• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Yahoo, Tattoos, and tOSU (1-year bowl ban, 82 scholly limit for 3 years)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Gatorubet;2069169; said:
Well, it may not be "fair", but it is a common practice for a judge to give a stiffer sentence to an offender when the judge thinks that offender may have done something else - or worse - than the charge for which they were found guilty.

Now, this is not a criminal matter, obviously, but the fact remains that juries and judges are human. If they thought that violations occurred that they could not uncover because of the no-subpoena power limitation, then they may (and I mean may) have done what judges often do - give a sentence that is on the "high" end of the possible range because of some thoughts they had that the offender they were sentencing was getting away with something.

To be sure, they should NOT do that to an extreme. They should only judge the merits of the evidence in the case directly before them. To do otherwise is unfair, and literally penalizing you for things you have not done (or have not been proven in any event). But I have to say that human nature is still in play - and that I have seen this occur again and again in action in real life adjudications. I don't think you can rule out some kind of "high end of the scale" result because of that situation.

I wish you could drop this bowl. I have a bad feeling about your guys finding some extra motivation for the juniors now that you did not have before.
Click to expand...

Gatorubet;2069388; said:
The rules for proving what was done and the rules used in sentencing are entirely different. Again, using a criminal trial analogy, the quote you posted of mine is correct about the level of proof and evidence used to convict someone of - say - manslaughter. That match of proof/evidence to the crime has to be very tight. Once convicted, you go to the sentencing phase. In that situation there is usually a sentencing range - say time already served to 20 years in jail. There is a whole lot of discretion in sentencing. So whether the judge gives you ten years or twenty depends on how bad a deal it was. And if you have prior convictions. And if you likely committed 2nd degree murder, but the proof was lacking because some technicality threw some evidence out and the jury came in manslaughter. Or the judge was [censored]ed.

Here, like all penalty phases, there is a range of possible punishments that is subject to a whole lot of discretion and latitude. I was pointing out that that the committee may have been thinking TP's refusal to cooperate indicated some worse stuff was out there. That, and how mad they were at Tress. The 5 years shows they were really, really mad.

So like I say, being human, those factors can affect a judge's thoughts on sentencing to make them go to the high side of the range instead of the low side. Nothing about my post you quoted changed that view. I'm glad its over and you can move on.
Click to expand...

Translated:

We can punish you for something completely un-proven if we prove you have done something else wrong and THINK there was more.

We can't punish you for something unproven if we don't have anything on you.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;2069388; said:
The rules for proving what was done and the rules used in sentencing are entirely different. Again, using a criminal trial analogy, the quote you posted of mine is correct about the level of proof and evidence used to convict someone of - say - manslaughter. That match of proof/evidence to the crime has to be very tight. Once convicted, you go to the sentencing phase. In that situation there is usually a sentencing range - say time already served to 20 years in jail. There is a whole lot of discretion in sentencing. So whether the judge gives you ten years or twenty depends on how bad a deal it was. And if you have prior convictions. And if you likely committed 2nd degree murder, but the proof was lacking because some technicality threw some evidence out and the jury came in manslaughter. Or the judge was [censored]ed.

Here, like all penalty phases, there is a range of possible punishments that is subject to a whole lot of discretion and latitude. I was pointing out that that the committee may have been thinking TP's refusal to cooperate indicated some worse stuff was out there. That, and how mad they were at Tress. The 5 years shows they were really, really mad.

So like I say, being human, those factors can affect a judge's thoughts on sentencing to make them go to the high side of the range instead of the low side. Nothing about my post you quoted changed that view. I'm glad its over and you can move on.
Click to expand...

I know that - I was just messing with you. My apologies to those that were hoping you wouldn't post in this thread again.

If only the NCAA could have proven that somebody from Auburn had farted in Cecil's church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It's funny that Dennis Talbott went on WBNS-FM just now and said that ESPN paid Terrelle Pryor's former roommate for that "Outside of the Lines" interview ($500). Common practice these days, IMO.

Not that Dennis Talbott is the most impeccable source.
 
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt;2069486; said:
Solid 24K gold pews, studded with diamonds.
Click to expand...
Thank the Good Lawd Baby Jeebus they're gold with diamonds, because it would've been EXTREMELY difficult to get away with farting in a church with wooden pews. It reverberates down the bench faster than when Cecil took the money to the bank.
 
Upvote 0
Something not talked about

Curious as to how this effects practice for the team, and its impact on the program. I know at my highschool that normally makes a 3-4 week run atleast each fall that the coaches think its some of the best practice time of the year not only for that year but getting players ready for the following year. With the Bowl ban next year, won't the team lose out on over a month of practice?

Unless they do go undefeated, might the lack of practice time actually be more harmful to the team then the lack of an extra game? (If I'm incorrect about the rules for college practice rules ignore the post.) If I'm right, can somebody thats closer to college football coaches then I ever have been.... give me some insight to what they think of the benefit of Bowl game practice?
 
Upvote 0
Roundabout;2069500; said:
Curious as to how this effects practice for the team, and its impact on the program. I know at my highschool that normally makes a 3-4 week run atleast each fall that the coaches think its some of the best practice time of the year not only for that year but getting players ready for the following year. With the Bowl ban next year, won't the team lose out on over a month of practice?

Unless they do go undefeated, might the lack of practice time actually be more harmful to the team then the lack of an extra game? (If I'm incorrect about the rules for college practice rules ignore the post.) If I'm right, can somebody thats closer to college football coaches then I ever have been.... give me some insight to what they think of the benefit of Bowl game practice?
Click to expand...

Don't know about practice benefits but with the Buckeyes staying home next year, the ENTIRE staff will be blazing the recruiting trail, not just coach Urb and the Trident of Power.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top