LJ;715797 wrote:From what I heard was that there was a huge huge listener outcry about him so they decided to take him off of the air.

elbuckeye28;716471 wrote:I stand corrected, but my point still stands that that's not proof that he was deliberately deceiving the NCAA to cover-up the incident. I think he had hoped(maybe even believed) the information was false and the situation would go away and as it time passed it probably became less and less of an issue in his mind.

elbuckeye28;716471 wrote:I stand corrected, but my point still stands that that's not proof that he was deliberately deceiving the NCAA to cover-up the incident. I think he had hoped(maybe even believed) the information was false and the situation would go away and as it time passed it probably became less and less of an issue in his mind.

Coach Tressel admitted during his February 8, 2011 interview that he understood that: (i) not reporting the information constituted a NCAA violation; (ii) he knew "there would be consequences," including NCAA violations involving the student-athletes for selling memorabilia at some point; (iii) he did not "look at" eligibility issues prior to December 2010, although he thought the involved student-athletes would eventually be ineligible; and (iv) the "inevitable" would occur at some point if the student-athletes were involved in criminal and/or NCAA violations.

karen lotz;716510 wrote:Also from the Self Report:



Why do you think he waited until December to think about eligibility questions? It wasn't because he suddenly realized what they were doing was wrong. It was because that was the point where the whole thing became public and the investigation began. If not for it coming out, is it not reasonable to think he would have not "looked at" eligibility issues? Even then he said that he had heard a tip but it was not specific information, even though names were given and the exact memorabilia was mentioned. How specific does it need to be? Pictures of said players actually handing the jerseys to someone while grabbing cash from him? Tressel also did not provide the emails, they were discovered by OSU while looking into a separate matter. How is all of this not deliberately deceiving the NCAA to cover up the incident?

elbuckeye28;716529 wrote:Again, my belief on this whole case is he received the information from a questionable source, possibly asked the players if they were involved with anything, and did not pursue it any further as no more evidence come about. He knew that if the information was true and the players were selling the memorabilia for money then they would likely be serious trouble, but he hoped(maybe believed) that the information was false.

WebFire;716597 wrote:This in itself would be worthy of big trouble. Ignorance is not an excuse.

elbuckeye28;716614 wrote:I agree and that's why he is out at least 250,000 and suspended for at least five games. I'm not excusing his lack of inaction, in fact it is even more inexcusable for an individual like Tressel, but I am saying I don't believe his intentions were as bad as some are making them out to be. I am just especially tired of reading that this is similar to the Pearl incident, where Pearl committed the initial violation, didn't report the violation(like Tressel), and then lied to the NCAA when they showed the evidence(the picture of Craft at the BBQ) when questioning him. On top of that, he has other violations in question pertaining to improper contact with recruits. Tressel's and Pearl's incidents are much different, but too many people like to lump them together.

thedynasty1998;716688 wrote:Tressel's and Pearl's are very similar, however Pearl never played a player that he knew would eventually be ineligible.

I'm saying I think his intentions were much worse than some are making them out to be.

elbuckeye28;716732 wrote:They are in no way similar. Pearl committed the initial violation, did not report it, lied directly to the NCAA when shown the evidence, and tried to get the recruits and their families to lie. Not to mention there are other violations related to other recruiting practices this him and his staff were engaged in. Throw in the football and baseball incidents and this goes beyond Pearl.

So let's compare Pearl's situation and Tressel's

1.Pearl committed initial violation, Tressel did not.

2. Both Pearl and Tressel withheld the violations.

3. Pearl blatantly lied to the NCAA when presented with the evidence, Tressel, while he withheld information, appears to have admitted to the information when presented with the evidence.

4. Pearl and his assistants have other recruiting violations pertaining to illegal contact with recruits, Tressel does not.

5. The University of Tennessee has other serious violations included with this investigation, Ohio State does not.

I don't know how you can look at this and say they are even remotely similar, besides the withholding of potential violations. Not to mention the fact that Tressel's five game suspension is a significantly greater punishment than Pearl's 8 game suspension.

enigmaax;716759 wrote:I don't really buy Point 3 - I know you said "when presented with evidence", but that was with the evidence that each had lied. Tressel, much like Pearl, lied about his knowledge of the original infraction when presented with that evidence. That part of it is underrated to a lot of people. In Dez Bryant's case, he wouldn't have even received punishment for his little lunch meeting, right? His punishment was based entirely on his lie. So even though Pearl did commit the original infraction, that may have very little to do with the comparison. It seems that the NCAA takes the lying more seriously which puts Tressel and Pearl right back in the same boat.

Tressel's current self-imposed punishment is certainly greater in volume than Pearl's, but maybe not in impact depending on how important you view the conference schedule.

I haven't followed the Pearl situation all that closely, but is it correct that the SEC handed out the 8 league game suspension? Did the NCAA approve that as the final punishment or is their investigation ongoing in that case, as well?

elbuckeye28;716774 wrote: Pearl was shown a picture of Aaron Craft at the BBQ where the recruiting violations occurred. Instead of admitting to the violations at this time, Pearl continued to deny the allegations. Tressel, while he did not report the violations, was never interviewed by the NCAA, and during the informal investigation done by Ohio State, at least admitted that he had heard rumors(which the emails really were at that point in time). When he was approached about the emails(like Pearl was the photo), it does not appear that he lied and tried to deny it.

thedynasty1998;716771 wrote:I agree with point #1, but that's all. And Treessel knowingly played ineligible players. Pearl did nothing of the sort.

Plus Pearls penalty can still get worse by the NCAA. His current penalty was handed down by the conference.

vball10set;716840 wrote:dynasty, please stop saying this--it makes you look clueless...again, none of these players were INELIGIBLE at any time during the 2010 season (and it's Tressel)

vball10set;716840 wrote:dynasty, please stop saying this--it makes you look clueless...again, none of these players were INELIGIBLE at any time during the 2010 season (and it's Tressel)

Fidmeister;715863 wrote:Why did he accept a five-game suspension if he didn't know he broke the rules? Seems to me you'd fight to clear your name instead of meekly accepting punishment. His entire course of action in this mess has been of a man who knows he is guilty as charged.

Attack Chris Cicero's credibility all you want. Doesn't change the fact that Tressel broke NCAA rules and is being suspended for it.

He did it. He violated a pretty basic NCAA bylaw and compounded that by lying when he signed the form that said he knew no more than he'd told them. Hard to believe anyone disputes that.

If he didn't take that information seriously, he's a far dumber man than any coach who has sat in any Division I office. You get an e-mail like that, the first thing you do is check into it because you can't take the chance that it's true. Shit like that can sink programs. You don't ignore it.

elbuckeye28;715912 wrote: First of all, we have no idea how much information similar to this is sent to a Division 1 coach on a daily basis. They likely get hundreds if not thousands of emails, phone calls, and letters each day, with a good amount being false accusations that his players are cheating or committing violations. I bet that most coaches have unknowingly discarded information that was actually truthful. It's just impossible to take everyone for their word.

Hamp89;717393 wrote:This angle as defense for Tressel has to be the most ridiculous. How do any of us know how many accusation emails he gets on a daily basis? Really, thousands? Or an email stating there was a federal case behind the incident? Is this normal? Tressel came right out and said he was "scared" of the email and potential situation for his players. This obviously means that this email automatically red flagged with him and stood out regardless of the "hundreds if not thousands" he receives. All he has to do while sitting in his office is click "forward" and send it to whomever necessary above hime and wash his hands of it. So easy. Anyone who is trying to defend this situation rather than accepting the obvious is reaching big time.

sherm03;717402 wrote:That's my biggest beef with what happened. It's not Tressel's job to investigate the accusations. It's not his call to weigh whether or not an email he receives has any merit. That's why they have a compliance office, with people who probably make a decent wage. It should be automatic...you are the head coach of a major university and you get an email like that, you forward it to the compliance office no questions asked. Let them do the investigating to find out if it has anything behind it, or if it's just some idiot trying to send you on a wild goose chase.

thedynasty1998;716861 wrote:Clueless? Tressel received the emails in April right? He said that he thought the players would be declared ineligible if the tattoo exchange ever came public. Therefore, in April he knew Pryor and Posey were receiving illegal benefits, as defined by the NCAA. It was his job to report the violations, but he didn't. So, as of April he knew that Pryor and Posey were ineligible, although at that time were not declared so.

elbuckeye28;717432 wrote:I agree with what your saying, I'm just pointing out that with the amount of information that Tressel receives on a daily basis, I can understand where the mistake occurred.

Fidmeister;717075 wrote:I think he's saying Tressel played guys he knew would be ineligible if he reported their violations, so he held the info.

elbuckeye28;717432 wrote:I agree with what your saying, I'm just pointing out that with the amount of information that Tressel receives on a daily basis, I can understand where the mistake occurred.

Hamp89;717450 wrote:That's a BS excuse. He obviously remembers getting that exact email when he said himself in the press conference he was scared, didn't know what to do, etc. You can't just chalk it up as "Oh I get it, Tress gets thousands of emails, he could have missed this one". It wasn't your everyday "Hey Tress, great job!" type of email.