Gee thinks OSU would have had 2012 bowl ban even if they had self imposed in 2011
-
FatHobbit
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/12/05/Buckeyes-honored-at-Statehouse.html
Funny to hear them try to back track now. They all seemed pretty confident in 2011 there was no need to self impose, and then pretty shocked in 2012 when the bowl ban came down.“We were caught in the tsunami of all the things that were going on and we were the big fish on the line, and the NCAA was under great pressure to impose sanctions and my strong belief is … if we would have self imposed we still would’ve had a bowl ban,” Gee told The Dispatch today
http://www.thelantern.com/sports/will-a-bowl-ban-affect-ohio-state-football-recruiting-1.2736207#.UL-w-OTAd8E
from a 2011 Lantern article
But the bowl ban is something that many didn't expect. OSU athletic director Gene Smith repeatedly said he didn't think a bowl ban was likely and said he was "surprised" when the NCAA Committee of Infractions announced their decision Tuesday.
When new head coach Urban Meyer first took the job at OSU, he indicated that he didn't expect a bowl ban either.Helwagen and Noon said recruits were probably being told not to expect a harsh decision.
"When they hired Urban Meyer, he said that Gene Smith and Gordon Gee told him that they didn't think a bowl ban was in the cards," Helwagen said. -
IBleedRed
One would seriously need to question their leadership ability if they did not see a bowl ban coming. Bowl bannings for institutions with the revenue stream of schools like OSU are nothing but a slap on the wrist. The NCAA woudln't act the same if the university in question relied on the revenue from a bowl appearance to fund their entire athletic department. -
queencitybuckeyeI'm surprised how many think that tOSU was given a choice, i.e. "You're getting a one year bowl ban, do you want to serve it this year or next?". Not the case. Dr. Gee is almost without question correct.
-
Fly4Fun
He could be saying two different things. Yes, at the time and looking forward he didn't think they would get a bowl ban. But know with the added value of hindsight, he thinks that regardless of what they did that year, the NCAA was going to give them a bowl ban for 2012 season.FatHobbit;1336968 wrote:http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/12/05/Buckeyes-honored-at-Statehouse.html
Funny to hear them try to back track now. They all seemed pretty confident in 2011 there was no need to self impose, and then pretty shocked in 2012 when the bowl ban came down.
http://www.thelantern.com/sports/will-a-bowl-ban-affect-ohio-state-football-recruiting-1.2736207#.UL-w-OTAd8E
from a 2011 Lantern article
The two statements aren't necessarily as contradictory as you try to suggest they are.
What basis do you have for this statement? I never got the impression this has been the case. It's actually been pointed out that sometimes the smaller schools (with less revenue) only get bids to crappier bowls which have a much smaller payout, often to the extent that teams spend more money to go to the games.IBleedRed;1336970 wrote:One would seriously need to question their leadership ability if they did not see a bowl ban coming. Bowl bannings for institutions with the revenue stream of schools like OSU are nothing but a slap on the wrist. The NCAA woudln't act the same if the university in question relied on the revenue from a bowl appearance to fund their entire athletic department. -
FatHobbit
queencitybuckeye;1336974 wrote:I'm surprised how many think that tOSU was given a choice, i.e. "You're getting a one year bowl ban, do you want to serve it this year or next?". Not the case. Dr. Gee is almost without question correct.
It may be true that it would not have made a difference if they had taken the bowl ban, but it seems to me like he is saying it doesn't matter that they screwed up by not taking the bowl ban in 2011. He doesn't know that it wouldn't have made a difference anymore than they "knew" they weren't going to get a bowl ban.Fly4Fun;1336977 wrote:He could be saying two different things. Yes, at the time and looking forward he didn't think they would get a bowl ban. But know with the added value of hindsight, he thinks that regardless of what they did that year, the NCAA was going to give them a bowl ban for 2012 season.
The two statements aren't necessarily as contradictory as you try to suggest they are. -
vball10setI guess we'll never know.
-
sleeper
It doesn't matter. OSU will be back next year winning games and that's all that matters to me. -
FatHobbit
It should matter to Gordon Gee and more importantly to Gene Smith. It irritates me that they are trying to downplay it.sleeper;1336986 wrote:It doesn't matter. OSU will be back next year winning games and that's all that matters to me. -
IBleedRed
You have a narrow perspective on revenue. A payout from a bowl is only one piece of the revenue stream that an athletic department has. You need to also consider the kind of revenue that a bowl appearance can bring in through avenues such as a motivated donor base that will give more during winning seasons. While schools like Ohio State and Penn State can rely on bringing in money regardless of sanctions, look at Maryland where the outside money stopped coming once their programs were doing worse. While it is true they didn't have a bowl ban, there is no doubt that bowl appearances = money.Fly4Fun;1336977 wrote:What basis do you have for this statement? I never got the impression this has been the case. It's actually been pointed out that sometimes the smaller schools (with less revenue) only get bids to crappier bowls which have a much smaller payout, often to the extent that teams spend more money to go to the games. -
TiernanIt should matter to anyone that refers to themselves as a "Buckeye Fan"...you can bury your head in the sand and say "wait til next year..." but in the meantime we just wasted a 12 - 0 season that most assuredly would have got us into the NC game against an outclassed opponent we could have absolutely destroyed. This whole mess is really on Jimmy The Liar but Gee and Smith have some fingerprints on the fuck-up as well and Gee really needs to just STFU instead of trying to rationalize the damage.
-
Speedofsand
The way that the tat 5 were allowed to play last year's bowl, then more info coming out that Tressel had knowledge, then the way Pryor and others skipped out on any punishment, it should be no surprise OSU got a bowl ban. NCAA had proof of violations, then proof of lies. What I don't get is how Doug Archie & Gene Smith still have jobs. They should have been gone right behind Tressel. -
Automatik
Gee needs to stop speaking publicly about anything football related. -
stlouiedipalmaThere's no doubt in my mind that if Ohio State had self-imposed they would have gotten the additional year from the NCAA. Imagine the outcry from around the country had they "gotten away" with serving a bowl ban after the crappy season they had last year. Besides, the NCAA doesn't want the impression that a member school can dictate its own punishment.
In this case, it appears that the punishment brought about the intended result, namely that the Buckeyes can take their 12-0 record, sit at home and wring their hands at what could have been.
Time to move on... -
believer
thisstlouiedipalma;1337250 wrote:Time to move on... -
vball10set
lol :thumbup:Automatik;1337090 wrote:Gee needs to stop speaking publicly about anything football related. -
jordo212000
Automatik;1337090 wrote:Gee needs to stop speaking publicly about anything football related.
Amen. -
vball10set
....and that's why they just hired Eddie GeorgeAutomatik;1337090 wrote:Gee needs to stop speaking publicly about anything football related.
-
Tiernan
No its not...I'm bitter as hell and I'm gonna bitch about the injustice for a long time.stlouiedipalma;1337250 wrote: Time to move on... -
FatHobbit
I'm over OSU sitting at home for the bowl season this year. We are taking our punishment and will be back next year. But I won't pretend that Gee and Smith handled that as well as they should have.Tiernan;1337294 wrote:No its not...I'm bitter as hell and I'm gonna bitch about the injustice for a long time. -
LJ
Tiernan;1337294 wrote:No its not...I'm bitter as hell and I'm gonna bitch about the injustice for a long time.
When have you been known to NOT bitch about something? -
Automatik
I actually just heard about this. What's his role?vball10set;1337291 wrote:....and that's why they just hired Eddie George -
Tiernan
as you have pointed out many times...I'm old and bitter and that's what we do...now get off my lawn!LJ;1337307 wrote:When have you been known to NOT bitch about something? -
LJ
Automatik;1337308 wrote:I actually just heard about this. What's his role?
Hired gun fundraiser -
vball10setAutomatik;1337308 wrote:I actually just heard about this. What's his role?
ExactlyLJ;1337310 wrote:Hired gun fundraiser
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2012/12/05/osu-hires-george-in-wide-ranging-ambassador-role.html
Eddie George, Ohio State’s 1995 Heisman Trophy winner, has long been an ambassador for the Buckeyes, but now he’ll be doing it with credentials.
The school announced yesterday that George has been hired as an assistant vice president that in effect makes him a designated hitter for president E. Gordon Gee in missions ranging from interaction with athletes to fundraising. George is a former NFL running back, an entrepreneur with several businesses — including Eddie George’s Grille 27 on High Street across from campus — and a college football analyst this year for Fox. Now he has something new on his résumé.
“It is such an honor and privilege to be able to work for Ohio State, which gave me so much and helped me grow personally and professionally,” George said in a news release. “I am grateful to have the opportunity to apply what I’ve learned from my academic and football journey while at the university, along with the work I’ve been doing in the world of business, to support the transformative initiatives happening at my alma mater.”
His initial salary will be $220,000, said an Ohio State spokeswoman, who added that George began working last month. His duties will be wide-ranging. The job description reads: “Will work with multiple internal and external university constituencies to increase awareness of health and wellness initiatives, support the efforts to engage alumni and friends in the life of the university, assist with fundraising, alumni relations, and communications for Ohio State, and work with student-athletes.”
Athletic director Gene Smith said last night: “Eddie has really been engaged in many ways for us before, but now having him formally with the school and with the program really means a lot. That’s because now he will be a formal representative of the institution, and he will have at his disposal all the different things and messages we want to communicate as he travels around the country. He will be a huge asset for us.”
Gee indicated in the news release that it’s as if the Buckeyes have signed a blue-chip star all over again.
“Eddie brings such a breadth of talent to the university, and his entrepreneurial spirit, business experience and leadership skills are great assets to our ongoing work,” Gee said. “Having Eddie return to our team is a great coup for the university.” -
jhay78
queencitybuckeye;1336974 wrote:I'm surprised how many think that tOSU was given a choice, i.e. "You're getting a one year bowl ban, do you want to serve it this year or next?". Not the case. Dr. Gee is almost without question correct.
This is so true. No way the NCAA would let OSU look like they're taking a bowl ban purposely after a crappy 6-6 season.stlouiedipalma;1337250 wrote:There's no doubt in my mind that if Ohio State had self-imposed they would have gotten the additional year from the NCAA. Imagine the outcry from around the country had they "gotten away" with serving a bowl ban after the crappy season they had last year. Besides, the NCAA doesn't want the impression that a member school can dictate its own punishment.