Ohio State Receives "Notice of Allegations" From NCAA, Avoids "Failure to Monitor" Charge

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 1:41 PM EDT

Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee was served with a "notice of allegations" on Friday outlining the NCAA's case against Ohio State. The Columbus Dispach has obtained a copy of the allegations and reports that they do not include "failure to monitor" charges as many spurious commentators believed they would.

In a "notice of allegations" given to Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee on Friday and obtained by The Dispatch, the NCAA accused Tressel of dishonesty for hiding violations by seven current and former players who sold awards and equipment to a tattoo-parlor owner.

Ohio State, however, was not cited for "failure to monitor" or "failure of institutional control" violations, which would likely lead to the harshest of penalties. Such penalties are typically imposed when a university's compliance program is weak.

"That was very significant," a source close to the investigation told The Dispatch today.

Although the Dispatch goes on to speculate that Ohio State could receive a bowl ban or program sanctions, I believe that's highly doubtful without a "failure to monitor" charge. By containing the issue to Coach Tressel, the NCAA has essentially revealed that the penalties will be handed down to him as an individual, precluding systemic charges. There is one extraneous factor, however, that could complicate matters.

The NCAA warned that it could treat Ohio State as a repeat offender stemming from the violations involving former quarterback Troy Smith, who took $500 from a booster and former men's basketball coach Jim O'Brien, who gave $6,000 to a recruit.

The Troy Smith $500 handshake issue will not be pertinent to this case, I think. In 2004, Ohio State discovered that Smith had received $500 to pay a telephone bill, self-reported the issue to the NCAA, and suspended Smith for the bowl game and season opener in 2005. There were zero issues of university negligence or administration misconduct, and the issue was effectively dead as soon as Smith served his suspension.

The O'Brien situation could be problematic only if the NCAA had issued a "failure to monitor" charge. Jim O'Brien has nothing to do with the Tressel situation, strictly speaking, and the NCAA has already ruled that the university is not at fault, leaving little validity for a repeat offender status. If the NCAA had issued a "failure of institutional control" charge-- like was done with USC-- then both the Smith and O'Brien situations would be intimately tied to the NCAA's ruling and would likely result in scholarship and bowl bans. As the NCAA allegations are restricted to Tressel, we have little to worry about in terms of repeat offender status and systemic penalties.

There is a real chance that the penalties against Coach Tressel are increased, though. The NCAA alleges that

Tressel was guilty of ethical misconduct when he knowingly provided false information to the NCAA in certifying that he knew of no potential violations by his players and failed to inform OSU officials.

Ohio State fielded ineligible players last season when starting quarterback Terrelle Pryor and others competed despite Tressel's knowledge of their misconduct. NCAA bylaws call for immediate suspensions.

Ultimately, I expect a slight increase to Coach Tressel's suspension and a possible order to vacate games in 2010. The Sugar Bowl game, oddly, will be safe because the NCAA ruled that the players were eligible to partake in it despite knowing that they had sold memorabilia.

[Note by Tyler T., Thanks to OhioBear for posting the initial story in a FanShot.]

Tweet Comment 47 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The NCAA cited Tressel in violation of bylaw 10.1. That is the same violation they cited Bruce Pearl with. As noted in the Dispatch article, the precedent for breaking this rule is a show-cause penalty by the NCAA. Tressel will meet the same fate as Bruce Pearl.

by golfballs03 on Apr 25, 2011 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

You are entirely incorrect. Tressel will be safe, and I am more sure of it now than when I posted the article. The university is safe; the NCAA has indicated that by failing to issue a “failure to monitor” charge. Pearl was let go for political issues as much as anything, and that will not complicate matters at Ohio State.

Tressel is safe, and you can take that to the bank.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

You are correct that the university is safe for now. The failure to monitor charge is something levied against the athletic department, not the coach. However, they will likely be penalized only if they retain Tressel.

You can’t say thay I’m entirely incorrect. Did you read the actual notice of allegations? It says right in the letter sent to Gordon Gee that Tressel violated Bylaw 10.1. Over the past 20 cases in which a coach or athletics department staff member was charged, like Tressel, with unethical conduct – all but one of those cases, the individuals involved received at least a two-year show-cause penalty. And that single case was a Graduate Assistant at Michigan who had already left the program. There isn’t a stretch of the imagination in which you can bank on Tressel being safe. The precedent is clear.

Additionally, as it relates to the case with Pearl… he and Tennessee have yet to appear before the board on infractions. The consensus is that Pearl is going to get the show-cause. If Tennessee hadn’t fired him already, the NCAA would force their hand.

by golfballs03 on Apr 25, 2011 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

You, and everyone else misinterpreting this, must first divorce yourself from the idea that Jim Tressel is Bruce Pearl. Tressel’s worth to Ohio State alone makes him a special case wholly unique from any one of the other coaches who violated Bylaw 10.1. Even if the NCAA increases the penalties on Tressel, he will not be let go. His value is greater than Pearl’s or any other previous 10.1 case.

The onus, then, is on Ohio State to handle the issue, and as long as the university is safe from systemic penalties, they have no impetus to remove Tressel from his job. When the NCAA did not levy a “failure to monitor” or “lack of institutional control” charge, they were signalling the program’s safety, and thus Tressel’s.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I guess we’ll see if the NCAA cares about a coach’s worth when they dole out the penalty for unethical conduct.

If not, do you think Ohio State would accept the baggage that comes with employing a coach hit with a show-cause penalty?

by golfballs03 on Apr 25, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I think OSU would have a tough time keeping Tressel if their only argument is that

“His value is greater than Pearl’s or any other previous 10.1 case.” Remember, the show-cause is not really a penalty on the coach. The show-cause is a penalty on the institution that hires the coach. That institution has to give a reason beyond “what would we do without him” for why they shouldn’t receive penalties for hiring him. The fact is that the university is NOT “safe from systemic penalties” should Tressel receive a show-cause and they don’t fire him. No program has ever challenged an NCAA show-cause order. If the NCAA levies a show-cause on Tressel and OSU doesn’t fire him, it’s basically an implicit endorsement of his actions and the program could very well face further penalties should they decide to do so. I really doubt that they would keep Tressel if he receives a show-cause.

Obviously, if he doesn’t receive a show-cause, there’s no reason for Tressel to be fired and he likely wouldn’t be.

by rugman11 on Apr 25, 2011 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m well aware of what the show-cause is and is not, but I’m not sure you or golfballs03 are grasping my argument. Any penalties applied to Tressel, whether they be suspensions, fines, or otherwise, will be handed down for this individual instance of a failure to report. All NCAA show-cause penalties have been levied against coaches for violations committed by the coach and then a failure to report said violations. Tressel, as he did not commit the original violation, lacks a key ingredient in all show-cause penalty cases.

Furthermore, even if Tressel did receive a show-cause penalty— which, again, is unlikely— the university has already stated its full support for him and would likely stand by him as long as the collateral damage was not egregious. As penalties will not be handed down to the program for systemic failures, any collateral damage will be restricted to the individual, preventing the institution from absorbing the blow in the form of bowl bans, scholarship reductions, etc.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions

As penalties will not be handed down to the program for systemic failures, any collateral damage will be restricted to the individual, preventing the institution from absorbing the blow in the form of bowl bans, scholarship reductions, etc.

Sorry, I’m pretty ill informed on these penalties but… why?

by emily522 on Apr 25, 2011 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions

The NCAA has essentially exonerated the institution by failing to charge Ohio State with the two most serious directions,“failure to monitor” and “lack of institutional control.” Any penalty handed down will be specific to Jim Tressel, or, as may happen, a retroactive vacation of victories.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks.

by emily522 on Apr 25, 2011 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions

The NCAA has essentially exonerated the institution by failing to charge Ohio State with the two most serious directions,"failure to monitor" and "lack of institutional control."

That was meant to be “discretions,” not “directions.”

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions

I still think you're wrong on this part.

According to the NCAA, when a major violation is committed the NCAA may levy

(f ) Sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport, particularly in those cases in which: (Revised:
1/11/94)
(1) Involved individuals remain active in the program; (Adopted: 1/11/94)
(2) A significant competitive advantage results from the violation(s); or (Adopted: 1/11/94)
(3) The violation(s) reflect a lack of institutional control. (Adopted: 1/11/94)

Note that Lack of Institutional Control is not the only thing that can earn a team a bowl ban. If the violations resulted in a “significant competitive advantage” or if the person who committed the infraction is still at the institution, the program may receive a bowl ban. Since Tressel is still at OSU and the program gained a significant competitive advantage from his major violation, a bowl ban should definitely on the table.

by rugman11 on Apr 26, 2011 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions

That is only applicable in a show-cause penalty.

by Tyler T. on Apr 26, 2011 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t know if they would treat this instance differently because of the reasons you mentioned. There really is no prior incident like this, so we will have to wait and see.

by golfballs03 on Apr 26, 2011 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Bobby Bowden

If Tressel doesn"t get half what Bobby got this is a SCAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by fsusmokey on Apr 26, 2011 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions

And boom goes the dynamite.

Ultimately, I expect a slight increase to Coach Tressel’s suspension and a possible order to vacate games in 2010. The Sugar Bowl game, oddly, will be safe because the NCAA ruled that the players were eligible to partake in it despite knowing that they had sold memorabilia.

Yep. I won’t be surprised if we have to vacate every win from the 2010 season. It sucks that OSU’s reputation is going to sink even further.

by emily522 on Apr 25, 2011 3:51 PM EDT reply actions

Honestly, I’d be the most surprised if the wins weren’t vacated. Tressel knowingly played ineligible players; the precedent’s pretty cut-and-dried in that case.

by Splat on Apr 25, 2011 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions

I’d guess this is the pretty much guaranteed to happen.

by golfballs03 on Apr 26, 2011 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions

I’m slightly with Tyler on this. However, the ball is in Tress’ court (no Bruce Pearl pun intended). In the grand scheme of things he’s a morally centered guy. If he chooses to stay, he’ll stay. The University won’t nudge him out regardless of the NCAA punishment that comes down. He’s that important to the program. Irreplaceable? No one is. Invaluable even with punishment? You bet.

Tending the Farm for The Copper & Blue

by Neal Livingston on Apr 25, 2011 3:52 PM EDT reply actions

also, i believe the sanctions might mention something about tyler having to change that profile pic. i kid.

Tending the Farm for The Copper & Blue

by Neal Livingston on Apr 25, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

The picture is from 2003, so it’s outside the NCAA’s scope in this case. I am safe.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t think an institution has ever retained a coach hit with a show-cause penalty. The way I read it, is that an institution has to appear before the COI to “show cause” as to why they shouldn’t be penalized for hiring the coach. But what happens if the institution holds on to him? All I know is that the penalties are so severe that no school has ever done that.

by golfballs03 on Apr 25, 2011 4:14 PM EDT reply actions

Every show-cause penalty recorded in NCAA history has been for a violation committed and then a failure to report said violation. Pearl will receive the show cause because of his repeated violations and subsequent cover-up; it is very unclear if Tressel will even approach that level of penalty.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions

How is Tressel's situation any different than Pearl's?

Tressel committed a violation at the beginning of the season when he signed an NCAA document declaring that he knew of no potential violations. He then covered up his violation by failing to report it to either OSU or the NCAA. Not only the that, but he covered up his own violation DURING AN ACTIVE VIOLATION OF HIS PLAYERS. I don’t understand how people can think Tressel will get a slap on the wrist. He actively impeded an NCAA investigation and knowingly and purposefully played ineligible players. He lied to the NCAA in order to cover up a MAJOR violation. That’s a big deal.

by rugman11 on Apr 25, 2011 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

You are conflating the initial violation with Tressel’s violation, and that makes all the difference in the world. Pearl covered up his own violations, admitted it, and then committed more. There are important differences between these instances, and putting every other word in capital letters does not make them go away.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions

After looking at some of the other coaches who received show-cause orders, I get what you're saying.

I still don’t think it takes the show-cause off the table, but it does make it less likely.

by rugman11 on Apr 25, 2011 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions

I think it does, but I will never say never with the NCAA.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Completely agree that Tressel's punishment will be increased

I believe all of us have heard that the coverup is worse than the actual crime itself. Knowing about, then lying about, the players’ indiscretions are what Coach Tressel will be hammered for by the NCAA.

I do not believe he will lose his job – the matter in which both Gene Smith and E. Gordon Gee stated their support gives me the impression that they will weather this oncoming storm with Tressel, and let him conclude his career at Ohio State in the next few seasons. It would not surprise me if Tressel was suspended for the entire 2011 season, to satisfy the people with their pitchforks and torches, like Pat Forde of ESPN.com.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6425516

by Chip Minnich on Apr 25, 2011 4:27 PM EDT reply actions

wow. Feldman and others are saying that lack of institutional control is not out of the realm of possibility and they can still get treated with repeat offender status. I would be shocked if either happen

by golfballs03 on Apr 25, 2011 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

And Feldman and others are wrong. It is not a possibility.

by Tyler T. on Apr 25, 2011 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Nothing new

The tabloid driven media are presenting this as a new revelation. We already knew that he admitted to lying to the NCAA! Only thing new was that there is some clarifiaction as to the severity extent and i consider it good news. To lump Coach with Bruce Pearl is asinine. It is truly not a black and white issue with the severity of the infractions. There are varying degrees to the bylaw that so many mention as a death sentence. Pearl was known as a slimy guy who enjoyed the companionship of co-ed’s from the university where he was employed as well.

As for the national media calling for Coach’s head, ask yourself this: would Forde be so venomous if his network owned the broadcasting rights to OSU? Do you ever hear them call for an SEC coaches head? Never heard him say a word about Chizik. Then again, they own their television rights. Coincedence? I think not!

by biggy84 on Apr 25, 2011 4:41 PM EDT reply actions

this is laugable.

by golfballs03 on Apr 25, 2011 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

As for the national media calling for Coach’s head, ask yourself this: would Forde be so venomous if his network owned the broadcasting rights to OSU? Do you ever hear them call for an SEC coaches head? Never heard him say a word about Chizik. Then again, they own their television rights. Coincedence? I think not!

In case you haven’t been paying attention, ESPN owns the rights to many Big Ten games and broadcasts quite a few OSU games every year. So I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. ESPN makes a boatload of money from broadcasting OSU games just like they do for SEC games.

But let’s please stop the ridiculous “the media is picking on OSU” whining. Tressel screwed up and is getting the criticism he deserves.

by Buckeye Brad on Apr 25, 2011 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

One more thing

I read the Forde piece after i posted. It is very clear to me that his “article” was an attack of a personal nature. He even went on to degrade Coach’s accomplishments by bringing up past failures against, you go it, their beloved SEC. Reporting is one thing, personal attacks and speculation are another. He seem to illustrate this by accentuating the “THE” part of Ohio State.

by biggy84 on Apr 25, 2011 4:52 PM EDT reply actions

dude...

Take the chip of your shoulder. Forde used “The” in italics because he was emphasizing that Ohio State has always had a high opinion of it’s own integrity.

ABC makes a ton off of Ohio State so if you have this ESPN-SEC trying to shut down Ohio State conspiracy theory, take off your foil hat.

by Mark Mandingo on Apr 25, 2011 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

This is exactly right. OSU fans and players are the ones who emphasize the “The” in OSU and he was just using that as an example of OSU fans’ belief in their university’s superiority. Forde wasn’t making any personal attacks against Tressel or OSU.

by Buckeye Brad on Apr 25, 2011 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Dude, do you KNOW that is the reason he pointed that out? You are delusional and misguided if you don’t think there is an OSU bias. Have you ever heard of this much attention to any NCAA violations? When USC’s allegations were founded did they bring up Pete Carrol’s penchant for losing to Stanford? While they turn a blind eye to others indesrections. Did you not see Mark May of ESPN go on a tirade against the Buckeye’s while extolling the virtues of the SEC? Get a clue and get informed.

by biggy84 on Apr 25, 2011 7:08 PM EDT reply actions

Do you realize that EVERY team’s fans think the media is biased against their team? It’s nothing specific to OSU. There have been plenty of criticisms of other teams on ESPN; to think they single out OSU is simply ridiculous. That’s the same thing that every fan whines about.

By the way, if you’re going to reply to someone’s comment then please use the reply button. It makes conversations much easier to follow than just posting your comment at the bottom of the page.

by Buckeye Brad on Apr 25, 2011 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks for the etiquette lesson in posting

Not to be confrontational, but i disagree. Sorry you find that to be so rediculous. My opinion is that there is a bias. SEVERAL other media outlets have reported that ESPN has a bias against teams. ESPN tried to buy the exclusive rights to broadcast Big !0 games and were upset that the Big 10 created their own network and partnered with Fox. They cited their reasoning for paying so much to the SEC to avoid a SEC Network. I would be more than happy to show you several articles regarding my rediculous claims. Can you support any of your claims? And btw calling for a coach to be fired and writing that he is immoral is in fact very personal attack. I will donate a quarter to the nearest fountain for payment on your time to teach me how to post.

by biggy84 on Apr 26, 2011 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions

First, What is your proof that ESPN has a bias?

You have many articles from several sources, so this shouldn’t be hard to find. Calling for a coach to be fired for lying to the NCAA isn’t a personal attack, it’s an evaluation of what actually happened in this situation, and the writer’s opinion of what should be the result. Also, Tyler, miss your comments and insight on TN, but OTO is pretty great.

by paperjames on Apr 26, 2011 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions

This is an Ohio State site not a FSU site! You have not enough knowledge about the program here to be relevant. I’m sure your ACC colored glasses wouldn’t see it. btw, did ESPN ever call for Bobby Bowden to be fired? Did they not rip the university for forcing him out?

by biggy84 on Apr 27, 2011 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Uh, what?

I’m not sure why my lack of knowledge on tOSU’s football program has anything to do with you claiming that there is a perceived SEC bias. You keep mentioning articles, but have yet to link or post them. And comparing Bowden and Tressel doesn’t make a lot of sense, speaking that one was fired because of performance-based issues, and one is facing investigation for lying to the NCAA.

by paperjames on Apr 27, 2011 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions

You don’t know what you don’t know. You are obviously not aware the Bowden had to forfeit several games due to NCAA violations. Ever hear the term “FSU means free shoes university?” Do a little research and then you can form a tangible argument. BTW this is still an OSU forum and you are not a fan or follower.

by biggy84 on Apr 27, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Is that a joke?

Not to flame, but you’re not worth responding to if you’re not going to actually discuss this. I’ll ask again: give me some of your many links about ESPN’s bias.

by paperjames on Apr 27, 2011 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I will tell you again

Stewart Mandel, Jason Whitlock to name a few. Simply go to Sports Illustrated. com and look. I have already stated earlier a few mentions of proof. Your knowledge of OSU is important because you come on here speaking as if you know anything about the program. The truth is that you will believe whatever you want regardless of proof that you could have easily checked. You enjoy going on other people’s forums and mucking the water. Read above and realize that you have not answered any questions yourself and didn’t even know about Bobby Bowden. I am no longer interested in any more debating with you.

by biggy84 on Apr 28, 2011 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions

SEVERAL other media outlets have reported that ESPN has a bias against teams.

So your basing your opinion on bias in a media outlet on reports by other media outlets? Do you see the irony in that statement?

I know ESPN doesn’t have exclusive rights to Big Ten games but they still make plenty of money from Big Ten games so you’re logic doesn’t follow. OSU is a money machine for ESPN just like the other big-time football schools.

Also, calling for a coach to be fired when he’s committed violations which have gotten most other coaches fired isn’t a personal attack at all — saying something bad about someone when it’s justified isn’t personal.

by Buckeye Brad on Apr 26, 2011 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Stewart Mandel, Jason Whitlock and other respected columnists have pointed out the bias that ESPN shows. There are many articles that have reported inaccurate and uneven reporting against OSU. I would LOVE to e-mail you all that you would like. The Mandel piece can be easily found on SI.com. I can also send you Jesse Palmer, Mark May, and Pat Forde being corrected in their “facts” about OSU. Find 1, not 20, but 1 time that a coach in football on the collegiate level Forde or the others EVER said that should be fired. Was Chizik, Carrol, Bowden, Saban or Butch Davis names EVER called to be fired? The answer is no.
ESPN paid 2.55 BILLION dollars for the rights to the SEC. They recently paid a truckload to be exclusive with Texas, prompting opposing coaches to point out the unfair advantage in recruiting and coverage. They do own a fraction of Big 10 games, but do not control them in any way. ESPN has become the Enquirer of sports, biased and unequal in their coverage. News organizations report facts of the story not to influence or become the story.

by biggy84 on Apr 27, 2011 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions