The Case For Jim Tressel

Full disclosure: I am an alumnus of Ohio State, and as regular readers of this column know, a very big fan.

So naturally it was with great consternation that I learned, as the rest of us did, that Jim Tressel knew that five of his players had sold memorabilia and traded some for tattoos long before the story broke and those players were suspended.

But what I also did, which it seems few others in the media and commentariat are doing, is actually look at the details of this matter, particularly those that are unique and specific to this case, and basing my opinion on that, rather than presumptuous, bad-faith-assuming screeds that only want to hear that Tressel lied and that he and the football program need to be hung by their ankles and spat upon.

I do believe that Tressel should be suspended — two games seems light to me — and the players involved should not have had their suspensions postponed until after this past winter's Sugar Bowl.

I do not think that Tressel should be fired, nor sit out an entire season, nor should the team be banned from the postseason or have their records from last year vacated. I'll try to make the case for what I believe is a fair punishment here.

You have to look at this case in two parts: the violations, and then Tressel's non-disclosure of those violations. First, the violations themselves. Five Buckeye players sold memorabilia to a tattoo dealer, Eddie Rife, in exchange for tattoos and money in the low four figures. That's a slam dunk violation and I can't believe for a second that the players, as they claim, didn't know it was.

Even if you believe college athletes should be paid, or are entitled to sell their memorabilia while they are still in school, the fact is right now they are not. If it were permissible, the star players could become quite wealthy cashing in on their fame, likely causing greater disparity between the haves and the have-nots of the NCAA (a gap that is already too wide, but getting thinner).

Unlike Reggie Bush, who did indeed get pretty wealthy as a result of his actions, the Buckeye players profited by a sum that no one would consider a life-changing amount. Nor were the players profiting from future considerations, unlike Bush, because Rife is not an agent.

He is, however, a drug-dealer (allegedly) and an ex-con, and that brings us to part two of this story. The players' misdeeds came to light in the course of a federal investigation into Rife, and that's the context in which the attorney who tipped off Tressel came to know about the matter.

That aspect is crucial to Tressel's stated reasons for not coming forward with the information he received (and is corroborated by the tipster's e-mails, which have been released), and yet it barely gets a passing mention from the pundits reacting to this case. They prefer to view Tressel's lie in a vacuum, with no context, which allows them to make the ridiculous comparison to the Dez Bryant case.

Dez Bryant lied about visiting Deion Sanders at his house, and was suspended for a year by the NCAA for it. Tressel lied, too. That, however, is where the similarities end.

If Tressel came forward with the emails he received, he would potentially be doing three things: 1) interfering with a federal investigation, which certainly trumps the NCAA; 2) denying an attorney's request for confidentiality; 3) putting his players, who had nothing to do with Rife's felonious activities, in harm's way, which is a valid concern when you go running to the public (and running to the NCAA is tantamount to running to the public) about people involved, however peripherally, with a big-time drug dealer, and doing so under the auspices of that federal investigation of the dealer.

Those are all very valid concerns, and of course have no equivalent in the Bryant case or any other NCAA case.

Tressel heeded those concerns and said nothing publicly or to the University. He could have chosen a better route, and he said as much. But once he stuck with the decision to keep his mouth shut, he was basically stuck with that decision. Because if he came forward in December, would the reaction be any different, now that the heat was off? No. Whether he came forward in December, September, or May, the likely reaction from the public, the media, and the NCAA would be centered on the fact that he covered it up at all.

No matter how much the media likes to point to the opportunities he had to come clean, no one would have given him credit for keeping quiet, but only for a month. As I say, once Tressel made the decision to (in his mind) not interfere with a government investigation and protect his players, he was forced to abide by it.

He could have, instead, contacted OSU authorities. There are many things he could have and should have done differently, and perception is reality. If it looks like he kept quiet to win games, nothing that comes to light will change anyone's mind. Sadly, perception-is-reality also applies to the NCAA, and they are licking their wounds after the blowback they received in allowing the OSU suspensions to be postponed until the following season. They may be quite eager to demonstrate that they are not in Ohio State's pocket.

So I say to the NCAA, continue your investigation. See if what you discover corroborates Tressel's version of events. If it does, sit him for five games — the same as the players.