads of transfers? Absolutely not! In fact, OSU pulled in several players who they wouldn't have BECAUSE they made the change.
The danger isn't in changing coaches, it is making a stupid hire. Make a good hire, and none of what you mentioned holds true at all. Make a bad hire, and transfers/attrition/recruiting for 2015 are only scratching the surface of the problem.
|10/06/2014 - 12:04pm||Someone that can win now||
Please name that person who can win "NOW." Difficulty: must be actually willing to take the UM job.
|10/02/2014 - 9:13am||New Coach?||
"There is zero confidence that his reputation will enable him to hire a first rate football coach and less confidence that he'd know one if that coach slapped him in the face."
Sadly, I am less confident than you are that Dave Brandon will be doing any hiring of any football coaches. Given the amount of push-back over the last week, it is my opinion that we are in for at least another year of Brady Hoke. It appears that Hoke has influential supporters, and any amount of blogger or general fan outrage is more than cancelled out by former players, former colleagues from his first stint at UM, major donors, and otherwise influential people such as James Stapleton.
|09/29/2014 - 4:29pm||Accountability||
I certainly hope so, but what guarantee can there be? The long history of accountability, including with what we are currently seeing? Fan outrage has BARELY succeeded in forcing certain actions, and even then, the AD still seems to do exactly what he wants.
|09/29/2014 - 4:26pm||Stephen Ross||
As has been posted before: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140927/NEWS/309289978/pressuring…
I hope that I am wrong, that this is simply supporting the establishment rather than personal support of Dave Brandon. But, if someone with the public presence of Stephen Ross is OK with this train wreck, why not others who have a lot more in common with him than with you and I?
|09/29/2014 - 4:15pm||Not Supporting Brady||
Don't get me wrong, I think Hoke should have been fired long ago. I think that his BEST case scenario is avoiding a complete and utter breakdown of team discipline, and that is kind of a stretch at this point.
What I am saying is that, from what we have seen, noise from the rabble doesn't reach the top. There is no evidence whatsoever that Dave Brandon is going to be in any way responsive to what we as fans think, including that we think that Brady Hoke should be fired. Essentially, there is zero - absolutely zero - motivation for Brandon to respond to what anyone else wants so long as the big money donors are in his corner.
Seriously, I sadly am holding the belief that Hoke is back after this year for that reason.
|09/29/2014 - 4:10pm||Prompting Change||
"At this point, It’s a foregone conclusion Brady Hoke is out of a job at the end of the year and Brandon is holding on for dear life."
What evidence is there of this? Was it the prompt disciple/suspension/firing of Hoke following 48 hours of national embarassment? Oh wait, they circled the wagons and basically declared that they are not accountable to anyone in any way. So yeah, the only real power that we as fans have is to show up the program in a way that they have demonstrated actually means something to them, in this case, the 100k+ attendence record (since they are increasingly North Korea-esque in declaring it alive, they must actually care).
|09/29/2014 - 10:18am||Presser||
First question needs to be "Did Shane Morris suffer a concussion on Saturday? Yes or no." There is pretty much no answer that they can give that mitigates the impact of that. If yes - why on earth didn't you find out during the game, and how do you justify keeping your job after playing a concussed player? If no - when was this determined? Clearly not during the game, and why not? If "I don't talk about injuries" - yikes. Might as well just admit that he's concussed.
|09/29/2014 - 9:07am||Next Press Conference||
To me, it's very simple - the first question at Brady Hoke's next press conference needs to be "Did Shane Morris suffer a concussion on Saturday? Yes or no." If the answer is "yes," that obviously is very damning, and leads to a ton of follow-up questions, such as "why did he return to the game?" Even if the answer is "no," the question still remains "when was that evaluated to give such a conclusion?"
|09/25/2014 - 2:39pm||Murderer||
Obstructor of justice and alleged accessory to murder, please. We don't want to stain the man's good reputation with unproven accusations, like blood stains a white suit.
|09/25/2014 - 2:37pm||Dumber move by ESPN||
By suspending him for it, ESPN/Disney created a tempest in a teapot. How many people actually listened to the original podcast? Probably less than 500,000. How many are seeing the story today, and coming to the conclusion "ESPN suspended Simmons for daring to criticize the NFL, whom ESPN has very strong financial ties to"? Certainly way more than that. The harm to ESPN/Disney had they let it go? Zero. The harm they have now? Way more. I'm not arguing that it is a rational or good thing to trash your employer, but, sometimes the retribution will cause you far more problems.
Also, ESPN had pulled their ombudsman's piece essentially trumpeting Simmons as evidence of ESPN's critical stance against the NFL, before sheepishly putting it back up hours later and calling it a "technical issue," reinforcing many people's opinions that this was an NFL-placating gesture.
|09/23/2014 - 12:15pm||Transition||
What makes you think that a transition period would be any worse than what we'd see if Hoke was retained? This season is shaping up to 7-5, 6-6, or worse. Plus, look at next year's schedule - what on earth gives you any confidence that Hoke can win any of the following: (1) @Utah; (2) Oregon State; (3) BYU; (4) @Maryland; (5) Michigan State; (6) Rutgers; (7) @Indiana; (8) @OSU? Do you need a 4-8 season next year to say it isn't working?
|09/23/2014 - 9:29am||Good Coach||
"Hoke is a good football coach"
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
|09/23/2014 - 9:13am||Spurrier||
Yes, lets compare a mortal lock HOF head coach at a historically completely inept program that was on NCAA probation/sanctions for his first three years to Brady Hoke, taking over an admittedly down but nevertheless top-10 program and regressing every single year.
The worst part about the "wait and see!" theory is that it simply glosses over clear and undeniable errors committed by this coaching staff. If, and that is a HUGE if, Michigan were to somehow become successful under Hoke, it would necessarily be in spite of those errors, no? Why should fans settle for that? "We know you absolutely gloss over and fail at certain aspects of your job because reasons, but lets all ignore that because you may [evidence still being out] do certain other things well!" Seriously, it's like having a world-class heart surgeon who doesn't wash his hands.
|09/22/2014 - 4:59pm||DG||
Two major problems with that argument: (1) DG was clearly the wave of the future at the start of last year. He had some spectacular performances and certainly seemed more than capable of continuing to improve and win games until he was battered into tiny bits and caught a case of the Joel Stave "yips" or something this year; (2) it is year 4 of the Hoke regime, and "building for the future" by inserting a currently inferior player at this juncture makes no sense whatsoever.
Calls for Morris right now simply refuse to confront their worst fear: Morris is probably WORSE at playing QB than Gardner is at the present time, as scary as that may be to comprehend.
|09/22/2014 - 4:51pm||Easily Correctable Mistakes||
I would agree with your point, but for one thing: there is clear evidence of Michigan's coaches, particularly the head coach, continuing to do things that are simply, objectively, wrong. For the best example, today's game column re: punt formation. Michigan has been playing with fire in the punt game, and predictably, got burned. Another example is tempo/lack of urgency when trailing.
If we were in the position where the coaches were clearly doing all they can, and the players were consistently put in a position to succeed but for one reason or another did not, it is a different conversation. Likewise if there was clear evidence of player development (the degree of which can be laid at the coaches' feet is debatable).
However, given that the talent on the team, especially on the OL, was going to make this season a dicey proposition to begin with, clear and easily correctable errors which can, with 100% certainty, be laid at the feet of the coaching staff are simply not excusable.
|09/22/2014 - 4:14pm||Player Changes||
Its hard to believe that Hoke is sticking with certain players through sheer loyalty vs. performance in practice/on the field. Those "tough decisions" aren't benching a horrible QB for a superstar who just clashes - it's benching one player who isn't performing for another who is likely even worse.
In short, thinking that the 11 best players are currently NOT on the field, and that players with the talent to win games are riding the pine is absurd.
|07/23/2014 - 10:33am||Shaving||
I've been using a straight razor for about 10 years now (the multi-blade ones gave awful razor bumps). Some advice:
1. Unless you are REALLY familiar with knives and blades, I would start by having a professional sharpen it - I recommend these guys, as they are reasonably priced and do a fantastic job - http://www.vintagebladesllc.com/
2. They also sell a decent "starter kit," which would come with a strop, bowl, etc.
3. Learning curve is pretty steep. You'll probably slice yourself good the first two or three times, but it gets easier much faster. There's a pretty sincere motivation to learn quickly.
4. Only shave after a shower, since the facial hair will be significantly softer.
5. Practice by doing only your sideburns the first few times. It's a nice, flat area that you can't screw up too badly.
6. NEVER EVER EVER draw the blade parallel across your skin.
7. Stick with it, if for no other reason than other people's expressions when they find out that you basically scrape a scalpel across your throat every other day.
|10/24/2012 - 1:12pm||Quote||
"While Michigan’s specialty is a fourth-ranked pass defense ..." - I'll take "things I would have bet my life savings against if I heard this predicted two years ago" for $200, Alex.
|09/28/2012 - 3:57pm||Wife Day||
I'm getting a wife - wedding day is tomorrow in downtown Chicago!
You have no idea how much work it took to get the wedding to be on this weekend.
|08/13/2012 - 2:35pm||PSU Online Mindset||
If you take a look at BSD, or *gulp* Blue White Illustrated, its been definitively decided by the fans who post there that the Freeh report was: (1) a set-up by the trustees to frame poor innocent Joe Paterno for the fact that they themselves were actually pedophiles; (2) total lies made to justify the fees charged; (3) some other conspiracy whose end goal was to frame Paterno; (4) not "due process"; and/or (5) nothing more than mere allegations that haven't been proven one iota.
So, if you start from the premise that the report is totally wrong/a frame job, then you can see where these trustees are coming from. That said, they only think it is wrong because it makes a conclusion that they don't like - there is no evidence that the conclusions ARE wrong, but since there isn't an email from Joe saying "Go get'em, Jer!" Paterno must be 100% innocent and in fact a victim of all of this.
In short, delusional.
|12/12/2011 - 4:40pm||Question||
Mr. Bacon has said many times that he gave RR a book to read for "factual accuracy," but that he did not agree to necessarily change what RR requested. My question then is, what did RR request be modified or omitted? What did Mr. Bacon actually modify or omit based on these requests?
Admittedly, I am not sure if this breaks any kind of ethics, or if there is some sort of editor privilege, but I really want to know what was left out at RR's request, and what he felt was bad enough to object to but was left in anyway.
|06/16/2011 - 3:14pm||Not a judicial system||
I'm aware, but the lack of any follow-up stories with any kind of legitimate paper trail has me concerned. As it stands, I just don't like how the NCAA has so much wriggle room to ignore those more-recent allegations, and that OSU fans can hold on to the hope that the key players in the scandal follow what seems to be the Ohio omerta.
When can/should we expect to see the notice of allegations amended, or a new one put forward? As their August hearing date creeps up with seemingly no further NCAA action, I remain skeptical that any of the new reports will actually be taken into account, and thinkg that OSU will somehow skip away unscathed by pointing the finger at Tressel (as the NCAA pretty much invited them to do in the original notice of allegations).
|06/16/2011 - 2:41pm||Evidence||
From following a few OSU blogs and talking to some OSU fans over the last few weeks, I think their major argument can be summarized thusly: The NCAA doesn't have any rock-hard proof of anything that has come to light over the last few weeks, and therefore, can't conclusively prove anything from the SI article, the OTL piece, or any other source which has made accusations in OSU's general direction. Therefore, all of those accusations will not be any part of any forthcoming NCAA decision or penalties. Basically, they are arguing (hoping?) for a free pass because the right people have and will remain tight-lipped, and in the meantime, fully believe that every accusation made against them in the above-mentioned sources is false until proven 100% true.
Any comments/insight on the NCAA's process when dealing with that situation? Does OSU get the benefit of the doubt where an accusation can't be backed up with a clear paper trail, or can the NCAA piece together enough evidence to bring the hammer down? I admit that my biggest worry is that absolutely all of the recent accusations will be completely ignored, and they will merely be penalized for the "Tressel knew and failed to report" thing, receiving something like 3 years of probation and a 3 year show-cause on Tressel, but no post-season ban, no scholarship reductions, or really any other punishment of substance.
|01/11/2011 - 2:00pm||Fail||
Not to mention, the Lloyd faction that made him a candidate in the first place will never let him be fired no matter how badly the team performs.