Around the Big Ten

[iam416]

Regardless that the NCAA has not connected the dots .... because as you correctly point out the facts can't substantiate what circumstantially is fairly clear ..... tressle's conduct (his lying and cover-up of inappropriate benefits making there way into the hands of players) point to an institutional culture where that sort of thing is (a) looked the other way at (tressel in the eyes of his players .... "he has our backs") or (b) lacks the mechanisms to identify unethical conduct and then put a a stop to it.

You base that paragraph on a single incident. I understand reaching general conclusions based on specific incidents [plural]. We do it all the time in our every day lives. What you're doing, of course, is working with a spectacularly limited sample size and making spectacularly broad conclusions. I think you're a reasonably smart fellow, but I think your reasoning on this is, frankly, weak sauce. It can, of course, be explained:

As an aside, here's a link to a short blurb on inductive reasoning and why ....When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

I haven't really taken you task for your inductive reasoning spiel, and I should. Suffice it to say, one of the principle weaknesses in inductive reasoning -- aside from sample size -- is bias. Enough said. But let's go beyond pure bias, which you ooze, to a huge weakness of inductive reasoning: confirmation bias. You have a hypothesis and will rely on any shred or scrap of "evidence" to support it. The most reliable inductive reasoning happens organically -- we see so many incidents that we eventually reach general conclusions. You (and many M fans) start with the hypothesis (I've always suspected/knew...) and work backward shoehorning whatever to support your hypothesis and ignorning stuff that blatantly undermines your hypothesis because you "just know" it's right. And, of course, there isn't an allegation that supports your hypothesis that you won't swallow whole. An absolute absence of critical thought. Weak.

As I said before -- I'd LOVE to have this whole thing tried in Court -- civil court, even. Standard rules of evidence. Verdict would be "more probable than not". I would love that. LOVE THAT.

Anyway, carry on with your blather. I'm quite certain that's all any M fan will ever post on the OSU thread. I understand -- probably too painful to talk about the team.

[drok]

Well, since I'm so beloved...

Quote:
So the facts are not that your coach lied to the NCAA and didn't own up to it until outside interests proved this was the case?
No, that's not the fact -- thank you for so graciously proving my point in the very first sentence of your spiel. Ohio State owned up to when Ohio State discovered the emails and Ohio State self-reported the emails to NCAA and Ohio State put Tressel in front of the NCAA ... all prior to anything any f'n outside interests "proved."

Tressel failed to forward the Cicero tip proper authorities. If you think that justifies months upon months of negative coverage, so be it. It's an odd stance.

Umm...if you actually read my post I said the coach (ie Tressel) lied to the NCAA. I mentioned nothing of the OSU administration's ability to report the constant avalanche of violations they're so diligently reporting (they better be good at reporting, they have more practice than any other administration). He failed to tell the NCAA for months with numerous opportunities to do so, including right before their BCS Bowl. So, same as the majority of those interested in CFB, I DO believe that this deserves months of negative coverage.

But once again, this is besides the point. All I originally wanted to say was that we will find out a ton more about this team after the ND game since we will have more than double the amount of observable moments. I'm assuming your silence on this means that you agree with me.

[Jeff Buchanan]

You base that paragraph on a single incident.

In part, yes. In the whole I base my conclusion on a constellation of events that support it including the one where tressel lies.

The problem for me in reaching that conclusion is that the NCAA has determined that in the number of specific incidents that were investigated, rules were not broken. I would ask the investigators if they thought the rules were stretched creating a situation where rules were broken in spirit if not by literal interpretation?

For example, it appears that the selling of signed uniforms/equipment was within the letter of the NCAA rules but the extent of it and the questionable attestations of the parties about stolen equipment strains credulity. One can take these attestations at face value, and the NCAA did, or they can ask WTF .... which is what I have done.

What is disturbing to me in all of this is that the NCAA has the latitude to do this and has apparently chosen not do do so. Why did they do this in the case of USC and Reggie Bush but apparently not in osu's case involving a larger number of miscreants albeit probably less money.

The most reliable inductive reasoning happens organically -- we see so many incidents that we eventually reach general conclusions.

I believe that is exactly what has happened from tressel's questionable behavior at YSU to his lying during his tenure at osu, to the untoward behavior of the tat5 with regard to the receipt of tattoos (inappropriate benefits) to the other minor yet indicting behavior of osu players supposedly within the rules but nonetheless casting discredit on the osu football program to the most recent incident involving the three players who received inappropriate benefits at a charity event.

I fall back once again in support of my conclusion based on this organic sort of occurrence to the view that if there is any kind of reasonable enforcement, any kind of real consequences for transgressors, this kind of behavior declines, maybe not stops completely but it declines. In osu's case it seems to have been going on for a long time. There is a a record of it going back a long time and, if the latest episode is an indicator, it continues to go on unabated ..... therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance.

BTW ..... I've had to dig deep in this addled brain (with the help of the INTERNET which you will learn at some time in your more advanced years you will not be able to live without) to some distant logic and reason classes that I struggled through as a student.

Its been good ...... confirms my view that osu is evil just like it always has and will for ever and ever amen.

[iam416]

So, "outside interests proved this [Coach Tressel's transgression] was the case" is Ohio State discovering his e-mails and reporting the Cicero e-mails to the NCAA? So, in other words, Ohio State=outside interests. Eh, whatever.

As to the central point, I concur that you will know more about M after a second game. I, personally, still think you won't know much. I suppose I could have concluded my original post with that explicit conclusion. I apologize. I think we've seen M at 4-0 and 5-0 in the past two seasons. I think we've seen M beat ND in the past two seasons. I think in each instance what you thought you knew about M after the ND game wasn't anything close to the truth. I'm dubious that you'll know a great deal about M after this week.

However, conceded -- we'll know more. Now, perhaps if that's all you "originally wanted to say", you could just say it instead of leading with a paragraph on me and Ohio State, and then an analysis of M's team and then, finally, what you wanted to say. I understand that's the standard response to anything I say: I don't think we'll know much about M after ND -- TRESSEL LIED!; WMU looked a lot like UConn -- TRESSEL LIED! and so forth. In my experience, if I have a prime point, I usually try to make it up front. Or at least by the middle.

Anyway, I stand 100% behind this post, which apparently has you irate:

Why will you know "a lot more" after Notre Dame? Hell, RichGOD started 4-0 in 2009 and 5-0 in 2010, both with wins over mighty ND, and I guaratnee you what you thought you knew then sure wasn't what it turned out to be. And, again, the schedule is set up for 5-0/6-0 start before the real tests come -- and then they come in bunches.

[Hannibal]

Why will you know "a lot more" after Notre Dame? Hell, RichGOD started 4-0 in 2009 and 5-0 in 2010, both with wins over mighty ND, and I guaratnee you what you thought you knew then sure wasn't what it turned out to be. And, again, the schedule is set up for 5-0/6-0 start before the real tests come -- and then they come in bunches.

I don't know anyone who felt good about our team after the Notre Dame game last year. The overwhelming majority opinion was that the team probably wasn't very good, that we got lucky when Dayne Crist got injured, and that ND probably wasn't very good either. This year, ND is better and the back half of the schedule is a lot easier.

Weekly Grades

Ohio State vs. Akron: A
It was a conservative offense without many big plays, but the Buckeyes more or less did as they pleased and held a bad team to under 100 yards. Without 8 or 9 of their starters.
Next week: Toledo. From a bad MAC team to a good one. The defense will be more challenged.

Heh. You are beating your chest over defeating a team that lost 56-10 last year to Western Michigan (the team that we just beat). They also went 1-7 in the MAC and lost to Gardner-Webb at home.

[iam416]

I would ask the investigators if they thought the rules were stretched creating a situation where rules were broken in spirit if not by literal interpretation?

This, I think, more or less sums it up. This is what you have. The spirit.

For example, it appears that the selling of signed uniforms/equipment was within the letter of the NCAA rules but the extent of it and the questionable attestations of the parties about stolen equipment strains credulity.

First, I don't think so. I don't think players can sell signed shit. I think players can obtain jerseys from the University if they pay for them. But, let's assume that what you say is true, to what extent has this happened? Tell me.

Why did they do this in the case of USC and Reggie Bush but apparently not in osu's case involving a larger number of miscreants albeit probably less money.

I'm not going to answer a question based on a false premise. If you want me to meticulously go over the differences between USC and Ohio State again, then fine. But it's a typical "How often do you beat your wife?" question. False premise.

I believe that is exactly what has happened from tressel's questionable behavior at YSU to his lying during his tenure at osu, to the untoward behavior of the tat5 with regard to the receipt of tattoos (inappropriate benefits)

You know I could talk about YSU and Ray Isaac all day with you and present you with lots of stuff that undermines you're conclusions -- but you'll ignore it. You don't want to hear it. I could point out (and have) that Tressel lied once -- singular -- though you seem to say, with authority, it was much more. You see--you hear want you want.

I fall back once again in support of my conclusion based on this organic sort of occurrence to the view that if there is any kind of reasonable enforcement, any kind of real consequences for transgressors, this kind of behavior declines, maybe not stops completely but it declines. In osu's case it seems to have been going on for a long time. There is a a record of it going back a long time

So, tell me -- because this is f'n critical to your entire theory -- provide me the "record of it going back a long time". Prove me the evidence which shows that "it seems to have been going on a long time." I know the record. That's the thing -- these generic statements have no meaning. What are you relying on?

Finally -- a point to your earlier point on proving a negative. Yeah, sure, it's easy to prove 5 is not 4. Admitted. It's much harder to prove that, say, Brady Hoke hasn't given money to any player on the M team in violation of NCAA rules. Go head -- prove he hasn't. It's those types of allegations demand support and that's why I'm so interested in what you consider support for your grossly overreaching institutional allegations. I can, of course, point to evidence that directly contradicts your theory -- OHIO STATE TURNED TRESSEL IN!

As I said and will continue to say -- I'd LOVE to try this in court.

[iam416]

Heh. You are beating your chest over defeating a team that lost 56-10 last year to Western Michigan (the team that we just beat). They also went 1-7 in the MAC and lost to Gardner-Webb at home.

Good news. Toledo whipped Western last year. This week should be a real test.

[whodean]

the schedule is set up for 5-0/6-0 start before the real tests come

True, but you play the games on the schedule. Notre Dame may not be top-25 but its the next test.

[Jeff Buchanan]

So, tell me -- because this is f'n critical to your entire theory -- provide me the "record of it going back a long time". Prove me the evidence which shows that "it seems to have been going on a long time." I know the record. That's the thing -- these generic statements have no meaning. What are you relying on?

Let's get started ..... from SI:


"As coach at Youngstown (Ohio) State in the mid-1990s, he (tressel) claimed not to know that his star quarterback had received a car and more than $10,000 from a school trustee and his associates -- even though it was later established in court documents that Tressel had told the player to go see the trustee."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/magazine/05/30/jim.tressel/index.html#ixzz1XB1q6ACb

YSU admitted the infractions occurred. The court of public opinion would agree that tressel (best case) either knew about the improper benefits and ignored them or (worst case) established or used a mechanism of outside support to facilitate a pay for play scheme allowing plausible deniability if this mechanism should it ever get discovered or questions arose about players availing themselves of opportunities to get payed through the mechanism.

Moving on into the next decade .....

Maurice Clarett – improper benefits. Tressel denied knowing about it.

Troy Smith – improper benefits. Tressel denied knowing about it.

The tat5. Tressel denied knowing about it (and here we know he lied because he admitted it).

More form SI:

One former Buckeye, defensive end Robert Rose, whose career ended in 2009, told SI that he had swapped memorabilia for tattoos and that "at least 20 others" on the team had done so as well. SI's investigation also uncovered allegations that Ohio State players had traded memorabilia for marijuana ……. osu officials denied knowing about it.


yes, in this case, the NCAA, in investigating this claim, was able to substantiate only one player as having done this.

In my opinion, this kind of conduct is widespread among osu football players, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that it is and, frankly, I don’t trust the NCAA’s ability to be able to uncover much of anything in a timely fashion, if at all. That’s just me ….. along with millions of other sports fans who feel about the same way. Am I biased? Yes. Does that cloud by analytic capacity? Perhaps but I’m in good company.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/magazine/05/30/jim.tressel/index.html#ixzz1XB83cR2x

Trends indicating a cover-up .....

Osu suspends tressel and fines him $250,000 acknowledging that he broke NCAA rules by not reporting his knowledge of the tat5’s conduct.

For a week following the suspension, allegations about inappropriate benefits for players at osu continue to surface; osu distances itself from tressel and he is finally fired. It is easy to conclude that osu officials may not have done anything had pressure not mounted on them to do something. Since osu, as you have agreed, did a terrible job of damage control from a PR standpoint, one could conclude from that terrible job that they were scrambling to come up with anything to protect themselves and keep determined parties at bay.

The conduct continues .... ten f'ing years later (more if you count YSU) is this enough?:

Two weeks ago, three more osu players are found to have received inappropriate benefits. Goes straight to the heart of and would tend to support my view that there is a culture within the osu football program (and one that could be assumed associated with jim tressel cultivating it) that condones this kind of thing. Kids do it because its viewed as OK.

If these were isolated incidents, that would be one thing, but they are not; they are part of pattern of conduct over a ten year period (more if you count YSU) that only someone with biases like you have accused me of having would say are not.

Frankly, I don’t need any more evidence to support the conclusions I have made and the court of public opinion does not need any more either. There is a crystal clear pattern of behavior that directly contradicts the persona that jim tressel created for himself; that all of this happened over jim tressle’s career as a head football coach, most of it at osu, casts a credible shadow of doubt on claims by gee and smith that they knew nothing about tressel’s conduct in the case of the tat5; or during his tenure as osu’s HC in monitoring the conduct of Maurice clarett, troy smith and the host of other players who have allegedly taken inappropriate benefits.


In the case of the tat5, osu admitted that infractions occurred. The court of public opinion would agree that tressel (best case) either knew about the improper benefits and ignored them or (worst case) established or used a mechanism of outside support to facilitate a pay for play scheme, again as in his YSU day, allowing plausible deniability if this mechanism should it ever get discovered or questions arose about players availaing themselves of opportunities to get payed through the mechanism.

Hence, it can be reasonably concluded that osu failed to monitor tressel’s conduct in such a way that it would have been deterred if it had been discovered at the times that it frequently occurred duing the then year period tressel was osu's HC. Same for players who took improper benefits and continued to take up until only 2 weeks ago; and who knows which players are still on the take.

The receipt of inappropriate benefits by players tressel was responsible for monitoring which began at YSU under tressel’s watch there, continued under tressle’s watch and within a year of his arrival at osu (clarett) and then continued with troy smith, terrell pryor, and continues still, so obviously fits your own description of the value of the organic evolution of events that make inductive reasoning plausible that I'm having a hard time discerning why you have so steadfastly defended osu and jim tressel..... other than being an osu homer.


Likewise, I find it hard to believe that a smart man like yourself continues to ask those of us who KNOW jim tressel is a serial liar and osu a cesspool of cheating to keep showing you why we think that way.

Despite your remarkable buffoonery as described above (Galactic Stupidity works well too), you are spot on with your view that you would love to try this is court …. civil or criminal. You’d win because the evidence unearthed to date to support the wider charges most individuals would like to see adjudicated in osu's case does not exist. One might ask why is that so given the huge body of circumstantial evidence that points to wrong doing on a grand scale within this program?


My answerer is in two parts: One: we know that the small staff of NCAA investigators do not have the resources and skills to do what needs to be done in this case. Two: there is a strong possibility that the NCAA poohbahs have determined that pressing these investigations further could result in substantial damage to osu's bottom line; a university which does a lot more than play football. In this case, it would seem, they have done a risk benefit analysis and the result tells them that hammering osu does more damage than good for college athletics.

I think the NCAA is mistaken taking the course of action it appears they will take. I think there is enough on the table already to demonstrate tressel is a serial liar and not the saint that some think he is; there is enough history behind all of this - ten years of documented suspicious or overt rule breaking conduct by osu football players - to demonstrate that tressel has covered up much more than has so far been discovered.


The circumstantial evidence regarding the conduct of osu players, past and present and a pattern of behavior established by jim tressel during the period in question, both of which are well established by mere observation, strongly support the conclusion that osu is neither adequately monitoring football players or in control of their compliance effort such that inappropriate behavior is both discovered and deterred in a timely fashion.

[Optimus Prime]

THX Jeff, I knew it was bad but wow that bad? I am so proud to be a Michigan Wolverine, this clear lack of institutional control belongs squarely in Columbus.

[iam416]

I'm so happy you cited the SI stuff -- because it's such garbage. But lets go through it, shall we.

(1) YSU stuff. Ray Isaac says that Dohrman took years old quotes from out of context and adamantly states that Tressel knew nothing about it. Adamantly.

Yet, you brazenly and absolutely dishonestly say:

The court of public opinion would agree that tressel (best case) either knew about the improper benefits and ignored them

That's the BEST case scenario. F'n seriously? The best case scenario is that Tressel knew nothing about it -- like, well, RAY ISAAC said.

But more to the point, you're answering a question about Ohio State with a YSU thing that occurred 10 years prior to Tressel's hire at OSU. So, not only does it not stand what you say it does, it's irrelevant to Ohio State.

(2) Clarett stuff. ADMITS that he lied to Tom Friend. Admits it. And, FWIW, no violations were ever established with Clarett. You should listen to Clarett these days, with absolutely nothing to gain or lose from simply speaking the truth. You should -- but even if you did, you wouldn't care because it doesn't confirm what you want to believe.

(3) Troy Smith. Indeed. Self-reported. Evidence that disproves your institutional bullshit argument. I mean, why self-report that if they're fostering an atmosphere of non-compliance?

(4) Robert Rose + 20 others. Let's talk about Dohrman's allegations, because I never tire of ripping that bullshit journalism apart. First, he makes no temporal distinction. It goes back to 2002. Why is that important? Because, up until 2004, it was, at best, unclear that trading rings/whaver for anything was against NCAA rules. Evidence: a dozen Georgia players did it in 2003 and the NCAA DID NOT SUSPEND them because they said the rule was unclear. So, if any Ohio State player did it prior to then, it's a non-issue. Dohrman doesn't give a F. Second, he accused 9 current players of trading memorabilia for tats. 8 of them have been cleared by the NCAA. So, cool -- Dohrman is batting 11%. He even had the nerve to accuse one player who doesn't have a single tattoo.

(5) I can't believe you're relying on Jordan Hall, Corey Brown and Howard's appearance at an f'n charity event where they were given (and wrongly accept) a swag bag of crap. Can't believe it.

Frankly, I certainly don’t need any more evidence to support the conclusions I have made and the court of public opinion does not need any more either.

You actually have very little evidence. As far as the court of public opinion goes, I couldn't care less. If the ESPN-drones want to think the sky is made of marshmallows, I don't care. I can only go by the facts. But, hey, I understand why you're aiming for (and apparently relying on) the lowest common denominator. You can never broke underestimating the American public.

casts a credible shadow of doubt on claims by gee and smith that they knew nothing about tressel’s conduct in the case of the tat5

If they knew about this systematic cheating, WHY DID THEY SELF REPORT?????? WHY? Your assertion is not credible. Period. If they weren't public figures, it'd be slander.

You’d win because the evidence unearthed to date to support the wider charges most individuals would like to see adjudicated in osu's case does not exist.

Let me just repeat this. DOES NOT EXIST. Let me repeat it again. DOES NOT EXIST. Let me repeat this again. DOES NOT EXIST. I agree. The evidence to support institutional charges against Ohio State DOES NOT EXIST. DOES NOT EXIST. DOES NOT EXIST.

And while you try to blame the NCAA for this, you fail to realize that SI and ESPN were camped out in Columbus for months and could turn up nothing of actual substance. NOTHING.

So, what you do is start with a gross, I mean gross analysis of YSU -- ignore everything Maurice Clarett has said these days and what was proven then (more gross analysis) and then get into SELF-REPORTED incidents to support your theory of Institutional malfeasance. Really??? I mean, Really?

What you really have is Troy Smith, some free tattoos and a failure to forward an email. That's what you have. And that is why you fully and honestly acknowledge that the evidence showing Institutional wrongdoings DOES NOT EXIST.

Likewise, I find it hard to believe that a smart man like yourself continues to ask those of us who KNOW jim tressel is a serial liar and osu a cesspool of cheating to keep showing you why we think that way.

I'm going to enjoy November. I really am. I really fucking am. Just as I have the past 7 Novembers.

Carry on. I'm done with this topic as it's pretty clear I'm not going to deal with anything close to reality.

[lineygoblue]

Just as I have the past 7 Novembers.

Knowing that it was all done thru lying and cheating, I'm not surprised.

ohio pride!

[Optimus Prime]

My greatest fear at this point is the conspicuous absence of DSL? I bet after reading the above, he has gone and "flung himself" of the rooftop of a high-rise somewhere in Dixie.

[jack_crancer]

Don't you mean Oohi linesman? And Trollent, don't you mean you've enjoyed the last 6? Remember 2010 doesn't count. Vacated.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I'm going to enjoy November. I really am. I really fucking am. Just as I have the past 7 Novembers. Carry on. I'm done with this topic as it's pretty clear I'm not going to deal with anything close to reality.

As to your first point .... so will I.

As to your second point, its probably time we stopped spending your boss' and my boss' time in this indulgence about which both of us are so incredibly biased.