NCAA having a 2nd investigation on OSU?

• bradmaynard

  

  NNN;858385 wrote:We must have been listening to some very different coverage, because that was pretty much all I heard from the SEC championship game up through kickoff of the championship game. Besides that, the NCAA investigated and found nothing that would warrant a declaration of ineligibility. It's possible that they will end up finding something, but the initial investigations turned up nothing.

  
  I mean it had to be. This surfaced right before the SEC championship game. The NCAA had to at least try and make a move before Newton took home the Heismen, the SEC championship, and the national title then jumped ship to the NFL. That's just saving face. After the national title win you heard about the case very, very sparingly though. I realize that this has to be a matter of opinion at this point considering as far as the NCAA is concerned there hasn't been a piece of viable evidence. However, a guy the likes of Cam Newton would not be hard at all to spin as a villain at ESPN and an OTL report investigating the actual investigation of Cam Newton would be watched by a lot of people.
• ts1227

  

  thedynasty1998;858223 wrote: I don'tknow what to make of this. I respect Forde and would like to think he's above throwing out rumors. And I don't know how the NCAA doesn't look further into the other allegations around OSU.

  
  Forde is the one guy I could see being deliberately more brutal than needed. He's not a fan of the Big Ten (as a whole) at all, and hasn't ever really hidden it when they have him on radio shows. I remember the day the divisions were named, he was on SVP Show and said the conference is the leader of pomposity (somewhat true) and Delany is a legend in his own mind, so it works, lol
  
  Now, I know this will be ignored because it doesn't sound nearly as dramatic as "ESPN hates OSU", but at least I tried.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I agree with him on the division names, but it's important insight into Forde's makeup. If he has a bias against the league, then he's probably going to take more chances than he might otherwise on information that may not be rock solid. If that turns out to be the case, and this is nothing (again) he should face consequences -- but I'm betting he won't.
• dokken

  Leaders of pomposity- man how true. I sure do see it!
• enigmaax

  Y-Town Steelhound;858636 wrote:OSU has denied that the "new letter" says anything about ongoing investigations. OSU has reported that the letter they received dealt with procedures for Friday's hearing and DO NOT have anything regarding new allegations or a new investigation. For ESPN to sit there and ignore OSU's statement is ridiculous journalism. Even other sources (like the Dispatch) have said that Forde's report is WRONG.

  
  I did finally see a blurb where the details of the letter about Friday's meeting were referenced. Is it possible that isn't the letter Forde/ESPN is referencing? By the way, the Dispatch did not say Forde's report is wrong. They simply reported the denial by OSU. The Dispatch, in fact, includes a summary of other things that may be the subject of an ongoing investigation and notes that these things were not included in the July 22 case summary (which means they are could still open for separate handling).
  
  http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/stories/2011/08/11/osu-no-further-investigations.html
  
  Writer - Someone on this thread, I believe, posted a link to a USA Today report on the story. In that story, they also seem to indicate confirmation from an independent source that the letter exists while at the same time referencing Lynch's quote about the non-existence of "additional allegations". I still think the two different perspectives can exist without OSU flat out lying (rather, they're just avoiding?).
  
  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/08/ohio-state-jim-tressel-ncaa-investigation-800000/1
  

  A person with knowledge of the case confirmed the existence of the letter to USA TODAY on Wednesday. The person, who requested anonymity because the case is still pending, said no specific incidents or people who might be targeted were included in the letter. That person characterized the letter mainly as the enforcement staff taking a look at some circumstances. There is no indication at this point whether more action could be taken against the school.

• stroups

  

  Oh yay, another anonymous person.
• Y-Town Steelhound

  

  stroups;858730 wrote:Oh yay, another anonymous person.

  
  +1....journalistic integrity at its finest
• sleeper

  

  Y-Town Steelhound;858747 wrote:+1....journalistic integrity at its finest

  
  I'm sure when these now credible anonymous sources are used against Michigan, ND, or Florida(otherwise known as the irrelevant 3) they will no longer be credible.
• enigmaax

  You guys are right. USA Today must have just joined the conspiracy.
• WebFire

  Y-Town Steelhound;858747 wrote:+1....journalistic integrity at its finest

  
  Anonymous sources have always been used in the press. That didn't start with the OSU scandal.
• WebFire

  sleeper;858748 wrote:I'm sure when these now credible anonymous sources are used against Michigan, ND, or Florida(otherwise known as the irrelevant 3) they will no longer be credible.

  
  Bet they will be to OSU fans though.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  WebFire;858771 wrote:Anonymous sources have always been used in the press. That didn't start with the OSU scandal.

  
  No. But it used to be that if journalists used such a source, they also had to have CORROBORATING evidence of some kind. It could be a quote from a named source or some sort of paper proof.
  
  Today, we see nothing of the kind. Just hearsay from some unnamed individuals, sometimes from people who have an obvious axe to grind or have character issues, like being a criminal.
  
  In the past, journalists wouldn't use sources like that. If they couldn't find a credible source (verified as well) THE STORY DIDN'T RUN.
  
  I can tell you I had more than a few stories never hit the paper because I couldn't get at least two sources, verified, before it ran. The editor wouldn't accept it so it went into the dead file. If I could ultimately find a reliable source, it could be resurrected if still timely.
  
  We see no such responsible reporting today, especially on websites. They pretty much only need a whisper by a shadow and they run with the story.
  
  From a former journalist, it's sad and pathetic to see the profession lowered this way.
• darbypitcher22

  

  you can basically throw anything you want out there on the internet anymore without having to be fact checked by an editor, others in the office, etc.
• NNN

  

  bradmaynard;858637 wrote:I mean it had to be. This surfaced right before the SEC championship game. The NCAA had to at least try and make a move before Newton took home the Heismen, the SEC championship, and the national title then jumped ship to the NFL. That's just saving face. After the national title win you heard about the case very, very sparingly though. I realize that this has to be a matter of opinion at this point considering as far as the NCAA is concerned there hasn't been a piece of viable evidence. However, a guy the likes of Cam Newton would not be hard at all to spin as a villain at ESPN and an OTL report investigating the actual investigation of Cam Newton would be watched by a lot of people.

  
  Your time frame is off; it first surfaced a month prior (first week of November) with allegations being bandied about relating to Newton and Mississippi State, which inevitably triggered a wave of looking at where Newton actually ended up.
  
  The problem that exists with investigating Cam or Cecil Newton, or for that matter Auburn as a whole, is that this is a first-class atmosphere of cheating and covering. Oregon looked like a bunch of amateurs at it because that's what they are; Auburn and Alabama have this down pat. They know the loopholes, they know what gets looked at and what doesn't. What was most surprising about Bammer and the Albert Means case was how inept they looked at something they've been doing for decades.
  
  In any case, none of this relates to the topic at hand, which is OSU getting caught red-handed earlier this year and possibly a second time.
• krambman

  

  stroups;858730 wrote:Oh yay, another anonymous person.

  Y-Town Steelhound;858747 wrote:+1....journalistic integrity at its finest

  
  When someone says that the source was anonymous, that doesn't mean they are anonymous to the paper. They know the source is and have reason to believe that they are credible because they work for NCAA compliance, they work in the athletic office at OSU, etc. They aren't just reporting what some random person wrote on a message board, or some intern calling in a tip.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  krambman;858857 wrote:When someone says that the source was anonymous, that doesn't mean they are anonymous to the paper. They know the source is and have reason to believe that they are credible because they work for NCAA compliance, they work in the athletic office at OSU, etc. They aren't just reporting what some random person wrote on a message board, or some intern calling in a tip.

  
  You assume a lot. It could also be someone not as closely associated with any of those organizations -- but we wouldn't know it. Of course, it wouldn't matter if the reporter had a second source he could use and name to verify what is being reported.
• WebFire

  Writerbuckeye;858998 wrote:You assume a lot. It could also be someone not as closely associated with any of those organizations -- but we wouldn't know it. Of course, it wouldn't matter if the reporter had a second source he could use and name to verify what is being reported.

  
  Are you not assuming a lot also?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  WebFire;859011 wrote:Are you not assuming a lot also?

  
  No. If it was a credible source he could name, he would have named him. Likewise, if he had a second source to back up the information, he would have used it.
• sleeper

  

  WebFire;858775 wrote:Bet they will be to OSU fans though.

  
  And the irrelevant 3 deserve every bit of it after the OSU debacle. 6 players sold their own stuff and a coach puts an FBI investigation to protect his players over complying with the NCAA. Please, this is so overblown its hilarious.
• enigmaax

  Writerbuckeye;859035 wrote:No. If it was a credible source he could name, he would have named him. Likewise, if he had a second source to back up the information, he would have used it.

  
  In a situation like this, any reporter would be a fool to reveal his source because the NCAA doesn't speak publically about ongoing investigations. If Forde has access to leaks from the NCAA, he'd be an idiot to give any of them up - he'd never get any inside info again. I can agree with you when it came to the SI stuff where all signs pointed to these "sources" as being shady anyway, but it is a whole different ballgame when you have someone inside THE major organization on which you report feeding you tips.
  
  Obviously, the only way we'll ever know for sure is if the NCAA makes some kind of statement. Will they say anything, though, if they either a) do not find anything else or b) never really had an ongoing investigation?
• WebFire

  Writerbuckeye;859035 wrote:No. If it was a credible source he could name, he would have named him. Likewise, if he had a second source to back up the information, he would have used it.

  
  So any anonymous source in the history of journalism is a bad source?
• Pariah

  How does one explain the ridiculous frenzy of the media about Ohio State - reporting unsubstaniated rumors, false allegations, etc?
  
  1) The media as a whole originally comes from Ann Arbor, or their forefathers did, and so they are biased haters.
  
  2) Ohio State sells, so talking about them, good or bad, makes money.
  
  3) There are individual media members (like that idiot from Pitt) who either hate Ohio State or act like it to create controversy and attention.
  
  I'll go with 2 and 3.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  WebFire;859074 wrote:So any anonymous source in the history of journalism is a bad source?

  
  I'm not playing this game with you again. Read what I wrote above.
• password

  

  Writerbuckeye;859035 wrote:No. If it was a credible source he could name, he would have named him. Likewise, if he had a second source to back up the information, he would have used it.

  
  I think it is my cousins girlfriend. She predicts next Wednesday will be the day of reckoning.
• WebFire

  Writerbuckeye;859109 wrote:I'm not playing this game with you again. Read what I wrote above.

  
  I did read it, and saw a lot of assuming on your part as well.
  
  Keep this in mind; I am not saying they do have credible sources. But you can't accuse someone of assuming a source is legit when you yourself are assuming the source isn't legit.
  
  Neither side knows.