Jim Tressel (merged)

#126
#126
Lmao. That was me that liked it bro. I'm doing great, ready to get back to work. Hope you are doing well


VolNExile said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
#127
#127
IBlvNTmWrk said:
0 - 9 against the SEC in his last nine bowl games. A real proven winner in the SEC.
Click to expand...

If you can't beat'em join'em, damn good athletes in Ohio too!! He's a proven COLLEGE coach with a NC. With SEC home grown talent I think he can be successful at UT!! And he knows what it takes to run a big time program. I think he learned his lesson about turning a blind eye to "benefits for players"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#128
#128
Vercingetorix said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you are a coach, and opposing fans try to stir up a chit storm over a rumor that one of your players traded a keep sake of his for a tattoo, would you feel compelled to report that to the NCAA? I wouldn't. I'd blow it off too, as a bunch of nonsense. That's precisely what we are talking about.

Not a "cover up" for theft, failed drug tests, etc. Those are obvious. This is a grey area at best, and the NCAA had no business getting involved in the first place.

I can't fault a coach for failing to report an alleged wrong doing...when in fact there was no wrong doing! How in the hell can the NCAA...which is enriched by the millions if not billions of $$$ the athletes make for them...turn around, with a fat wad of cash in one hand, as it were, and with the other hand restrict the same student athlete from sell his own belongings? How is that even legal? Selling ones property is a basic constitutional right.

Not reporting something you honestly do not see as an infraction....is NOT lying to the NCAA, nor does it mean there was a "cover up."

It's like watching your 5yr old daughter eat a bowl of ice cream, and then having your wife later berate you for being complicit in her wrong doing (eating a treat before supper). :loco:

The NCAA is not GOD. They have their own agendas, and they have their own faults. Sure Tressel is under their authority, but even still, they acknowledged to some degree, that his offense isn't so egregious that he deserves to be banned...only punished somewhat. 5 games is no ban. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#130
#130
VOLorNuttin said:
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...


...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.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but I completely disagree. Your post implies that you believe that the NCAA judiciously sits back, reviews the evidence, ponders the implications, and issues a decision that will make the offending uni suck it up and fly right, so that college football will attain/ be restored to/ keep on with a clean and defensible agenda.

But I think that there's a larger picture: college football is dirty as hell, and there's a power struggle between the NCAA, which is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and individual colleges/ universities, which are technically under NCAA jurisdiction but are becoming increasingly restless at the heavy-handed tactics of the NCAA and their inability to have effective input on the decision-making process.

And if that's so, that means that a pronouncement from the NCAA means a whole lot more than the pronouncement itself --it means that it's the NCAA's initial (and heavy-handed) move in the chess game of determining who's in charge of college football.

As a general heads-up, life and all its sub-categories is NEVER as simple as ESPN/ Fox/ CNN/ anyone else would like you to assume.

And seriously, your last bit here?: ""The show cause is simply a mechanism for the NCAA to ensure that coaches carry penalties with them""... Yes, right: coaches with this penalty carry it with them. Right here to us, huh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#132
#132
I like how the OP is insulting and flips out on everyone who doesn't want Tressel.


"YOU DON'T WANT TRESSEL!?!?!? YOU'RE IGNORANT!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
angry_commenter.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#133
#133
VolNExile said:
And seriously, your last bit here?: ""The show cause is simply a mechanism for the NCAA to ensure that coaches carry penalties with them""... Yes, right: coaches with this penalty carry it with them. Right here to us, huh?
Click to expand...
How does his having to sit 5 games bring this mysterious black cloud of the NCAA over our heads? It is what it is. A 5 game penalty that both he and a new team would have to share.

It's a natural human tendency to over-react to things. As a society we are prone to read too much into things. Look for hidden meaning into things where there simply isn't any.

This is a classic case of that very thing. The NCAA punishes OSU and wants to ensure that the coach takes some of the penalty with him, wherever he might go. It's entirely up to the University to determine if they are willing to accept a coach with a scratch or ding in his reputation. In this case, I contend that the reward FAR outweighs the risk. It's just that simple.
 
#134
#134
TOP said:
I like how the OP is insulting and flips out on everyone who doesn't want Tressel.


"YOU DON'T WANT TRESSEL!?!?!? YOU'RE IGNORANT!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Click to expand...
Just addressing the false notion that a simple 5 game penalty = coaching ban. Having to repeat the facts over and over, cause folks simply will not read for themselves or they read more into it than there actually is.
 
Last edited:
#135
#135
VOLorNuttin said:
If you are a coach, and opposing fans try to stir up a chit storm over a rumor that one of your players traded a keep sake of his for a tattoo, would you feel compelled to report that to the NCAA? I wouldn't. I'd blow it off too, as a bunch of nonsense. That's precisely what we are talking about.

Not a "cover up" for theft, failed drug tests, etc. Those are obvious. This is a grey area at best, and the NCAA had no business getting involved in the first place.

I can't fault a coach for failing to report an alleged wrong doing...when in fact there was no wrong doing! How in the hell can the NCAA...which is enriched by the millions if not billions of $$$ the athletes make for them...turn around, with a fat wad of cash in one hand, as it were, and with the other hand tell a student athlete he cannot sell his own belongings?

Not reporting something you honestly do not see as an infraction....is NOT lying to the NCAA, nor doe it mean there was a "cover up."

It's like watching your 5yr old daughter eat a bowl of ice cream, and then having your wife later berate you for being complicit in her wrong doing (eating a treat before supper). :loco:

The NCAA is not GOD. They have their own agendas, and they have their own faults. Sure Tressel is under their authority, but even still, they acknowledged to some degree, that his offense isn't so egregious that he deserves to be banned...only punished somewhat. 5 games is no ban. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

You should probably read up more about the case and Tressel's emails and what he said to the NCAA. He knew damn well he was covering up something that the NCAA considered to be an infraction. I'm not arguing that it wasn't a dumb, ticky-tack thing -- just like Pearl's cookout. I'm just saying that after narrowly escaping the NCAA in several different ways in recent years, UT is not going to hire him. Sorry.
 
#136
#136
VOLorNuttin said:
How does his having to sit 5 games bring this mysterious black cloud of the NCAA over our heads? It is what it is. A 5 game penalty that both he and a new team would have to share.

It's a natural human tendency to over-react to things. As a society we are prone to read too much into things. Look for hidden meaning into things where there simply isn't any.

This is a classic case of that very thing. The NCAA punishes OSU and wants to ensure that the coach takes some of the penalty with him, wherever he might go. It's entirely up to the University to determine if they are willing to accept a coach with a scratch or ding in his reputation. In this case, I contend that the reward FAR outweighs the risk. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

I'll condense what I said above: a show-cause brings a most-unwelcome hostile visit from the NCAA. And if they want to find a violation, they most certainly will.

It's like adopting a dog covered with fleas and thinking that you won't have to deal with the exterminator pretty damn soon.

(OK, so it's not the best simile ever, but it made me happy.)
 
#137
#137
VolNExile said:
I'll condense what I said above: a show-cause brings a most-unwelcome hostile visit from the NCAA. And if they want to find a violation, they most certainly will.

It's like adopting a dog covered with fleas and thinking that you won't have to deal with the exterminator pretty damn soon.

(OK, so it's not the best simile ever, but it made me happy.)
Click to expand...
But that is just you, as a fan, making an assumption. That's all it is. You see a ban where the NCAA infractions committee determined he should receive no more than a 5 game ban...not a 5YEAR ban.

A judge can choose to either jail an offender for a misdemeanor or he can send them home with an adjudication...all for the same offense. I read up a good bit on the issue and yes, the University would have to report it's "progress/status" to the NCAA regarding the coach, for the duration of the Show Cause, but they pretty much do that anyway.

You keep reading into this, that the NCAA really wants him banned, but that it didn't do it officially. Or that it's going to be ready to pounce on the Univ. at the slightest secondary violation. Again, false perception. As long as the program maintains it's current level of diligence, regarding compliance, then there is nothing to be overly concerned with.

I would think they'd be more prone to pounce on Petrino, if he were hired, than I would Tressel. Same thing with Patterson. I like Patterson, but there has been a ding of sorts, there at TCU...and that is a private Christian College.

With a little bit of time, teams will come calling, cause he is too good of a coach.
 
#138
#138
VOLorNuttin said:
But that is just you, as a fan, making an assumption. That's all it is. You see a ban where the NCAA infractions committee determined he should receive no more than a 5 game ban...not a 5YEAR ban.

A judge can choose to either jail an offender for a misdemeanor or he can send them home with an adjudication...all for the same offense. I read up a good bit on the issue and yes, the University would have to report it's "progress/status" to the NCAA regarding the coach, for the duration of the Show Cause, but they pretty much do that anyway.

You keep reading into this, that the NCAA really wants him banned, but that it didn't do it officially. Or that it's going to be ready to pounce on the Univ. at the slightest secondary violation. Again, false perception. As long as the program maintains it's current level of diligence, regarding compliance, then there is nothing to be overly concerned with.

I would think they'd be more prone to pounce on Petrino, if he were hired, than I would Tressel. Same thing with Patterson. I like Patterson, but there has been a ding of sorts, there at TCU...and that is a private Christian College.

With a little bit of time, teams will come calling, cause he is too good of a coach.
Click to expand...

It's not so much assuming that the NCAA will find a violation (although I think that they would, if motivated), it's the sheer damn hassle of having them move in on you.

It would be like having your ex-husband's/ ex-wife's/ ex-boss's lawyer and private investigator moving into the downstairs unit, listening to everything you say, watching everything you do, and pawing through your trash.

And beyond the sheer annoyance factor, I don't care how honorable a life you lead, someone will find something, with sufficient motivation. And if you will back up a bit and look at the big picture of NCAA-university relations over the last 3-4 years, you might see that the NCAA is getting increasingly marginalized, with some schools considering breaking from the NCAA and starting a rogue conference (far-fetched I admit, at least for now), and they're motivated to re-establish their authority.

I have no idea how old you are, or what field you work in, but I can assure you that if you've worked in the corporate arena for the last 10 years or so, what I posted is a pretty familiar scenario.
 
#140
#140
His guilt was not in failing to report the violations. His guilt was covering it up and being part of the problem rather being part of the solution. His 5 year show cause penalty means that for 5 years any team has to show WHY they are hiring him, what they will do about it, and accept a position as a repeat offender if they hire him. It won't happen at UT or at Little Sister's School of Homeless Vagabonds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#141
#141
If we are going to take a liar I would rather have Petrino. At least he has proven he can beat the big boys of the SEC. Just my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#143
#143
The sweater vest has flaunted the rules and cheated at every job he's had. Go look up his record at youngstown. he is the calipari of college football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#144
#144
If they were going to hire Tressel they should've done it before South Carolina. That said, we AREN'T hiring Tressel.
 
#145
#145
So you want us to hire a coach who will not be coaching our first 5 games??....And god forbid we somehow make a bowl game after that he can't coach in it either?...Do you guys honestly THINK before posting??....No thanks, I'll take my chances with Petrino before Tressel.
 
#146
#146
If our good offensive players go pro we will be rebuilding anyway. 5 games and a bowl no big lost. That said, other big names fist, then the sweater vest before going with a avg hire. ESPN would be all over his jock and the initial "tisk tisk" effect would be far out weighed by the long term good publicity. Not at the top of the list but I would take over another "lets hope this guy is good.
 
#147
#147
The Clinton of Coaching
Head coaching record
Overall 75–26 (college)
3–10 (NFL)
Bowls 4–3
Accomplishments and honors

Championships
1 C-USA (2004)
1 Big East (2006)
--------------------------------------
The Sweater Vest
Head coaching record
Overall 229–79–2
Bowls 5–4
Tournaments 23–6 (NCAA D-I-AA playoffs)

Championships
1 Division I-A National (2002)
4 Division I-AA National (1991, 1993–1994, 1997)
1 OVC (1987)
6 Big Ten (2002, 2005–2009)
Awards
12 coach of the year awards (see awards below)

He seems to think more than you do. "do you think before posting, I'd take Petrino" really? :eek:lol:
 
#148
#148
I thought he was in the same boat as Bruce Pearl...no?

Translation: I thought he was banned from coaching in the NCAA for three years.
 
#149
#149
Jackson_Harris said:
I thought he was in the same boat as Bruce Pearl...no?

Translation: I thought he was banned from coaching in the NCAA for three years.
Click to expand...

Not compeltely banned. If a school hires him they are instantly required to appear before the NCAA to explain themselves. If they convince the NCAA that its on the up and up he would be allowed to coach after serving the suspensions. However the NCAA can decide to impose additional penalties on the school that hires him for violating the order. Which is why this is incredible stupid to even consider.
 
#150
#150
MSCE09 said:
Not compeltely banned. If a school hires him they are instantly required to appear before the NCAA to explain themselves. If they convince the NCAA that its on the up and up he would be allowed to coach after serving the suspensions. However the NCAA can decide to impose additional penalties on the school that hires him for violating the order. Which is why this is incredible stupid to even consider.
Click to expand...

Yeah, why in the world would we want to touch that with a ten foot pole. Forget the sweater vest
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top