Dryden said:
The problem for AG though is that he can only play the "we can't know what we don't know" card so many times before he digs himself into a deeper hole with the NCAA. Before long, the phrase "lack of institutional control" comes up. I believe AG (and JT) when they say the compliance department and educational departments for student athletes and boosters is vigilant and on top of things, but clearly some of the kids are still failing to get the message - that's AG's job to turn that around.
As I understand it, lack of insitutional control means that the university needs the proper policies and procedures in place to comply with NCAA rules and regulations, educates its student-athletes on the rules/regulations and thoroughly investigates/resolves/reports any factual evidence of improprieties.
If patterns of similar improprieties arise, that
could be a sign of lack of institutional control, but where is the pattern of factual evidence against OSU? There is one factual case to invesigate, Troy Smith, and OSU/Geiger/Tressel/OSU Steering Committee have been vigilant in working to resolve the issue. One violation does not mean lack of institutional control. I am certainly not saying there could not be more, but I simply am not priivy to that information -- like most others. (Dryden - not directed at you, but venting about media/others who
already claim lack of insititutional control).
Secondally, I do not understand why so many people want to pin the responsibility of potential "lack of institutional control" or even NCAA rules violations solely on AG. It is the responsibility of the OSU Steering Committee for NCAA Athletics Certification (
http://www.osu.edu/ncaa/steering.html). Notice that AG is a member, but Dr. Frantz and Virginia Trethewey (OSU's General Counsel) are the Co-Chairs. There should be a few other names that people recognize as well. Also, notice the limited number of Athletic Officials on the Committee. Granted, I do not work in an Athletic Department, but I would assume that the Steering Committee sets the policies in place and AG simply operationalizes them. Unless Geiger is working outside of the Steering Committee mandates, then I don't see why the blame should be pinned solely on him. On Tressel, he does not really play into this except that he has the responsibility to report things up to senior administration.
More on institutional control below...
----------------------
http://nacda.collegesports.com/convention/proceedings/1990/90institutional.html
"A review of the Committee's opinions, issued during 1988, 1989 and 1990, indicates that a finding of of institutional control may result from anyone of several circumstances, including: I) a series of patter] secondary violations, which demonstrate the failure to comply with institutional control and compliance principles; 2) a belief by the Committee that the institution has failed to manage its athletic program properly; 3) the failure of the institution to promptly investigate and report violations of NCAA legislatil 4) the failure of the institution to be vigilant and to act on facts and circumstances that it knew or shou have known were red flags, which should have put the institution on notice that it was necessary to monitor activityand to develop a compliance program to respond to it; 5) the failure to have an adequate monitori~ certification program relating to financial aid, practice and competition; 6) the failure to develop and implement effective rules education programs and monitoring systems, and; 7) the failure to have systems in place for seeking legislative interpretations."
Interesting section....
The Clemson case decided in late May, 1990, consisted of two allegations involving major violations of a lireited nature in addition to some secondary violations that did not impact the penalty.
On two occasions, one football player received and distributed cash payments ranging between $50 and $70 to another player; and at a different time, this same player received $50 from a representative of the university's athletics interests.
The Committee cited the following three factors in mitigation of a more severe penalty: I) there were only two violations involving three limited cash payments to an enrolled student-athlete and some secondary violations that did not amount to a major violation. The Committee commented that no other serious allegations were presented to it. The two major violations do not in and of themselves demonstrate a lack of institutional control under the circumstances found jD this case. 2) It was also decided the violations could have occurred in a program that was operating in accordance wj.th NCAA legjf!lation. 3) the university presented evidence of jts efforts to improve institutional control since its last appearance in 1982. For example, the implementation of record keeping, monitoring controls, rules education programs for staff and representatives of the university's athletics interests. The university was instrumental in identifying and producing the player who received the D~ney.
As the cases illustrate, if the institution can establish that it is in compliance with the institutional control legislation, even though violations occurred, institutional control constitutes a mitigating, or unique factor which mitigates against more severe penalties.
In addition, strong corrective action taken prior to the hearing before the Comulittee on Infractions to prevent reoccurrence of a violation also constitutes mitigatjon. Generalitjes and promises are not enough. Replacing staff is not enough. Cooperation is not enough. The institution must convince the Committee that it has developed a comprehensive and effective compliance program.
Cajunbuck said:
I suspect deep down that Andy is not a very popular fellow in some circles. I'll give some examples:
1. Cooper hated him. He said publicly that Geiger had an agenda. (Man, is he at home with an " I told you so shit-eatin grin or what?")
2. O'Brien is a turd....but is now critical of Geiger. ( My perception)
3. Some former players talk about being hung out to dry...namely the idiot I will only refer to as "The Youngstown Virus".
4. The press is obviously out to expose something that discredits or makes not just the program but specifically Big Andy look bad. Has Andy been making enemies?
5. Tressel seems to be on the fringes of the criticism, most of it seems to be directed at the Athletic program...specifically Geiger.
6. This is out there...but what about Conley and Spencer leaving suddenly? Now Conley is semi-critic over on Bucknuts?
I think Andy may be a bridge burner. I also think that if they dig hard enough...something will inevitably be found.....and that could be said for any major program in the country. However, we are the focus now.
I pray that I'm wrong. Let me know what you think.
Go Bucks!
I can think of two direct replies:
1) AG is the figurehead of the OSU Athletic Department and is an obvious public target
2) If some of those people on your list like AG, then he is not doing his job.
