Jim Tressel (merged)

#103
#103
dyer_maker said:
Won't happen. No way, no how.
Click to expand...
If he covered for players stealing things (ala Cameron Clear), arrests, failed drug tests, etc....I'd be right there with you on this.

But damn folks...do you REALLY consider a few players trading a jersey for a tattoo as an infraction, to begin with? It's questionable at best...so no wonder he didn't report it to the NCAA...that's not a cover up. That's a coach saying "What's the big freakin deal about a jersey for a tattoo?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#104
#104
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I believe that "win" was vacated. Apology accepted.
Click to expand...
Oh...I see. You equate a vacated win as a loss, in a conversation about whether he can coach a team or not? :loco:

Also...I'll accept your apology regarding TRESSEL'S record against SEC teams. Show me where HE is 0-9 against SEC Teams

Here's a quote from him in an ESPN article:
“

I know personally I have lost three in a row against the SEC. I'm not tired of hearing about it. It's a reminder to me of just how good the SEC is in football.
” -- Ohio State coach Jim Tressel

Patterson, Kelly and just about every other coach we could think of, would lose to the SEC Champs the past several years...even Chip Kelly. :loco:

That means they are no good, eh? Then I guess Saban is no good. He lost to LSU last year...before winning the NC. Most years he wouldn't have even gotten a chance to play in the BCS NC with that loss.
 
Last edited:
#107
#107
VOLorNuttin said:
If he covered for players stealing things (ala Cameron Clear), arrests, failed drug tests, etc....I'd be right there with you on this.

But damn folks...do you REALLY consider a few players trading a jersey for a tattoo as an infraction, to begin with? It's questionable at best...so no wonder he didn't report it to the NCAA...that's not a cover up. That's a coach saying "What's the big freakin deal about a jersey for a tattoo?"
Click to expand...

Right. Obviously it was a big freakin deal. So if that's what he thought, wouldn't want him either way.
 
#108
#108
TennesseeOrange said:
Oh wow not only are you wrong, but you're a pretentious douche too. Congrats on reading an SI article. I'm done having this conversation, but he will not be coaching anytime soon, if ever again.
Click to expand...
So, you can't win the argument with evidence/facts...and have to resort to name-calling to save face.:loco: Typical Liberal SOP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#109
#109
dyer_maker said:
Right. Obviously it was a big freakin deal. So if that's what he thought, wouldn't want him either way.
Click to expand...
The NCAA obviously disagreed, but the whole point here is....just how much.

Not much, actually...cause again, sitting out 5 games is effectively a slap on the wrist. Looks bad publicly, but has very little sting to it. Compare to Bruce Pearl's penalty. He got 3yrs removed from recruiting. THAT is an effective ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#110
#110
VOLorNuttin said:
So, you can't win the argument with evidence/facts...and have to resort to name-calling to save face.:loco: Typical Liberal SOP.
Click to expand...

Really? So implying i'm an idiot who doesn't read is what?You're relying on an SI article, written by someone with no NCAA compliance experience. You're ignoring the fact that any coach that receives a show cause is done. You're ignoring the fact that Tressel has not been mentioned, interviewed, or hired by any school in a coaching position. If you were right, why has no one hired him yet? Huh? That is evidence that you are wrong. You can cling to the SI article all you want. Tressel is done.
 
#111
#111
TennesseeOrange said:
Really? So implying i'm an idiot who doesn't read is what?You're relying on an SI article, written by someone with no NCAA compliance experience. You're ignoring the fact that any coach that receives a show cause is done. You're ignoring the fact that Tressel has not been mentioned, interviewed, or hired by any school in a coaching position. If you were right, why has no one hired him yet? Huh? That is evidence that you are wrong. You can cling to the SI article all you want. Tressel is done.
Click to expand...
He's "done" cause you say so? And that is your "proof?" :loco: Please show some evidence that Show Cause with a 5 game penalty = DONE. That's funny right there...I don't care who you are.

It's a penalty...not a coaching death penalty...not with only 5 games. If they intended for it to be a BAN...they would have put some teeth into the penalties. They didn't cause they didn't intend for him to be....as you put it....DONE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#113
#113
Not the right fit.. He doesn't say grits, britches and supper.... He also has the NCAA's version of herpes strapped around his neck , no thanks..
 
#114
#114
TennesseeOrange said:
Go look up the history of coaches who have received show cause penalties.
Click to expand...
Rain Man...the guy is being considered for NFL coaching jobs. You are deliberately ignoring the facts of this particular case and comparing apples to oranges. It's like saying USC got the death penalty, when they did not. They got some punishment, yes....but not crippling.

Bruce Pearl got crippled by his Show Cause....they put some teeth into it. Tressel's case is totally different.

It just requires an AD willing to forgo 5 games...that's all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#116
#116
VOLorNuttin said:
He's "done" cause you say so? And that is your "proof?" :loco: Please show some evidence that Show Cause with a 5 game penalty = DONE. That's some serious dumbassery.

It's a penalty...not a coaching death penalty...not with only 5 games. If they intended for it to be a BAN...they would have put some teeth into the penalties. They didn't cause they didn't intend for him to be....as you put it....DONE.
Click to expand...

He was penalized under 19.5.2. That section of the NCAA code is: "Penalties for Major Violations." The show-cause penalty is a way to effectively ban a coach by threatening institutions with penalties if they hire the coach. It is a major violation, it is treated as such, and they intend for him to be done for five years.
 
#117
#117
Vercingetorix said:
There is no way that the school that just had to fire Bruce Pearl is going to hire Jim Tressel. None.
Click to expand...
Maybe not. However, for that very reason, it might make some sense.

No.1, his infraction is not particularly troublesome. Doesn't lead any AD to believe he is a dirty coach. He didn't feel the players conduct was an infraction of any kind (I agree...it's stupid to think a player trading his jersey for a tattoo is a wrong-doing of any kind), and thus didn't feel it warranted reporting. They disagreed. We aren't talking about Bruce Pearl covering up known recruiting violations.

No.2, because of the AD's own increased internal accountability measures, resulting from Pearl's trouble, with the NCAA, Tressel would be more closely monitored than otherwise.

Again, it looks like a Mountain from a publicity standpoint, but it is a molehill, in reality. He is a high-character guy, unlike Kiffin or Petrino, and I don't see the risk here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#118
#118
TennesseeOrange said:
He was penalized under 19.5.2. That section of the NCAA code is: "Penalties for Major Violations." The show-cause penalty is a way to effectively ban a coach by threatening institutions with penalties if they hire the coach. It is a major violation, it is treated as such, and they intend for him to be done for five years.
Click to expand...
No they do not. If they did, they would have put penalties in place to ensure that.

A show cause can be an effective ban (Bruce Pearl's case) or it can be a temporary slap on the wrist. The latter is what the NCAA applied to Tressel. It's like saying a Misdemeanor offense = Prison sentence.

That's the way ignorant fans, like yourself, are viewing it, cause they haven't taken the time to read/research the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#119
#119
VOLorNuttin said:
Maybe not. However, for that very reason, it might make some sense.

No.1, his infraction is not particularly troublesome. Doesn't lead any AD to believe he is a dirty coach. He didn't feel the players conduct was an infraction of any kind (I agree...it's stupid to think a player trading his jersey for a tattoo is a wrong-doing of any kind), and thus didn't feel it warranted reporting. They disagreed. We aren't talking about Bruce Pearl covering up known recruiting violations.

No.2, because of the AD's own increased internal accountability measures, resulting from Pearl's trouble, with the NCAA, Tressel would be more closely monitored than otherwise.

Again, it looks like a Mountain from a publicity standpoint, but it is a molehill, in reality. He is a high-character guy, unlike Kiffin or Petrino, and I don't see the risk here.
Click to expand...

He directly lied to the NCAA. He participated in a coverup. It doesn't matter how ticky-tack the original offense was; we're not going to hire somebody who just got fired for the same thing Pearl did.
 
#120
#120
VOLorNuttin said:
Maybe not. However, for that very reason, it might make some sense.

No.1, his infraction is not particularly troublesome. Doesn't lead any AD to believe he is a dirty coach. He didn't feel the players conduct was an infraction of any kind (I agree...it's stupid to think a player trading his jersey for a tattoo is a wrong-doing of any kind), and thus didn't feel it warranted reporting. They disagreed. We aren't talking about Bruce Pearl covering up known recruiting violations.

No.2, because of the AD's own increased internal accountability measures, resulting from Pearl's trouble, with the NCAA, Tressel would be more closely monitored than otherwise.

Again, it looks like a Mountain from a publicity standpoint, but it is a molehill, in reality. He is a high-character guy, unlike Kiffin or Petrino, and I don't see the risk here.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but are you seriously that clueless?

It's not about how a college could put in all these safeguards and provisions; it's not about how serious you think that the infractions were.

It's about what the NCAA would think about a college that hired a coach with a show-cause hanging over his head. Their interpretation would be that the college doesn't give a d@mn about NCAA judgments. They would view it as being flipped the finger.

And maybe it doesn't, but hiring a coach with a show-cause would mean setting aside a half-dozen rooms or so for NCAA staff to move in and settle down and proceed to looking with their own special little magnifying glasses at every single thing the college does.

If someone wanted to bring an NCAA rule book and hunker down and examine everything, intent on finding something that's a violation, there's not a single college in the US that couldn't get caught on something

Honest to God, get off your "he wasn't that bad" horse and think out all the repercussions of hiring him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#121
#121
VOLorNuttin said:
No they do not. If they did, they would have put penalties in place to ensure that.

A show cause can be an effective ban (Bruce Pearl's case) or it can be a temporary slap on the wrist. The latter is what the NCAA applied to Tressel. It's like saying a Misdemeanor offense = Prison sentence.

That's the way ignorant fans, like yourself, are viewing it, cause they haven't taken the time to read/research the facts.
Click to expand...

Yeah i'm the ignorant one. You're on here preaching about how Tressel is a class act. Maybe you're the one who hasn't read the facts/findings from the NCAA. They're available on the NCAA website. You think you found a loophole, congrats. No one is going to hire him.
 
#123
#123
Excellent post. Excellent

VolNExile said:
I'm sorry, but are you seriously that clueless?

It's not about how a college could put in all these safeguards and provisions; it's not about how serious you think that the infractions were.

It's about what the NCAA would think about a college that hired a coach with a show-cause hanging over his head. Their interpretation would be that the college doesn't give a d@mn about NCAA judgments. They would view it as being flipped the finger.

And maybe it doesn't, but hiring a coach with a show-cause would mean setting aside a half-dozen rooms or so for NCAA staff to move in and settle down and proceed to looking with their own special little magnifying glasses at every single thing the college does.

If someone wanted to bring an NCAA rule book and hunker down and examine everything, intent on finding something that's a violation, there's not a single college in the US that couldn't get caught on something

Honest to God, get off your "he wasn't that bad" horse and think out all the repercussions of hiring him.
Click to expand...
 
#124
#124
Escape Goat said:
Excellent post. Excellent
Click to expand...

Well then, gimme a like, dammit! :)

How're you doing there, Goat? I've been having to actually work and stuff for the last few days, so I'm out of the loop. If there is a loop.


eta: OK, nemmind, someone liked it. Life is good.
 
#125
#125
VolNExile said:
I'm sorry, but are you seriously that clueless?

It's not about how a college could put in all these safeguards and provisions; it's not about how serious you think that the infractions were.

It's about what the NCAA would think about a college that hired a coach with a show-cause hanging over his head. Their interpretation would be that the college doesn't give a d@mn about NCAA judgments. They would view it as being flipped the finger.

And maybe it doesn't, but hiring a coach with a show-cause would mean setting aside a half-dozen rooms or so for NCAA staff to move in and settle down and proceed to looking with their own special little magnifying glasses at every single thing the college does.

If someone wanted to bring an NCAA rule book and hunker down and examine everything, intent on finding something that's a violation, there's not a single college in the US that couldn't get caught on something

Honest to God, get off your "he wasn't that bad" horse and think out all the repercussions of hiring him.
Click to expand...
Your whole argument is the sort of ignorant fan reaction, I'm referring to.

When the NCAA levies a penalty on...let's take USC for example...they intend for there to be some pain inflicted on the program, but not such that it cripples the program entirely. USC has rebounded quite well, despite many...again...ignorant fans....assuming that they "effectively" got the death sentence.

Same thing applies to Show Cause cases. They vary in levels of severity. In some cases, they hand down penalties that effectively make a HC toxic for a few years. In other cases, like Tressels, it's nowhere near as bad as many fans assume. 5 games and the initial bad publicity it might incur, is not an intentional ban, in any form.

Like the old saying..."It is what it is." The show cause is simply a mechanism for the NCAA to ensure that coaches carry penalties with them, if they should leave and go elsewhere. Nothing more. It's not a psuedo ban, no matter how many times fans like yourself repeat the same nonsense.

It's a scratch...not a break. For that reason, he should be considered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top