Why did Smith's opinion of Tressel change.

The editor of the Ozone wrote an open letter to Gene Smith that basically were calling him out for not getting invited to last week's press conference.  You can read it here.  My thoughts?

 There are legitimate reasons to be upset at the handling of the situation since the beginning but you write an open letter because of an impromptu press conference?  Seriously?

Despite being a bit frivolous, the article does ask a few good questions, most notably, why did Smith's opinion of Tressel change?

I've always assumed that Gene Smith's initial issue with Jim Tressel was that JT never apologized.  You know that Tressel had to promise this before March's press conference or it wouldn't have been included in the NCAA filing.  Keep in mind that Smith spoke first then Gee and finally Tressel.  Once they both unequivocally endorsed Tressel it was really too late to take it back when Tressel gave his rambling speech that had nothing resembling an apology.  I know Smith and Tressel sat down a few days after the press conference so Smith could instruct Tressel on what he was expecting in an apology but what I saw over the following weeks wasn't any better.*

The apology request disappeared afterward so I always assumed that Smith told Tressel to hold off for the August meetings for a firm statement of responsibility.  About 6 weeks after the March press conference, Smith had an odd conversation with a member of the press that made it obvious that he and JT weren't seeing eye to eye.  In hindsight my suspicion is that time passed the gulf between the two widened from not agreeing about an apology to not agreeing about compliance.

Why would it widen?

One constant of most high level managers is they all have large ego's and people with ego's have a high opinion of their own ideas.  Another constant is the longer someone has been in an organization, the tougher it is for that person to change.  As change is constant in any organization, turf wars are the inevitable result.

When the Compliance Group came back with their recommendations my suspicion is their proposal included a lot of things that would take away a lot of the free reign that Jim Tressel had grown used to over his last 20+ years of coaching.  I know Andy Geiger recommended changes to football compliance so this isn't exactly a new idea.  His long tenure would have allowed that to happen pretty easily but his abrupt departure left the job undone.  When Gene Smith arrived he was in a weak position to implement change in the football program.  Some might say -- well he's the boss and it is his call.  You need to keep in mind that any change in policy still needs to have approval from Smith's bosses and he really was in a weak position to implement change in a program that was winning league championships every year.  All it would have taken was a phone call from Tressel to a few of the football friendly board members and any changes would have been tabled.  I have no doubt that Smith saw the TAT5 situation as an opportunity to improve compliance and when they were told to Jim Tressel he pushed back hard.  At some point Smith insisted and Tressel declined to comply so it went to Gordon Gee and the board. 

Of course all that is conjecture and  all we know is Smith supported Jim Tressel in March then asked for his resignation in May.  One hint we do know is when recently asked how long Smith felt he had spoken too strongly in Tressel's defense, he gave a one word answer - "Days".

I do know the answer to one question from the article - Why has Gene Smith never publicly spoken as to why he changed his mind?  The answer is simple - There is nothing to be gained from airing dirty laundry inside the program.

* "I'm sorry for what Buckeye fans are going through" is not an apology for the act.

Best LoIC quotes from the NCAA's report on USC

Something the national media doesn't seem to understand is that a Lack of Institutional control penalty isn't about violations.  It's about whether compliance has necessary procedures in place to catch violations and whether a these procedures are strictly enforced as no one can ever stop isolated incidents.  The key is how you catch them and what you do when you find an irregularity.  I've summarized my favorite quotes from the NCAA report on USC and specifically the portion on lack of control on pages 46-55 of their report (NCAA Public Report on USC).  Then compare this list  to Ohio State who self reported and has mostly been in front of this the whole time from a compliance standpoint.  The two situations aren't even close.

USC had a 2 person compliance department -  "... adequate resources must be dedicated to compliance.  In this case, while the football violations were occurring, the institution had insufficient numbers of compliance staff to do the thorough and complete job..."

Adequate tracking processes for vehicles - "Adequate  processes also require that institutions obtain automobile registration records, and, when appropriate, records  documenting purchase and car payments, and not simply rely on uncorroborated information provided by student-athletes.  Neither of these processes was in place at the institution at the time."

Incomplete Automobile tracking - "... the FAR stated that the  institution would check to see if the information contained in the automobile registration form was complete, but it was "sometimes hard to get all of the information.""

Incomplete records specifically concerning Reggie Bush's car - "The institutional automobile registration form was incomplete; while it listed the date the young man had acquired the vehicle and from whom he had allegedly received it (his parents), the lines on the form for the license number and place of purchase were left blank.  The  institution did not require student athlete 1 to provide the missing information or the  records on the purchase and financing of the vehicle."

Carroll got Bush a job that provided the improper benefits with knowledge of compliance - "There was information in the record  that the former head  football  coach encouraged  sports marketer A to hire student-athletes as interns.  A current NFLPA certified agent ("sports agent B") is the chairman of a sports agency and a colleague of sports marketer A.  He reported that the former head football coach asked sports marketer A to consider hiring football student-athletes as interns in his agency."

Bush's employer seems nervous -  "Even though sports marketer A had assured the former director of compliance that he was doing everything  "by the book," the former director of compliance came away from the conversation with the impression that "the reporter shook up  (sports marketer A) and has him second guessing himself.""

An allegation by a reporter that Bush's employer seems especially close to him - "The e-mail from the former director of compliance concluded as follows: "I think we should call [student-athlete 1] in to discuss and confirm.  I can do that today (since they most likely leave tomorrow for the Cal game)."  However, no followup meeting with student-athlete 1 concerning the issues raised by the journalist ever took place.  The FAR claimed no recollection of receiving or reading the email."

Response to a Nationally published article - "... the institution failed to undertake even a limited inquiry into the issues raised by the journalist to determine if sports marketer A provided student-athlete 1 or his family with impermissible benefits.  The FAR could not recall anyone at the institution discussing the issues raised in the article, and the former director of compliance stated it was concluded within the department of athletics that the article was "sensationalistic" and "the internship was being misconstrued as something more than it was." "

Knowledge of improper payment of Bush's disability insurance policy - "... the former director of compliance received the forms from sports marketer B. The former director of compliance told sports marketer B that it was inappropriate for the sports marketing agency to be involved with student-athlete 1's disability insurance policy, but he did not take any action to sever the involvement or investigate the matter...  Instead, he passed the forms on to  an institutional athletics trainer, who assisted in completing the forms."

First approached by Mayo's "promoter" - ...  asked  his assistant coach to stay in contact with representative B regarding the recruitment of the two young men.  He did  so even after establishing that representative B was not a parent or guardian of the young men and called himself an "event promoter." To his credit, the former head men's basketball coach reported the meeting to the director of athletics and the compliance office."

Finding out the Mayo's "promoter" had been acted improperly in the past - "...within three weeks of
his initial meeting with representative B, he and his staff had learned  that representative B provided impermissible benefits  to the former student-athlete almost five years earlier.  When questioned about the situation, representative B denied he was a professional sports agent and told the assistant men's basketball coach  that the NCAA  had erroneously labeled him."

More allegations but no action taken regarding Mayo's recruitment - "... director of athletics went to the men's basketball office after receiving an e-mail from a sports reporter looking for a response to a report that representative B was a professional sports agent and involved with student-athlete 2.  When advised by the former head men's basketball coach that representative B had on numerous occasions denied he was an agent or runner, the director of athletics responded, "That's all I need to know," and left the office.  No further follow-up was done."

Director of Athletics and Director of Compliance's lack of understanding of NCAA rules - "... failed to recognize that representative B was a representative of the institution's athletics interests and that his involvement with student-athlete 2's recruitment was a violation of NCAA rules.  But even without making the booster connection, both of them were aware of representative B's provision of impermissible benefits to the former  men's basketball  student-athlete in 2001. This fact alone should have resulted in a higher level of scrutiny of representative B, but no further investigation was done."

Compliance eventually wants to end recruitment of Mayo but can't get support - "... director of compliance told the former head men's basketball coach of his concerns regarding potential problems in the recruitment of student-athlete 2.  The director of compliance recommended that the basketball coaching staff formally end  the  recruitment of student-athlete 2 given the very public questions about student-athlete 2's amateur status and the young man's association with representative B and his AAU coach.  The former head men's basketball coach failed to heed the advice, and the administration took no further action."