Archive

Institutional Control

  • Tobias Fünke
    http://recruitocosm.fantake.com/2011/05/31/texas-football-and-institutional-control/

    Great read.
  • sleeper
    Cool.

    Hey, what bowl game will Notre Dame lose this year?
  • athlete37
    sleeper;788206 wrote:Cool.

    Hey, what bowl game will Notre Dame lose this year?

    Have won our last two. Which recent bowl game will count for Ohio State? hope it's no further back that 15 months because I can't remember the last OSU bowl win before that...
  • Prescott
    I can't remember the last OSU bowl win before that...
    Ohio State-34
    Notre Dame-20

    2005 Fiesta Bowl
  • sleeper
    Prescott;788224 wrote:Ohio State-34
    Notre Dame-20

    2005 Fiesta Bowl
    LOL
  • athlete37
    Prescott;788224 wrote:Ohio State-34
    Notre Dame-20

    2005 Fiesta Bowl

    Sorry, I searched 2005 Fiesta Bowl and didn't find Notre Dame. Notre Dame didn't play in a bowl game in the year 2005. Also, this tattoo parlor shit's been going on since 2002- wouldn't be so sure ND and OSU's last meeting will count, nor might that 02 NC count. If that's the case, ND has won 3 NC's since OSU's last :)
  • elbuckeye28

    Joke of an article. I mean there may be more money tied to the Texas football program than any other single program in the country, and we are supposed to expect that they are squeaky clean? They recruit the same athletes that Ohio State, SEC, and USC get, but we are supposed to expect that "no player in the Texas locker room would ever thinking ever selling equipment?" I'm not saying it's rampant, but when there are millions and millions of dollars involved, not too mention the politicians that like to get involved in Texas sports, it seems likely there are at least some shady dealings going on.
  • Tobias Fünke
    elbuckeye28;788247 wrote:Joke of an article. I mean there may be more money tied to the Texas football program than any other single program in the country, and we are supposed to expect that they are squeaky clean? They recruit the same athletes that Ohio State, SEC, and USC get, but we are supposed to expect that "no player in the Texas locker room would ever thinking ever selling equipment?" I'm not saying it's rampant, but when there are millions and millions of dollars involved, not too mention the politicians that like to get involved in Texas sports, it seems likely there are at least some shady dealings going on.

    So you're saying that you think they're a dirty program because they're elite? You don't say...
    Prescott;788224 wrote:Ohio State-34
    Notre Dame-20

    2005 Fiesta Bowl

    fail
  • elbuckeye28
    Tobias Fünke;788258 wrote:So you're saying that you think they're a dirty program because they're elite? You don't say...

    I don't necessarily think they are a dirty program, but I don't think they are a squeaky clean program either. You could take the hard working role player from any school, and they would likely have similar things to say. It's just hard to take the holier than thou perspective seriously, especially when he mocks all the other schools that have are share many similarities to the Texas football program (minus their own multi-million dollar TV network).
  • Tobias Fünke
    Well I think Texas has the unique position of having extreme loyalty from Texans over such a huge geographical area, so they can kick a kid off the team and fill his spot without much trouble. Just look at how they are often leading the country at early commitments, kids bleed burnt orange there like crazy. The difference is that Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida, etc., are surrounded by other good programs, Texas really isn't. They are the king of the food chain and kids know it's the UT way or the highway.

    I also, in a larger discussion, think that it's not that players don't break rules, it's how you handle it once it is discovered. I'm not talking misdemeanors alcohol crap, I'm talking assault, burglary, NCAA violations. Teams like Oregon, with LaMichael James, make me furious with how they handle their situations.
  • Azubuike24
    Tobias Fünke;788281 wrote:Well I think Texas has the unique position of having extreme loyalty from Texans over such a huge geographical area, so they can kick a kid off the team and fill his spot without much trouble. Just look at how they are often leading the country at early commitments, kids bleed burnt orange there like crazy. The difference is that Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida, etc., are surrounded by other good programs, Texas really isn't. They are the king of the food chain and kids know it's the UT way or the highway.

    I also, in a larger discussion, think that it's not that players don't break rules, it's how you handle it once it is discovered. I'm not talking misdemeanors alcohol crap, I'm talking assault, burglary, NCAA violations. Teams like Oregon, with LaMichael James, make me furious with how they handle their situations.

    Yep, Michigan and Ohio State are surrounded by so many great programs yet Texas isn't. Haha.

    I guess Norman, OK being 6 hours away isn't close enough. Or maybe Fort Worth, TX being only 3 hours away isn't close enough. Maybe Baton Route, LA and the 7 hour drive isn't close enough. Stillwater, OK 7 hours away. College Station, TX only 2 hours. Fayetteville, AR 7.5 hours. Lubbock, TX is 7 hours.

    That puts Oklahoma, LSU, TCU, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Arkansas 7.5 hours or closer.

    Outside of Michigan State (4 hours), Missouri (8 hours), Wisconsin (8 hours) and Virginia Tech (6 hours), nobody in last year's top 25 was within 10 hours of Columbus, OH.
  • Tobias Fünke
    hahah calm down, it's not a fact just a theory. It's not an "hours away" deal per se. Texas freakin' owns Texas and the west in general, they are king. Texas only signed one player in their 2011 class that wasn't from Texas, and just signed three, one, one, and one in the four years before that, respectively. With a few exceptions, they get the players that they want every time. Only LSU to the east and Oklahoma are equals in terms of program prestige. Texas doesn't have a monopoly on recruiting, but it's better dominance than anyone in the country, in my opinion. Los Angeles and USC is close. Ohio is a recruiting battlefield. In 2010, the top ten Ohio players went to nine different schools. I'm not saying Ohio State doesn't control their turf, they do. But Michigan and Notre Dame have built programs off of Ohio boys too.

    I think Texas has more discipline in their program because Mack Brown doesn't need to sugar coat shit or make the same promises in rigorous recruiting battles. Do you think if Terrelle Pryor grew up a diehard Buckeye fan he'd be such a jackass---or better yet, would've been allowed to get away with it? I'm in the camp that believes Tressel let Pryor play in 2010 because if he'd given him up to the NCAA his recruiting success would've been hampered severely.

    Just a theory. What's your reasoning that a program like Texas has a modicum of discipline and Ohio State, USC, and the SEC don't have it?
  • Big Gain
    Does Texas have any football or basketball players with tatoos all over their arms and other body parts? If so they don't know shit about "Institutional Control". LARGE, quality tats can cost upwards of $1000. Why do you suppose most of the big time athletes at big time programs have tatoos. The general student population can't afford them.
  • krambman
    athlete37;788237 wrote:Sorry, I searched 2005 Fiesta Bowl and didn't find Notre Dame. Notre Dame didn't play in a bowl game in the year 2005. Also, this tattoo parlor shit's been going on since 2002- wouldn't be so sure ND and OSU's last meeting will count, nor might that 02 NC count. If that's the case, ND has won 3 NC's since OSU's last :)

    There's a five year statute of limitations on this stuff, so even if they could prove everything in the SI article (which they won't be able to because there's no paper trail) none of the things you mentioned would be effected. Also, the NCAA cleared all of the players for last year's Sugar Bowl, so even if the 2010 season is vacated the Sugar Bowl will still stand.

    Consider yourself pwned.
  • Tobias Fünke




    Case solved. :)

    I just jokin', but that is an excellent point.
  • Tobias Fünke
    krambman;788344 wrote:There's a five year statute of limitations on this stuff, so even if they could prove everything in the SI article (which they won't be able to because there's no paper trail) none of the things you mentioned would be effected. Also, the NCAA cleared all of the players for last year's Sugar Bowl, so even if the 2010 season is vacated the Sugar Bowl will still stand.

    Consider yourself pwned.
    Wow. Do you understand that Ohio State and Notre Dame did not play in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl?

    Also, just because they cleared the players, doesn't mean they don't vacate the wins should they find additional information (which is 99% likely) and even if they just feel like it because Tressel lied about knowing in the first place.
  • queencitybuckeye
    athlete37;788213 wrote: Which recent bowl game will count for Ohio State?

    For me, it's the one I saw with my own eyes. The game was played, tOSU won, what else is there?

    As to the article, nicely written, but we have no way to know whether what was said is true, made up, or (most likely) somewhere in the middle.
  • vball10set
    Tobias Fünke;788347 wrote:Wow. Do you understand that Ohio State and Notre Dame did not play in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl?.

    Come on, Toby, we all know it was the 2006 Fiesta Bowl (which was played at the end of the 2005 seaon), and the end result was an OSU victory...btw, the article was entertaining, I'll give you that--thanks for sharing
  • WebFire
    krambman;788344 wrote:There's a five year statute of limitations on this stuff, so even if they could prove everything in the SI article (which they won't be able to because there's no paper trail) none of the things you mentioned would be effected. Also, the NCAA cleared all of the players for last year's Sugar Bowl, so even if the 2010 season is vacated the Sugar Bowl will still stand.

    Consider yourself pwned.

    4 years, and there are exceptions.
  • enigmaax
    krambman;788344 wrote:Also, the NCAA cleared all of the players for last year's Sugar Bowl, so even if the 2010 season is vacated the Sugar Bowl will still stand.

    I still say the bowl game will ultimately be vacated, as well, for one of the following reasons - 1) new information regarding Pryor makes him retroactively ineligible for that game, 2) new information regarding other players leads to new retroactive ineligibilities, 3) the NCAA is pissed that they made an exception while Tressel was continuing to lie so they throw in the Sugar Bowl for good measure, or 4) there is no logical reason but the NCAA does not always operate logically.

    Just my opinion.
  • karen lotz
    krambman;788344 wrote:There's a five year statute of limitations on this stuff, so even if they could prove everything in the SI article (which they won't be able to because there's no paper trail) none of the things you mentioned would be effected. Also, the NCAA cleared all of the players for last year's Sugar Bowl, so even if the 2010 season is vacated the Sugar Bowl will still stand.

    Consider yourself pwned.


    Not necessarily will the Sugar Bowl stand. Those players were allowed to play and Smith assured the NCAA and everyone else that it was limited to those 6 players. IF its found that there are 9 additional players involved, and OSU actually didn't do a thorough 11 day investigation, you don't think the NCAA could take it away?

    Consider your pwn a fail.
  • queencitybuckeye
    karen lotz;788480 wrote:Not necessarily will the Sugar Bowl stand. Those players were allowed to play and Smith assured the NCAA and everyone else that it was limited to those 6 players. IF its found that there are 9 additional players involved, and OSU actually didn't do a thorough 11 day investigation, you don't think the NCAA could take it away?

    As a practical matter, what difference does it make if something is "deemed" vacated, or forfeited, or whatever? The game was played. Ohio State won. Are we somehow required to pretend that it didn't happen?

    The situation is unfortunate to make an understatement, but this part of it barely reaches trivial.
  • karen lotz
    queencitybuckeye;788499 wrote:As a practical matter, what difference does it make if something is "deemed" vacated, or forfeited, or whatever? The game was played. Ohio State won. Are we somehow required to pretend that it didn't happen?

    The situation is unfortunate to make an understatement, but this part of it barely reaches trivial.


    I agree with what you are saying, I was just responding to krambman's pwn, which isn't exactly correct.
  • queencitybuckeye
    karen lotz;788509 wrote:I agree with what you are saying, I was just responding to krambman's pwn, which isn't exactly correct.

    Cool. It reminds me of something on the order of "this is going on your permanent record". :)
  • KnightRyder
    queencitybuckeye;788499 wrote:As a practical matter, what difference does it make if something is "deemed" vacated, or forfeited, or whatever? The game was played. Ohio State won. Are we somehow required to pretend that it didn't happen?

    The situation is unfortunate to make an understatement, but this part of it barely reaches trivial.
    would the same go for USC's vacated national title?