Jump to content

Tressel knew players were selling memorabilia


BigDawgBengal

Recommended Posts

from a previous post

I was thinking about it and I think there are really 3 different levels here.
1. Selling equipment. "Herron must repay $1,150 for selling his football jersey, pants and shoes" He certainly owns some of that but the pants? Do they get the pants? Isn't that akin to stealing from the University? I cant take my desk chair at work and sell it. I think this is the biggest fear because if you allow for these things then why couldn't OSU just by 5 times as many gloves for their players with the expectation that they can just sell them. That would basically be like paying them in a round about way.

2. Selling things that you own that were awarded from the University. "Pryor must repay $2,500 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 gold pants, a trinket given to players who are a part of a team which beats rival Michigan." Here I am looking at the award from the Buckeyes, the gold pants. If they can sell awards from the buckeyes then in a sense it could be like the bucks are paying them. They could create random awards just so players could sell them.

3. Selling things that were awarded not from the University. "Adams must repay $1,000 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring." Here I think its a little less because its an award. The school still could get him to come there saying there is a likelihood you will get an award you can sell but there is not a direct relationship here. The school cant directly pay them.

I completely understand why the first two are ruled out but the third not as much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1299678252' post='976015']
They cans ell their personal property. they just cant sell their personal property provided them by the school. The reasons are obvious. The school could simply pay them in merchandise and awards that they can then just sell.
[/quote]


They CAN sell their personal property provided by the school.
They just can't sell it while attending school, which is a dumbass rule anyway.

If they don't want players selling THEIR OWN SHIT that they CAN SELL anytime
after leaving school, THEN DON'T GIVE THEM THE SHIT UNTIL AFTER THEY LEAVE SCHOOL.

These awards and shit don't mean much at all to players that have been handed awards and shit
their whole lives.


I think the NCAA and it's rules are stupid as fuck.

Hey, let's let 5 players who broke some dumbass rulle play in a Bowl game and not allow 75 players
that didn't break rules at USC not play in one.

I mean seriously, it is dumb as fuck the way some are placing their soap boxes on some moral
high ground and acting like JT is a piece of shit now, should lose him job and all the other dumb
shit I have seen spewed the past 24 hours.

And I am not someone that is that big of a JT fan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1299676063' post='976001']
Obviously it is "illegal" as far as the NCAA goes. But if they sold the same shit
after they got out of school, this would be a complete non issue. And it is a pretty
damn dumb issue as it stands.

And call it cheating all you want. Even when the NCAA found out about it, they allowed
all the players to play in the Bowl game. THEY ALLOWED PLAYERS THAT "CHEATED"
AND/OR BROKE THE RULES TO PLAY IN A FUCKING BOWL GAME. Why? Because if
they had suspended them for that game it would have hurt their TV ratings and ticket sales.
Gotta make our money off their backs, you know.

It is hypocrisy.

Anyway, you're still a hater.
[/quote]

Pretty much. College football is more corrupt than politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1299680794' post='976029']
They CAN sell their personal property provided by the school.
They just can't sell it while attending school, which is a dumbass rule anyway.

If they don't want players selling THEIR OWN SHIT that they CAN SELL anytime
after leaving school, THEN DON'T GIVE THEM THE SHIT UNTIL AFTER THEY LEAVE SCHOOL.

These awards and shit don't mean much at all to players that have been handed awards and shit
their whole lives.


I think the NCAA and it's rules are stupid as fuck.

Hey, let's let 5 players who broke some dumbass rulle play in a Bowl game and not allow 75 players
that didn't break rules at USC not play in one.

I mean seriously, it is dumb as fuck the way some are placing their soap boxes on some moral
high ground and acting like JT is a piece of shit now, should lose him job and all the other dumb
shit I have seen spewed the past 24 hours.

And I am not someone that is that big of a JT fan.
[/quote]

I agree with all of this. As I have said my biggest problem is not with Jim Tressell but with fans that like to explain away all of his mis doings. What he did is not huge deal. He should still be suspended but he shouldnt lose his job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ Green sells a jersey and gets suspended 4 games. Dez Bryant lies to the NCAA about Deion dinner and gets suspended for the YEAR.....Tressel lies and gets 2 games. Although NCAA hasn't come down yet.......which I think they will.

Tressel sounded foolish at the presser. Really foolish and for someone who plays the 'wholesome' role....he sounded like a snake.

NCAA will come down on him pretty good I think.....Sugar Bowl victory over Arkansas will be forfeited also. He knowingly used a player(s) he KNEW could be ineligible. That's grounds enough.

And the bigger picture here.....what are these football players doing associating with the tattoo parlor owner who is being investigated by the feds for drugs? I think there's ALOT more to this story than most people are currently aware of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1299700742' post='976165']
AJ Green sells a jersey and gets suspended 4 games. Dez Bryant lies to the NCAA about Deion dinner and gets suspended for the YEAR.....Tressel lies and gets 2 games. Although NCAA hasn't come down yet.......which I think they will.

Tressel sounded foolish at the presser. Really foolish and for someone who plays the 'wholesome' role....he sounded like a snake.

NCAA will come down on him pretty good I think.....[b]Sugar Bowl victory over Arkansas will be forfeited also. He knowingly used a player(s) he KNEW could be ineligible. That's grounds enough.
[/b]
And the bigger picture here.....what are these football players doing associating with the tattoo parlor owner who is being investigated by the feds for drugs? I think there's ALOT more to this story than most people are currently aware of.
[/quote]

Did I miss something? The NCAA said those players were eligible for the Sugar Bowl.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this posted on an OSU message board. Did anyone else hear it?

[quote]Bill Cunningham on 700wlw just stated on air that he has heard from his sources in tOSU that Tressel was asked by the FBI not to say anything and it will be produced in the coming days.[/quote]

I never really listened to Bill. Is he a big OSU fan?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1299703128' post='976178']
Saw this posted on an OSU message board. Did anyone else hear it?



I never really listened to Bill. Is he a big OSU fan?
[/quote]


If Jim Tressell knew about it and kept letting them go to the tattoo parlor then thats worse.

If Tressell told them and they lied and said he didn't....well thats worse too.

If the FBI said he shouldnt tell anyone then he would not be suspended for even 1 second. Its the FBI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule against a player selling his stuff is stupid, and frankly, contrary to Ohio law. The NCAA or at least its member institution OSU is claiming to retain some property interest in the awards given out, at least while the player is still in school.

Various memorabilia is available for purchase. Suppose OSU tried to claim a property interest in the championship ring of a player from 10 years ago who has fallen on hard times. The school would be laughed out of court.

The NCAA has a legitimate interest in seeing its member schools not pay players. It doesn't have a legitimate interest in enforcing a poverty standard on student athletes. The players didn't do anything wrong by selling their stuff.

Tressel, on the other hand, did lie to his employer. He gets paid millions of dollars a year to among other things comply with NCAA rules. Probably the best course of action for him would be if one of the players sought a TRO shortly before the season begins to let him play in the games next year. That would bring the question of whether the NCAA rules comports with Ohio law into play, and a favorable ruling for the player would mean that Tressel is off the hook too for NCAA rule violations. His punishment would be a damaged relationship with Gene Smith and Gordon Gee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sparky151' timestamp='1299721675' post='976244']
The rule against a player selling his stuff is stupid, and frankly, contrary to Ohio law. The NCAA or at least its member institution OSU is claiming to retain some property interest in the awards given out, at least while the player is still in school.

Various memorabilia is available for purchase. Suppose OSU tried to claim a property interest in the championship ring of a player from 10 years ago who has fallen on hard times. The school would be laughed out of court.

The NCAA has a legitimate interest in seeing its member schools not pay players. It doesn't have a legitimate interest in enforcing a poverty standard on student athletes. The players didn't do anything wrong by selling their stuff.

Tressel, on the other hand, did lie to his employer. He gets paid millions of dollars a year to among other things comply with NCAA rules. Probably the best course of action for him would be if one of the players sought a TRO shortly before the season begins to let him play in the games next year. That would bring the question of whether the NCAA rules comports with Ohio law into play, and a favorable ruling for the player would mean that Tressel is off the hook too for NCAA rule violations. His punishment would be a damaged relationship with Gene Smith and Gordon Gee.
[/quote]

The players clearly did something wrong. The receipt of those items is conditioned on them not selling them until they are no longer amateur athletes. If they are unwilling to agree to those conditions then they will not be given the opportunity to be in a position where they can earn the items.

As to why its wrong

1. Selling equipment. "Herron must repay $1,150 for selling his football jersey, pants and shoes" He certainly owns some of that but the pants? Do they get the pants? Isn't that akin to stealing from the University? I cant take my desk chair at work and sell it. I think this is the biggest fear because if you allow for these things then why couldn't OSU just by 5 times as many gloves for their players with the expectation that they can just sell them. That would basically be like paying them in a round about way.

2. Selling things that you own that were awarded from the University. "Pryor must repay $2,500 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 gold pants, a trinket given to players who are a part of a team which beats rival Michigan." Here I am looking at the award from the Buckeyes, the gold pants. If they can sell awards from the buckeyes then in a sense it could be like the bucks are paying them. They could create random awards just so players could sell them.

3. Selling things that were awarded not from the University. "Adams must repay $1,000 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring." Here I think its a little less because its an award. The school still could get him to come there saying there is a likelihood you will get an award you can sell but there is not a direct relationship here. The school cant directly pay them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1299724204' post='976251']
The players clearly did something wrong. The receipt of those items is conditioned on them not selling them until they are no longer amateur athletes. If they are unwilling to agree to those conditions then they will not be given the opportunity to be in a position where they can earn the items.

As to why its wrong

1. Selling equipment. "Herron must repay $1,150 for selling his football jersey, pants and shoes" He certainly owns some of that but the pants? Do they get the pants? Isn't that akin to stealing from the University? I cant take my desk chair at work and sell it. I think this is the biggest fear because if you allow for these things then why couldn't OSU just by 5 times as many gloves for their players with the expectation that they can just sell them. That would basically be like paying them in a round about way.

2. Selling things that you own that were awarded from the University. "Pryor must repay $2,500 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 gold pants, a trinket given to players who are a part of a team which beats rival Michigan." Here I am looking at the award from the Buckeyes, the gold pants. If they can sell awards from the buckeyes then in a sense it could be like the bucks are paying them. They could create random awards just so players could sell them.

3. Selling things that were awarded not from the University. "Adams must repay $1,000 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring." Here I think its a little less because its an award. The school still could get him to come there saying there is a likelihood you will get an award you can sell but there is not a direct relationship here. The school cant directly pay them.
[/quote]




This is the second time you have posted this. The stuff Herron sold was indeed his. He didn't "steal" anything.

So you think it is OK to sell awards that the Big 10 gives players, but not what the school gives players.

I am of the thought that the NCAA makes tons of money off these players. I don't have a problem with them
getting some money too. Some act like the thought of that is a sin though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1299701688' post='976174']
Did I miss something? The NCAA said those players were eligible for the Sugar Bowl.
[/quote]

I realize that but that eligibility was under the assumption that the coach did not know and therefore did not willingly play a player/players who would have undoubtedly been ineligible due to improper benefits (or whatever AJ Green was hit with). I think him knowing changes things a bit.

And I'm still curious to know to what extent these players knew this tattoo shop owner. Seems like he's a shady character.

I have no dog in the fight so I'm just trying to look at things objectively. I don't love or hate OSU....I root for them because they're an Ohio team (unless they're playing UC of course).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1299703128' post='976178']
Saw this posted on an OSU message board. Did anyone else hear it?



I never really listened to Bill. Is he a big OSU fan?
[/quote]

Willie is a Republican blowhard who molds facts/stats to fit his own argument. So you'd like him :) haha.

J/k....he's a political figure here in Cincy but does delve into the sports subject every now and again. Not sure about his feelings towards OSU though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1299770374' post='976325']
And I'm still curious to know to what extent these players knew this tattoo shop owner. Seems like he's a shady character.

[/quote]


A tattoo shop owner who's shady? Nooooooooooooooooooooo.



(sorry, that just struck me as humorous as I'm guessing the majority of them are shady).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1299770374' post='976325']
I realize that but that eligibility was under the assumption that the coach did not know and therefore did not willingly play a player/players who would have undoubtedly been ineligible due to improper benefits (or whatever AJ Green was hit with). I think him knowing changes things a bit.

And I'm still curious to know to what extent these players knew this tattoo shop owner. Seems like he's a shady character.

I have no dog in the fight so I'm just trying to look at things objectively. I don't love or hate OSU....I root for them because they're an Ohio team (unless they're playing UC of course).
[/quote]

Gotcha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1299724204' post='976251']
The players clearly did something wrong. The receipt of those items is conditioned on them not selling them until they are no longer amateur athletes. If they are unwilling to agree to those conditions then they will not be given the opportunity to be in a position where they can earn the items.

As to why its wrong

1. Selling equipment. "Herron must repay $1,150 for selling his football jersey, pants and shoes" He certainly owns some of that but the pants? Do they get the pants? Isn't that akin to stealing from the University? I cant take my desk chair at work and sell it. I think this is the biggest fear because if you allow for these things then why couldn't OSU just by 5 times as many gloves for their players with the expectation that they can just sell them. That would basically be like paying them in a round about way.

2. Selling things that you own that were awarded from the University. "Pryor must repay $2,500 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 gold pants, a trinket given to players who are a part of a team which beats rival Michigan." Here I am looking at the award from the Buckeyes, the gold pants. If they can sell awards from the buckeyes then in a sense it could be like the bucks are paying them. They could create random awards just so players could sell them.

3. Selling things that were awarded not from the University. "Adams must repay $1,000 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring." Here I think its a little less because its an award. The school still could get him to come there saying there is a likelihood you will get an award you can sell but there is not a direct relationship here. The school cant directly pay them.
[/quote]

The players are given their gear at the end of the season. That's why they wear school helmets in the Senior bowl and other all star games.

Rife, the tattoo parlor owner, resold the stuff the players sold to him for a profit. That pretty much establishes that the fair market value of the items was more than the players received, so they didn't receive any benefit, in fact suffered a loss. The NCAA owes them immediate reinstatement and an apology. Players get video game systems such as PS3s, X-Boxes, and so forth at Bowl games. If a player who doesn't have any XBox games trades his game system in at GameStop for some PS3 games, you claim he's broken a rule. I say he's just traded some stuff for other stuff or cash.

I'm not sure if Cicero, the lawyer is Rife's defense attorney or not. If he is, he obviously broke attorney-client privilege and Tressel was correct not to act on the info illegally provided to him. If Cicero was just passing on courthouse gossip, that's hardly enough to require an investigation. Otherwise every team will get emails from fans of opposing teams saying they "heard" that the team's star player is shady.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]
The Columbus lawyer who sent e-mails to Ohio State coach Jim Tressel last April about players selling memorabilia said he gave Tressel the names of two players -- starting quarterback Terrelle Pryor and receiver DeVier Posey -- in an interview with ESPN's "Outside the Lines."

Christopher Cicero, a walk-on player for the Buckeyes in the early 1980s, said in his first interview that it has been a stressful time since his name and e-mails to Tressel were revealed.

A fan of the Buckeyes' program, Cicero said he doesn't want to be considered the "Judas" in the controversy, and added he has received some death threats in the past few days.Tressel did not turn over the names to the university or to the NCAA after he received the first e-mail from Cicero April 2, 2010. On Tuesday, Ohio State officials announced that they will suspend Tressel for the first two games this upcoming season and fine him $250,000.

The NCAA is investigating and could levy further sanctions against Tressel and the program. Six players have been suspended for games next season, including Pryor and Posey, who are among five players who will miss five games. One player will miss one game.

Cicero also said he doesn't know of any other possible NCAA violations by Ohio State players, other than selling memorabilia to a Columbus tattoo parlor owner who has been under a federal drug investigation. Tressel has said he didn't report the e-mails from Cicero because he considered them to be "confidential."

[b]Cicero said when he asked Tressel to keep the e-mails confidential, he meant that he would not go to the media or the public, not that Tressel couldn't inform the school or launch his own investigation.[/b]

Cicero lettered in football at Ohio State in 1983. Tressel was an assistant coach under Earle Bruce at the time Cicero was a walk-on linebacker.

In a statement released Wednesday, Cicero said he voluntarily cooperated when an Ohio State attorney asked him to meet with university representatives and the NCAA about e-mails he exchanged with Tressel.

In April 2010, Tressel received an e-mail from Cicero telling him that two of his players were caught up in a federal drug-trafficking case and the sale of memorabilia, breaking NCAA rules.

Tressel responded: "I will get on it ASAP." But he never mentioned it to Ohio State's compliance department or his athletic director for more than nine month[/quote]

[url="http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110310/Ohio_State_Letter.pdf"]emails sent to Tressel[/url]
[url="http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110310/Ohio_State_self_report2.pdf"]OSU Self Report Letter[/url]
[url="http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110310/Ohio_State_self_report.pdf"]OSU Second Self Report Letter[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sparky151' timestamp='1299808693' post='976533']
The players are given their gear at the end of the season. That's why they wear school helmets in the Senior bowl and other all star games.

Rife, the tattoo parlor owner, resold the stuff the players sold to him for a profit. That pretty much establishes that the fair market value of the items was more than the players received, so they didn't receive any benefit, in fact suffered a loss. The NCAA owes them immediate reinstatement and an apology. Players get video game systems such as PS3s, X-Boxes, and so forth at Bowl games. If a player who doesn't have any XBox games trades his game system in at GameStop for some PS3 games, you claim he's broken a rule. I say he's just traded some stuff for other stuff or cash.

I'm not sure if Cicero, the lawyer is Rife's defense attorney or not. If he is, he obviously broke attorney-client privilege and Tressel was correct not to act on the info illegally provided to him. If Cicero was just passing on courthouse gossip, that's hardly enough to require an investigation. Otherwise every team will get emails from fans of opposing teams saying they "heard" that the team's star player is shady.
[/quote]

I think you make some interesting arguments but are clearly reaching.

A helmet is one thing, pants are another.

The players suffered a loss? For illegally selling their stuff? As I stated "The receipt of those items is conditioned on them not selling them until they are no longer amateur athletes. If they are unwilling to agree to those conditions then they will not be given the opportunity to be in a position where they can earn the items." They were not allowed to sell them. In a sense they did not yet own them. They traded things they did not yet have the right to trade. Its s simple rule, delayed gratification.

The last thing your off your rocker. Attorney Client Privilege has nothing to do with Tressell. If Tressel receives the info he needs to pass it on. Its illegal for Rife within his field not based off the law, he won't go to prison, he would just suffer sanctions, from his licensing group. Just like if he was licensed to play college football by the NCAA and broke the rules under that license he would suffer sanctions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1300447108' post='977863']
[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6230308"]Jim Tressel to miss five games[/url]
[/quote]

I think OSU is starting to understand the magnitude of the situation. I think the NCAA makes them vacate the Sugar Bowl victory vs Arkansas as well as slapping then with other penalties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1300469968' post='978019']
I think OSU is starting to understand the magnitude of the situation. I think the NCAA makes them vacate the Sugar Bowl victory vs Arkansas as well as slapping then with other penalties.
[/quote]

I think if that were going to happen it would have already.

Besides the NCAA [b]ruled them eligible for the sugar bowl when they already knew about the situation[/b].

That would be the height of hypocrisy to vacate that win now.

Then again, this is the NCAA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1300470731' post='978023']
I thionk if that were going to happen it would have already.

Besides the NCAA [b]ruled them eligible for the sugar bowl when they already knew about the situation[/b].

That would be the height of hypocrisy to vacate that win now.

Then again, this is the NCAA.
[/quote]

Yes, they ruled them eligible but that was before they knew the head coach 100% KNEW they would be ineligible if he did what a coach is supposed to do and report the infractions of his players to the NCAA.

And I don't think the NCAA has given OSU anything as of yet in regards to potential punishment. OSU has self imposed a 5 game suspension on Tressel, NCAA has imposed nothing as of yet.

I think OSU realized that the 2 game suspension the University imposed on Tressel was a sorry excuse for a punishment for the type of infraction we're talking about here and decided to increase it to 5 games in hopes the NCAA would see it as genuine "policing" of the football program by the Univ.

I'm of the opinion they make them vacate the Sugar Bowl win.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1300474888' post='978049']
Yes, they ruled them eligible but that was before they knew the head coach 100% KNEW they would be ineligible if he did what a coach is supposed to do and report the infractions of his players to the NCAA.

And I don't think the NCAA has given OSU anything as of yet in regards to potential punishment. OSU has self imposed a 5 game suspension on Tressel, NCAA has imposed nothing as of yet.

I think OSU realized that the 2 game suspension the University imposed on Tressel was a sorry excuse for a punishment for the type of infraction we're talking about here and decided to increase it to 5 games in hopes the NCAA would see it as genuine "policing" of the football program by the Univ.

I'm of the opinion they make them vacate the Sugar Bowl win.
[/quote]

In the grand scheme of things this is not a serious violation. No competitive advantage was gained. No recruiting rules were violated. Heck, this isn't even as big a deal as the over-signing that just about, if not every SEC school does every year with no punishment at all. This is something that had these guys been on an academic scholarship instead of an athletic scholarship there would have been no punishment at all.

Yes, a rule was broken. But this is not a rule that creates any competitive or recruiting advantage for OSU, and no law was broken. A severe punishment would not fit this "crime".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...