I am not all in

[AKAK]

This is it in a nutshell. The problem is that he was supposed to have learned from his mistakes after MoC and all his off season problems the first three years. Hell, I thought he had and gave him credit for adapting and making changes. Ironically, some of the die hard supporters bristled at that notion, saying he was still the exact same man he had always been as if the very notion that he might need to change anything was preposterous. Well, they were right, and I was wrong.

Which begs the question of is he really capable of changing. He obviously didn't after the MoC debacle. He still was the greatest proponent of "in tressel we trust" out there. He has always had an almost biblical sense of self-righteousnes that has bordered on smugness and defined his management style. I don't buy anything about protecting his players from drug dealers after reading those emailsm. Now, protecting them from the compliance office and ncaa is anther thing entirely.

Quite frankly, I think he's lucky to have a job this morning, which is something I can only ascribe to two theories at the moment:

1). We are no different than USC or an SEC school and went through any tortured rationale necessary to keep a winning coach on the sideline.

2). Gee did not want to throw the university community into turmoil on the eve of the new campaign. He was between a rock and a hard place. Gee had to take some action against JT or risk alienating the big time academic donors, but if he fired tressel he risked [censored]ing off a significant amount of small time donors (think of those non-alums writing their 1500 check to the Buckeye Club fr ticket access). The result was slap his wrist hard but don't cut it off and hope everyone is happy.

Well, let's hope neither scenario 1 or 2 are accurate. When push comes to shove, what we really have to be is "all in" with Gee or not. So, let's hope he's not also rationalizing the easy road by keeping Tressel and also not doing the right thing.

When you recruit kids, you never really know what you're getting until the players arrive on campus. You can do as much research and due diligence as you want, but you never know what you have until you see it up close and personal for an extended period of time.

I suspect that a good head coach can judge any given player's talent in just a few weeks, and can determine whether the kid (1) can play now, (2) could play down the road with proper coaching and development, or (3) will be a habitual bench warmer.

I also suspect that a good head coach can judge any given player's character in just a few weeks, and can determine whether the kid (1) is a good person now, (2) could be a good person down the road with proper guidance, or (3) will be a habitual trouble maker.

Tressel obviously has some difficulty identifying and addressing the habitual trouble makers. Is this because he is too trusting and a bit naive? Does Tressel really believe that he can "reach" every kid who plays for him? Or is Tressel as Machiavellian as everybody else in the cutthroat business of college football? Is he willing to exercise a bit more patience (and a bit less discretion) when a superstar is involved in some improper activity?

I could make arguments for either side, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is a pattern ... I really doubt that Tressel - regardless of whatever else he does for the program - would be able to survive a fourth encounter with the NCAA.

I understand that Ohio State's philosophy in dealing with the NCAA is different from most programs - Ohio State self-reports everything. I have no doubts that those damning emails would have "disappeared" at many other schools, maybe most others. But that simply doesn't happen at Ohio State, not now. Given Ohio State's self-imposed rigorous compliance, how often can Tressel afford to take a risk on a player with questionable character, even if the kid is a five-star prospect? And how long can Tressel afford keep a kid on campus after that kid displays character flaws of the type that might lead to yet another NCAA inquiry?

Just a thought.... As much as some of us like to rip the SEC in general and Florida in particular, Urban Meyer did cut loose Cam Newton, Heisman Trophy winner and entertainment icon. What would Tressel have done with Newton, given the same set of facts? Undoubtedly, Tressel would have seen Newton's talent right away, but how would he have perceived Newton's character flaws?

To this, and the first part of ORD's quote regarding Clarett, etc... I would add one thing. When Tat Five girst broke, I got an e-mail from a buddy asking "Will these kids ever learn." And the answer is that they won't. LJB, not trying to invalidate anything you're saying here, just adding an "OTOH"--- I think the one thing that's hard for fans to keep in perspective is the transient nature of the Athletes. A new crop comes in every year, and they don't know a damned thing about anything. They all have to learn it new. None of the kids now, know or care about anything Clarett did or why or what happened because they weren't around to experience that. Or Troy... or Irizarry... or whoever.

I think one of the big challenges of a head coah is to keep that in perspective, same as the staff, same as the fans.

None of this excuses anything Tressel did... at all... but, I doubt anything burns a coach out faster than kids "not learning" or having to "reteach them" effectively over and over.

This is one of those moments that I'm glad my comments in the Urban Meyer thread were just mostly (poor attempts at) humor. This has got to be the hardest stuff to deal with, and I'm amazed that Tress has done so well. (I shudder to think what Cooper would have had to deal with had there been this kind of volume of internet message boards in the last couple years)

At any rate, maybe, getting back to ORD's comments as to leadership style, maybe this will cause a re-evaluation of that, and, soemthing good will come of it, I think if it doesn't, Tress won't be able to coach all that much longer anyway...

Anyway, I stand with Gee, at least... so.. there you go.

 

[unionfutura]

When you recruit kids, you never really know what you're getting until the players arrive on campus. You can do as much research and due diligence as you want, but you never know what you have until you see it up close and personal for an extended period of time.

I suspect that a good head coach can judge any given player's talent in just a few weeks, and can determine whether the kid (1) can play now, (2) could play down the road with proper coaching and development, or (3) will be a habitual bench warmer.

I also suspect that a good head coach can judge any given player's character in just a few weeks, and can determine whether the kid (1) is a good person now, (2) could be a good person down the road with proper guidance, or (3) will be a habitual trouble maker.

Tressel obviously has some difficulty identifying and addressing the habitual trouble makers. Is this because he is too trusting and a bit naive? Does Tressel really believe that he can "reach" every kid who plays for him? Or is Tressel as Machiavellian as everybody else in the cutthroat business of college football? Is he willing to exercise a bit more patience (and a bit less discretion) when a superstar is involved in some improper activity?

I could make arguments for either side, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is a pattern ... I really doubt that Tressel - regardless of whatever else he does for the program - would be able to survive a fourth encounter with the NCAA.

I understand that Ohio State's philosophy in dealing with the NCAA is different from most programs - Ohio State self-reports everything. I have no doubts that those damning emails would have "disappeared" at many other schools, maybe most others. But that simply doesn't happen at Ohio State, not now. Given Ohio State's self-imposed rigorous compliance, how often can Tressel afford to take a risk on a player with questionable character, even if the kid is a five-star prospect? And how long can Tressel afford keep a kid on campus after that kid displays character flaws of the type that might lead to yet another NCAA inquiry?

Just a thought.... As much as some of us like to rip the SEC in general and Florida in particular, Urban Meyer did cut loose Cam Newton, Heisman Trophy winner and entertainment icon. What would Tressel have done with Newton, given the same set of facts? Undoubtedly, Tressel would have seen Newton's talent right away, but how would he have perceived Newton's character flaws?

Meyer was forced to cut Newton loose. He was advised to by UF's legal eagles and the AD.

 

[Nutriaitch]

i didn't want to post on this topic because i don't want to come off as a quest rubbing y'alls face in it.

all i'm going to ssay is that the public perception on other boards I've read is not very good.

I read the emails, and will only say that it doesn't look very pretty (from an outsiders viewpoint).

but i also have some questions about JT's past.

Cowherd keeps saying that something similar (withholding info) happened while he was at Youngstown St.
Are any of y'all familiar with that?

Alos, he mentioned Clarett and Troy Smith situations.
I vaguely remember some things being said here about Troy Smith timeline in the sCam Newton/shithole university thread, but don't see how it relates.

I didn't follow the Clarett saga very closely, but I thought he was just a thug who dug his own grave with no help from JT or OSU?

 

[CalvinistBuck]

To say that I'm not "all in" does not accurately reflect my sentiments. However, I am sorely disappointed. And, like Jim Tressel, I have lost something that I can never get back.

I am socially conservative and greatly admire Coach Tressel, not only as a football coach, but as a positive role model. I have considered having an immensely successful coach who is conservative and principled to be a great blessing. I preach the common sense and ethics of his "Winner's Manual" to my children.

While it's nearly impossible to contribute any new ideas in this forum, given the vast number of posts, I am compelled to offer my analysis of the situation as a way of coping.

Coach Tressel is one of my idols. Problem is, I don't know if I should restate that sentence in past tense. Coach messed up. There is no escaping the fact that Coach Tressel compromised his integrity.

In my view, Coach Tressel's transgression does not disqualify him from being an excellent football coach. However, it does seem to disqualify him as being the principled person he appeared to be. One could argue that he never asked for that image. That's fine. But he did seem to embrace it; and, I know I did.

I am not surprised that Jim Tressel is not perfect. I have no idea what it must be like to endure the pressure of managing one of the most storied programs in the history of collegiate athletics. However, in the department of integrity, I wanted Coach Tressel to be perfect. Perhaps my passion is misplaced, but I am truly saddened.

I just explained the details of this whole affair to a group of my high school math students. One student remarked, "For you, it must be like finding out that Santa Claus is not real."

 

[CalvinistBuck]

My reputation slogan says I'm "Tresselesque." I'm not sure what that means now.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

If my profession ever involves working with 18-22 year old kids, consider this my official letter of resignation.

 

[Cincinnatibuck]

i didn't want to post on this topic because i don't want to come off as a quest rubbing y'alls face in it.

all i'm going to ssay is that the public perception on other boards I've read is not very good.

I read the emails, and will only say that it doesn't look very pretty (from an outsiders viewpoint).

but i also have some questions about JT's past.

Cowherd keeps saying that something similar (withholding info) happened while he was at Youngstown St.
Are any of y'all familiar with that?

Alos, he mentioned Clarett and Troy Smith situations.
I vaguely remember some things being said here about Troy Smith timeline in the sCam Newton/[Mark May]hole university thread, but don't see how it relates.

I didn't follow the Clarett saga very closely, but I thought he was just a thug who dug his own grave with no help from JT or OSU?

There was a player at Youngstown St. that was known to be driving around in different cars and accused of accepting cash.

 

[Steve19]

I think that six months from now this thing is going to look a whole lot less important than it does today. The sky has not fallen.

 

[Mike80]

Who cares what they think?

I stole this from another thread to make a point. I hope I don't screw it up.

Who CARES what anyone other than Ohio State and/or the NCAA think about this.....

Tress, from his own explanation, tried to handle it in-house. That was not the correct action and no one should be really debating that at this point.

Here's the deal now - Ohio State and the NCAA will work to deal with this issue. Then it is on Ohio State "the family", meaning the fans, alumni, students, faculty and administration, to heal this wound and move on.

Who gives a crap what other fanbases think - ALL of them hated Ohio State for its successes anyway. This is just an extension of their hate. It's a storm to be weathered, but once the success continues their petty jealousies will become more obvious.

 

[Bucklion]

I think that six months from now this thing is going to look a whole lot less important than it does today.

I'm not so sure about that...the reputation of the program has taken a serious hit, one way or another. I don't think that will be going away anytime soon. Whether that has any bearing on things like donors or recruiting or the like will be hard to quantify.

 

[BuckStocksHere]

The problem with having role models, or idols, or anyone you look up to, is that eventually you will be disappointed because everyone is fallible. I have no role models because everyone is human.

If 100% of a persons life was availble to look at through a sort of futuristic "minority report" sort of way - I think the term role model would be thrown out the door and never used.

 

[Mike80]

The problem with having role models, or idols, or anyone you look up to, is that eventually you will be disappointed because everyone is fallible. I have no role models because everyone is human.

If 100% of a persons life was availble to look at through a sort of futuristic "minority report" sort of way - I think the term role model would be thrown out the door and never used.

Or maybe the true role models will be the ones who make mistakes but learn from them and grow from the experience....

That might be an interesting thread for the philosophy forum....

 

[Muck]

Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."

---Theodore Roosevelt, 23 April 1920 Sorbonne​

 

[Emperor Brutus]

The thing that I can't get past is that he lied to the NCAA; I don't care if it was an out and out lie or by omission either way he lied. The Ohio State University is more than a sports organization to me I hold all aspects of the university to a higher standard. If he wanted to use the justification of protecting the "children" I would have swallowed it in December but the university having to notify the NCAA a second time because he didn't come clean during the initial investigation doesn't work for me.

I?ll also say this that press-conference did not look like a man owning up to a mistake, I've seen that before and that wasn't it. What it reminded me of was a child that finally got caught and attempted to come up with the best story he could to get the lightest punishment possible.

I don't think he is a bad person, I think he is a very loyal person perhaps to a fault. I do think he loves The Ohio State University but I also think he messed up big time.

 

[DaveyBoy]

I think that six months from now this thing is going to look a whole lot less important than it does today. The sky has not fallen.

I hope you're right but I just can't agree with you.

Perhaps it's me as a fully vested fan that has wanted to be able to have "my" team held out as an example of doing more things right than any program. Perhaps I piled unfair expectations on JT and his conduct. Regardless, many are in the same boat as me. Utterly disillusioned....at least for now.