-
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!
- Thread starter osugrad21
- Start date
No scam ...Welcome aboard VL
From: VLMarti
To: osugrad21
Subject: Re:BuckeyePlanet
You have finally sold me!
From: VLMarti
To: osugrad21
Subject: Re:BuckeyePlanet
You have finally sold me!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
HineyBuck said:
I've already sent him a welcome PM also. Hopefully we'll get posts from him soon.
Upvote
0
BuckBackHome
Wolverine is largest member of weasel family
KillerNut said:
VL has thick skin, but sometimes you just have to argue with stupidity. The post was from some newby saying how terrible the team is and how they are not young. He was saying that Zwick, Holmes, etc have all been in the system for three years. This is really Zwick's first year and Holmes started part way through last season. VL's point, and rightfully so, was that practicing for two plus seasons was not the same as seeing actual playing time for three full seasons.
Upvote
0
BrutusBobcat
Icon and Entertainer
Welcome aboard, VL. :cheers: It's good to see you on here.
Upvote
0
OilerBuck
Sweet Crude
Isn't it amazing that these fools represent such a small percentage of tOSU fans, but yet it is always the ignorant that make themselves visible to everyone? It's always the hick cursing out the coach that gets put on the radio and makes the whole mass of fans sound so uneducated.
I truly feel sorry for the players and the players families that have to hear this crap. I hope they realize how much we love the team, stand behind them and still expect great things from them.
I truly feel sorry for the players and the players families that have to hear this crap. I hope they realize how much we love the team, stand behind them and still expect great things from them.
Upvote
0
Welcome VL. I very much enjoy reading his posts and look forward to reading some of them here.
Upvote
0
I'll ditto those to welcome VL aboard. I'm sure he was disappointedd with the outcome of saturdays game, but I hope he and his family had a better experience than the nightmare they went through on their trip to Madison last year.
Upvote
0
I'm pasting in what was probably the best post I've ever read on a football board. It's long, and the subject is an old one, but I think it best illustrates what Vern can add to BP.
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><td align="left" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top" width="20%">VLMarti
All-American
Posts: 816
(12/23/03 10:27:17 am)
Reply </td> <td class="m" align="left" valign="top">
A parent responds to Doug Harris <hr size="1"> It seems that their is no end to the badgering that the press will stoop to in their pursuit of a "gotcha" story about 19 year old kids. The recent piece by Doug Harris in the Dayton Daily News is simply acontinuation of a long line of articles and op-eds that are designed to punish the innocent.
Not that it matters, but I felt that I had to respond to Harris's article. The full text of my response is attached.
A Parent’s Response: Dayton Daily News Article “OSU fails credibility test with in-house investigation”, Thursday, December 18, 2003
December 19, 2003
Shame on you, Doug Harris for your recent article published in the Dayton Daily News. It was written in the same destructive editorial style that your DDN colleagues Tom Archdeacon and Mary McCarty have adopted. Your piece on the recent investigation conducted by OSU in the wake of the Maurice Clarret imbroglio was sloppy, poorly researched and mean spirited.
I have kept the past Archdeacon and McCarty Pulitzer prize submittals for a future article on the evils of sports journalism. However, your yellow sheet of December 18th requires immediate attention.
To begin with, whom did you interview for this article? Did you question only the “names” in the piece, or did you actually quiz any of the student athletes?
The reason that I ask this question is based upon my knowledge of the inquisition process provided by my son, Nick Mangold. You should back up a step and try to appreciate what the University embarked upon in the name of political correctness. The process that was used is exactly opposite of the one that you have described.
The overall theme of your article is that OSU whitewashed the “investigation” and that, somehow, the University has lost its credibility. Your article implies that the process was soft and duplicitous without offering any factual evidence to support your smug opinion.
First, I must ask you: when has a major D1-A University conducted a full-scale investigation of their football program, voluntarily, without a shred of credible evidence that any wrongdoing had occurred? The University would have difficulty conducting a random drug sweep of a University owned dormitory, much less a top down interrogation of innocent students, whose only crime was that they agreed to play football for The Ohio State University!
Are you aware of how this inquisition was conducted?
My son, who has absolutely no connection to the classes, events or circumstances surrounding the Clarret fiasco, was called before a three-person tribunal on a day’s notice. He was not briefed, to any significant degree, on the nature of his examination. He was not allowed to notify his parents of the proceedings. He was not afforded the benefit of coaching support or outside counsel. He was ushered into a room where three inquisitors lobbed questions at him for forty-five minutes.
And the questions that they asked! They opened with the obvious questions concerning his knowledge of Claret’s alleged indiscretions. The following types of incredible questions supported this line of fruitless exploration:
“How many football players cheat?”
“Which football players have you seen cheating?”
“Do you cheat?”
“Do you have tutors take tests, write papers or produce homework assignments on your behalf?”
“Have you heard of any football players who have used tutors to take tests, write papers or produce homework assignments on your behalf?”
And my personal favorite:
“Do you think that football players have an unfair advantage in the classroom because of their access to tutors who will cheat for them?”
Unbelievable!
They continued to badger my son by repeatedly, asking the same questions with different phrasing and emphasis. Over and over again. Nick came to the conclusion that they were trying to trap him. He felt like the process was a joke since none of his interlocutors were aware of his personal study habits, nor did they seem to care.
Even though my son was not overly concerned about the process, any answer that he would give, flip or otherwise, could have grave consequences for him and other football players.
On top of these indignities, he was made aware, at the onset of the gauntlet that one of the jurists was from the NCAA.
Let me use your language to respond to this revelation- “Please!”
Since when does the University have the right to question my son or any other student on campus concerning his academic performance in front of an arms length outsider? Since when does the University have the right to grill my son or any other student without the benefit of counsel or parental notification?
To the factual merits of your article:
· You state “Ohio State… couldn’t find a shred of evidence that would suggest anyone was cheating. … Seriously, does anyone outside of the most gullible inhabitants of Buckeye Land actually (emphasis added) believe Ohio State took a penetrating look at its cash cow and found the lads were squeaky clean? Please.”
Do you have facts to support your statement? Which players have you discovered cheating? Are you prepared to name names? Or are you simply assuming that the mere fact that since they are football players they must obviously be engaged in cheating?
By your assessment, assuming that you are not sufficiently gullible, do all football players cheat? Or all athletes? Or just some of them? Or are you simply making things up for the purpose of making your point?
Did you cheat in college? Did you ever copy someone else’s homework, recycle a term paper, or refer to notes that you conveniently hid from sight? Should all students be asked these questions?
By your representation, the players are obviously not squeaky clean. Show us the facts, Mr. Woodward!
· You further state “…but McGill wasn’t the only one to point out there (sic) were concerns. Other teaching assistants were suspicious. Even professor Paulette Pierce said she was told by several players that tutors were writing papers and doing homework for the football team.”
Really? Where is your fact checker? All of your assertions are based upon the article that started this whole sordid process entitled “When Values Collide: Clarett Got Unusual Aid in Ohio State Class” written by New York Times reporter Mike Freeman.
The actual quote from the article, to which you draw your esteemed expertise, albeit, without proper journalistic attribution, is provided:
(Emphasis added)
The associate professor, Paulette Pierce, said she worked directly with Clarett and administered the two oral exams because she wanted to motivate him and because his lack of academic preparation required her to use unconventional means to test his knowledge.
The graduate student, who spoke on condition that she not be publicly identified, contended that Clarett had been given preferential treatment because he was a star football player. Two graduate assistants said they thought that Clarett had been the only one of about 80 students in the course who had been given oral exams by Pierce.
Whether Clarett received special consideration — and whether the rules of the university or the National Collegiate Athletic Association were broken in the process — are among a series of questions raised by the graduate student and other teaching assistants about the performance of athletes in that class and others at Ohio State.
The teaching assistant and Pierce, who is an associate professor of African-American and African studies, each said she suspected that academic tutors sometimes did homework for players. Pierce said several football players had told her tutors sometimes wrote papers for them, although she said she had no direct proof.
The teaching assistant said football players had forged the names of absent teammates on class attendance sheets.
These assertions, which resulted from interviews with more than a half-dozen teaching assistants and many professors and other officials at Ohio State over the past two months, illustrate the difficulty faced by universities with elite sports programs in trying to compete on the field with athletes who are sometimes not qualified to keep up in the classroom.
Where is the corroboration for the hearsay charges levied by Mr. Freeman? “Half dozen” or more interviews with teaching assistants? Name one.
The fired, thoroughly discredited teaching assistant that first levied the charges against Maurice Clarret is a self-proclaimed nut case that decided to have her 15 minutes of fame. Did you interview her before you set out to smear the good names of all 105 players on the football team?
On a broader front, why can you not pick on someone your own metaphorical size? Freeman, known as a bomb thrower in New York City sports media circles, was able to expand the voluntary admissions of Ms. McGill into a more comprehensive hatchet job on the football team by apparently suborning her testimony through the use of hotel rooms, meals and, perhaps, other sundry items.
If you really want to catch Archdeacon in the hunt for prizes, why not pursue Freeman? Did he pay for the story through his gratuitous treatment of Ms. McGill? Did he wine and dine her to get the story he was looking for? By his own admission, he made five trips to Columbus to research his story. Has any unbiased observer reviewed his travel reports to see if his expense account included “walking around” money? The pursuit of Mr. Freeman would make for interesting reading, but of course, sharks rarely eat their own. Besides, it is infinitely easier to beat up 18, 19 and 20 year old student athletes who, due to the University rules, NCAA regulations and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, are easier targets as opposed to sparring it out with one of the most distinguished self proclaimed members of the Fourth Estate.
· “But OSU missed a real chance to win the respect of outsiders when it allowed the probe to become tainted by leaving it in-house.”
It is almost comical how sports hacks wrap themselves in the cloak of the First Amendment while they ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights. To refresh your memory, the purpose of the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of the press was to insure that no government body controlled the free discourse concerning the function of the government. It was meant to prevent tyranny and the subjugation of the electorate. First Amendment rights are routinely perverted and distorted by so called sports journalists. The issues pertaining to the allegations levied against Maurice Clarret have nothing to do with public policy or government operations.
Yet, at the same time, you expect that the remainder of the Bill of Rights be suspended while you and the reading public indulges yourself in an extended witch-hunt? Have you ever heard of the theory of the presumption of innocence? How about the right to privacy? Or, in your estimation, does an 18-year-old kid abdicate all of his rights when he signs a National Letter of Intent to accept a full scholarship to play football at the Ohio State University?
Please be advised, as a matter of federal law, student information pertaining to grades, academic deportment, discipline and medical records are privileged. I cannot obtain such information concerning Nick unless he grants me a quarterly waiver that is specific in nature. How dare you in the press persist in bruiting this information about in the public domain in stark violation of federal law!
· “OSU’s self-serving pronouncements no doubt drew snickers around the nation. And they insulted anyone with a lick of intelligence…..Instead, the Buckeye brass sounded positively smug.”
Intelligence? Let’s see- why not call a group of civic minded citizens into a room, say, the local chapter of Rotarians, or Moose, or Elk, or whatever. Let’s justify the round up based upon the reports that one of their members has been investigated on suspicion of felonious assault. Let’s establish a tribunal to randomly quiz the membership using a line of questioning similar to the wringer that the OSU Football players were put through. In the absence of any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, let us then proceed to grill them for forty-five minutes to see if the authorities can find any crime or any indirect evidence of a crime.
Smug? Isn’t this a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”? I have never witnessed more self-righteous smugness than I have from reading authors such as you concerning the Clarret academic fraud matter.
So, you presume to have all of the answers? If so, are you willing to share?
As a parent of an OSU football player, I am appalled that you would take this subject as lightly as you do. I thought that you respected the young men who play for the Scarlet and Gray. It appears that I was mistaken.
Regards,
Vern Mangold
Parent of Nick Mangold
Class of 2006
</td></tr></tbody> </table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><td align="left" nowrap="nowrap" valign="top" width="20%">VLMarti
All-American
Posts: 816
(12/23/03 10:27:17 am)
Reply </td> <td class="m" align="left" valign="top">
Not that it matters, but I felt that I had to respond to Harris's article. The full text of my response is attached.
A Parent’s Response: Dayton Daily News Article “OSU fails credibility test with in-house investigation”, Thursday, December 18, 2003
December 19, 2003
Shame on you, Doug Harris for your recent article published in the Dayton Daily News. It was written in the same destructive editorial style that your DDN colleagues Tom Archdeacon and Mary McCarty have adopted. Your piece on the recent investigation conducted by OSU in the wake of the Maurice Clarret imbroglio was sloppy, poorly researched and mean spirited.
I have kept the past Archdeacon and McCarty Pulitzer prize submittals for a future article on the evils of sports journalism. However, your yellow sheet of December 18th requires immediate attention.
To begin with, whom did you interview for this article? Did you question only the “names” in the piece, or did you actually quiz any of the student athletes?
The reason that I ask this question is based upon my knowledge of the inquisition process provided by my son, Nick Mangold. You should back up a step and try to appreciate what the University embarked upon in the name of political correctness. The process that was used is exactly opposite of the one that you have described.
The overall theme of your article is that OSU whitewashed the “investigation” and that, somehow, the University has lost its credibility. Your article implies that the process was soft and duplicitous without offering any factual evidence to support your smug opinion.
First, I must ask you: when has a major D1-A University conducted a full-scale investigation of their football program, voluntarily, without a shred of credible evidence that any wrongdoing had occurred? The University would have difficulty conducting a random drug sweep of a University owned dormitory, much less a top down interrogation of innocent students, whose only crime was that they agreed to play football for The Ohio State University!
Are you aware of how this inquisition was conducted?
My son, who has absolutely no connection to the classes, events or circumstances surrounding the Clarret fiasco, was called before a three-person tribunal on a day’s notice. He was not briefed, to any significant degree, on the nature of his examination. He was not allowed to notify his parents of the proceedings. He was not afforded the benefit of coaching support or outside counsel. He was ushered into a room where three inquisitors lobbed questions at him for forty-five minutes.
And the questions that they asked! They opened with the obvious questions concerning his knowledge of Claret’s alleged indiscretions. The following types of incredible questions supported this line of fruitless exploration:
“How many football players cheat?”
“Which football players have you seen cheating?”
“Do you cheat?”
“Do you have tutors take tests, write papers or produce homework assignments on your behalf?”
“Have you heard of any football players who have used tutors to take tests, write papers or produce homework assignments on your behalf?”
And my personal favorite:
“Do you think that football players have an unfair advantage in the classroom because of their access to tutors who will cheat for them?”
Unbelievable!
They continued to badger my son by repeatedly, asking the same questions with different phrasing and emphasis. Over and over again. Nick came to the conclusion that they were trying to trap him. He felt like the process was a joke since none of his interlocutors were aware of his personal study habits, nor did they seem to care.
Even though my son was not overly concerned about the process, any answer that he would give, flip or otherwise, could have grave consequences for him and other football players.
On top of these indignities, he was made aware, at the onset of the gauntlet that one of the jurists was from the NCAA.
Let me use your language to respond to this revelation- “Please!”
Since when does the University have the right to question my son or any other student on campus concerning his academic performance in front of an arms length outsider? Since when does the University have the right to grill my son or any other student without the benefit of counsel or parental notification?
To the factual merits of your article:
· You state “Ohio State… couldn’t find a shred of evidence that would suggest anyone was cheating. … Seriously, does anyone outside of the most gullible inhabitants of Buckeye Land actually (emphasis added) believe Ohio State took a penetrating look at its cash cow and found the lads were squeaky clean? Please.”
Do you have facts to support your statement? Which players have you discovered cheating? Are you prepared to name names? Or are you simply assuming that the mere fact that since they are football players they must obviously be engaged in cheating?
By your assessment, assuming that you are not sufficiently gullible, do all football players cheat? Or all athletes? Or just some of them? Or are you simply making things up for the purpose of making your point?
Did you cheat in college? Did you ever copy someone else’s homework, recycle a term paper, or refer to notes that you conveniently hid from sight? Should all students be asked these questions?
By your representation, the players are obviously not squeaky clean. Show us the facts, Mr. Woodward!
· You further state “…but McGill wasn’t the only one to point out there (sic) were concerns. Other teaching assistants were suspicious. Even professor Paulette Pierce said she was told by several players that tutors were writing papers and doing homework for the football team.”
Really? Where is your fact checker? All of your assertions are based upon the article that started this whole sordid process entitled “When Values Collide: Clarett Got Unusual Aid in Ohio State Class” written by New York Times reporter Mike Freeman.
The actual quote from the article, to which you draw your esteemed expertise, albeit, without proper journalistic attribution, is provided:
(Emphasis added)
The associate professor, Paulette Pierce, said she worked directly with Clarett and administered the two oral exams because she wanted to motivate him and because his lack of academic preparation required her to use unconventional means to test his knowledge.
The graduate student, who spoke on condition that she not be publicly identified, contended that Clarett had been given preferential treatment because he was a star football player. Two graduate assistants said they thought that Clarett had been the only one of about 80 students in the course who had been given oral exams by Pierce.
Whether Clarett received special consideration — and whether the rules of the university or the National Collegiate Athletic Association were broken in the process — are among a series of questions raised by the graduate student and other teaching assistants about the performance of athletes in that class and others at Ohio State.
The teaching assistant and Pierce, who is an associate professor of African-American and African studies, each said she suspected that academic tutors sometimes did homework for players. Pierce said several football players had told her tutors sometimes wrote papers for them, although she said she had no direct proof.
The teaching assistant said football players had forged the names of absent teammates on class attendance sheets.
These assertions, which resulted from interviews with more than a half-dozen teaching assistants and many professors and other officials at Ohio State over the past two months, illustrate the difficulty faced by universities with elite sports programs in trying to compete on the field with athletes who are sometimes not qualified to keep up in the classroom.
Where is the corroboration for the hearsay charges levied by Mr. Freeman? “Half dozen” or more interviews with teaching assistants? Name one.
The fired, thoroughly discredited teaching assistant that first levied the charges against Maurice Clarret is a self-proclaimed nut case that decided to have her 15 minutes of fame. Did you interview her before you set out to smear the good names of all 105 players on the football team?
On a broader front, why can you not pick on someone your own metaphorical size? Freeman, known as a bomb thrower in New York City sports media circles, was able to expand the voluntary admissions of Ms. McGill into a more comprehensive hatchet job on the football team by apparently suborning her testimony through the use of hotel rooms, meals and, perhaps, other sundry items.
If you really want to catch Archdeacon in the hunt for prizes, why not pursue Freeman? Did he pay for the story through his gratuitous treatment of Ms. McGill? Did he wine and dine her to get the story he was looking for? By his own admission, he made five trips to Columbus to research his story. Has any unbiased observer reviewed his travel reports to see if his expense account included “walking around” money? The pursuit of Mr. Freeman would make for interesting reading, but of course, sharks rarely eat their own. Besides, it is infinitely easier to beat up 18, 19 and 20 year old student athletes who, due to the University rules, NCAA regulations and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, are easier targets as opposed to sparring it out with one of the most distinguished self proclaimed members of the Fourth Estate.
· “But OSU missed a real chance to win the respect of outsiders when it allowed the probe to become tainted by leaving it in-house.”
It is almost comical how sports hacks wrap themselves in the cloak of the First Amendment while they ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights. To refresh your memory, the purpose of the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of the press was to insure that no government body controlled the free discourse concerning the function of the government. It was meant to prevent tyranny and the subjugation of the electorate. First Amendment rights are routinely perverted and distorted by so called sports journalists. The issues pertaining to the allegations levied against Maurice Clarret have nothing to do with public policy or government operations.
Yet, at the same time, you expect that the remainder of the Bill of Rights be suspended while you and the reading public indulges yourself in an extended witch-hunt? Have you ever heard of the theory of the presumption of innocence? How about the right to privacy? Or, in your estimation, does an 18-year-old kid abdicate all of his rights when he signs a National Letter of Intent to accept a full scholarship to play football at the Ohio State University?
Please be advised, as a matter of federal law, student information pertaining to grades, academic deportment, discipline and medical records are privileged. I cannot obtain such information concerning Nick unless he grants me a quarterly waiver that is specific in nature. How dare you in the press persist in bruiting this information about in the public domain in stark violation of federal law!
· “OSU’s self-serving pronouncements no doubt drew snickers around the nation. And they insulted anyone with a lick of intelligence…..Instead, the Buckeye brass sounded positively smug.”
Intelligence? Let’s see- why not call a group of civic minded citizens into a room, say, the local chapter of Rotarians, or Moose, or Elk, or whatever. Let’s justify the round up based upon the reports that one of their members has been investigated on suspicion of felonious assault. Let’s establish a tribunal to randomly quiz the membership using a line of questioning similar to the wringer that the OSU Football players were put through. In the absence of any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, let us then proceed to grill them for forty-five minutes to see if the authorities can find any crime or any indirect evidence of a crime.
Smug? Isn’t this a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”? I have never witnessed more self-righteous smugness than I have from reading authors such as you concerning the Clarret academic fraud matter.
So, you presume to have all of the answers? If so, are you willing to share?
As a parent of an OSU football player, I am appalled that you would take this subject as lightly as you do. I thought that you respected the young men who play for the Scarlet and Gray. It appears that I was mistaken.
Regards,
Vern Mangold
Parent of Nick Mangold
Class of 2006
</td></tr></tbody> </table>
Upvote
0