Tressel declines to vote in USA Today poll

[MamaMia]

http://www.mcall.com/sports/college/all-fbc-rutgersdec04,0,299218.story?track=rss

From The Morning Call
December 4, 2006

Tressel declines to vote in USA Today poll
The decision could affect his future participation in the poll.

By Rusty Miller Of The Associated Press

Ohio State's Jim Tressel did not vote in this week's USA Today coaches' poll to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest, a move the newspaper said could jeopardize his future in the selection process.

''We are disappointed with coach Tressel's decision, but our oversight role does not grant us authority to compel his participation,'' USA Today's managing editor for sports Monte Lorell said Sunday in a statement. ''The agreement with the American Football Coaches Association obligates the panel of coaches to disclose final regular season ballots, without exception.

''Coach Tressel's future involvement in the poll will be part of our annual review with AFCA executive director Grant Teaff.''

Told that USA Today was unhappy with him on Sunday night, Tressel acted surprised.

''Maybe they'll fire me as a pollster,'' he said, half joking.

Tressel said he didn't feel right putting Ohio State in the middle of the decision of who the Buckeyes are supposed to play for the national title.

''I have so much respect for both Michigan and Florida,'' he said. ''Obviously there are only two teams that had a shot at playing us in the national championship game. I didn't think it was appropriate that Ohio State would cast a ballot one way or the other. Those are two great teams and we would relish to play either, but I didn't think it was appropriate for us to participate in something like that.''

Michigan coach Lloyd Carr, a member of the coaches poll, said there was no scenario in which he would choose not to vote. On Tressel's abstention, Carr said: ''I thought it was real slick.''

Teaff, a former coach, said Tressel's decision was ''not something that we would like to have happen, but it's kind of an unusual circumstance.''

Until last year, the coaches' ballots were not made public. Now, the final regular-season ballots are released.

''It's just a tough situation,'' Teaff said.

Tressel said Teaff had floated the idea to him on Sunday morning that there was precedent for a coach ''splitting'' his vote between both two teams.

''I said that would be fine,'' Tressel said. ''But when the next call came back they said that wasn't the way we could do it.''

The top-ranked Buckeyes (12-0) were awaiting Sunday's final Bowl Championship Series rankings — based in part on the coaches' poll — to determine who they play in the national championship game on Jan. 8 in Glendale, Ariz.

Florida finished No. 2 in the coaches' poll ahead of No. 3 Michigan.

Tressel issued a statement earlier Sunday saying that he had consulted with athletic director Gene Smith and that ''based upon our unique position in the BCS standings, I believe it is only fair that we not participate (in) the final poll.''

The decision by Tressel not to vote could be unprecedented. AFCA executive director of marketing and development Mel Pulliam said he couldn't recall a coach declining to vote in the coaches' poll — for any reason.

The Gators were ranked fourth in last week's coaches' poll and moved past the idle Wolverines after beating Arkansas 38-28 Saturday night in the Southeastern Conference title game. USC, second in last week's coaches' poll, fell to No. 7 after its 13-9 loss to UCLA.

[OUDoc]

His arms got caught in his sweater vest and couldn't finish his ballot.

[Landthief 1972]

I think it was a smart move, myself. This way they can't say he tried to steer the game to his preferred opponent. Not sure why Carr has his panties in a wad. Would he rather that Tressel just go ahead and NOT put Michigan on the ballot? Maybe vote them at #10 or so? Tressel's non-vote is probably the reason Michigan was as close as they were to Florida this week.

[mildpussy]

Carr's probably upset that Tressel did not show any loyalty to the Big 10 (Carr would want Tressel to take a page out of the Pac 10 officials handbook and rank Florida 25th)

[Taxman71]

Pure pu$$y move by Tressel. For the money he gets paid and the leadership example he is expected to provide, refusing to vote because he doesn't want to "hurt anyone's feelings" is cowardly and sad. He's hoping the Gators win by 50.

[CORNholio]

Tressel just didn't want the world to know he had been voting Boise #2 all season.

[sanantoniosooner]

I don't think it's about hurting anyone's feelings.

Imagine the fallout of his particular vote compared to the fallout of not voting at all.

If he picked Florida, then he'd be branded as scared of a rematch. If he picked UM, then he's branded a Big 10 homer.

I don't fault him at all for abstaining from this vote.

[Taxman71]

I would rather be branded a homer or a Michigan hater than a sissy, which he is in my opinion. The true test: what would Stoops have done? He would have voted, defended his vote and moved on. Tressel is still trying to hide the Claurett cancelled checks.

[sanantoniosooner]

funny.

You just assume Bob would do that, or do you advise him?;)

[Fraggle145]

If you want to vote, vote. You wont be the 1st coach that was number one at the end of the year to put in a ballot. He voted all year. Chicken. Thats what I think.

[Sooner_Bob]

I'm surpised he didn't show just a little Big 10/11 homerism and vote. I don't think many people (except for all the SEC homers) would've really faulted him for that.

[Taxman71]

funny.

You just assume Bob would do that, or do you advise him?;)

I wish.

But I don't see Stoops ever backing down from a less-than-pleasant duty or caring that much what people think. Tressel is acting like a pansie trying not to hurt anyone's feelings. This is football, not a beauty pageant. Hurting people is not only expected, but cheered.

[bluedogok]

Not sure why Carr has his panties in a wad.
Since when did he not?

[snp]

This was the only move he could've made.

[sanantoniosooner]

I wish.

But I don't see Stoops ever backing down from a less-than-pleasant duty or caring that much what people think. Tressel is acting like a pansie trying not to hurt anyone's feelings. This is football, not a beauty pageant. Hurting people is not only expected, but cheered.
Why does it have to be about hurt feelings?

I think it's more about not generating a bunch of crap that will take the focus from where it should be onto something stupid.

I don't think he's worried about offending anybody. It's about avoiding a media crapstorm IMO.

[jwlynn64]

funny.

You just assume Bob would do that, or do you advise him?;)

Well, he has entered the final vote ranked #1 three times so far. Has he failed to vote any of those times? Since we've never heard of it, I'm guessing that he did in fact, honor his commitment, and vote.

Funny that you're first thought is that he wouldn't do it. ;)

[sanantoniosooner]

Well, he has entered the final vote ranked #1 three times so far. Has he failed to vote any of those times? Since we've never heard of it, I'm guessing that he did in fact, honor his commitment, and vote.

Funny that you're first thought is that he wouldn't do it. ;)
I haven't commented if he would or wouldn't

But this is the first year that those votes were made public. Don't think that isn't the major reason. If it wasn't public, he wouldn't have hesitated.

[Taxman71]

I think Tressel made it a bigger story by not voting. His single vote would not have swayed things either way, but he could have retained his man card. Instead, the story is how he wimped out to avoid questioning. He will make a great Democrat someday.

[Vaevictis]

The guy felt that there was potential for the appearance of impropriety. He avoided it by not voting.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If more people realized that even the appearance of impropriety is itself improper, then systems like this would run much more smoothly.

[Taxman71]

I don't see any appearance of impropriety. As a coach, he is required to vote in a poll that comprises 1/3 of the BCS formula. Every other coach, including Michigan and Florida voted as well. If anything, he should have voted and explained that it was to promote the integrity of the system...that he had to vote what he believed and that would end the story. If every coach who didn't want to risk getting negged for their votes, the system would collapse and the AP poll would overtake the coaches poll in the BCS system. He let the system and other coaches down IMO.

[Scott D]

Actually, I don't think Tressel ever entertained the thought of not voting. I think it's also clear that you can't trust anything he says in regards to the poll (see his comments prior to their game against Texas). I wouldn't be surprized if it was the AD who pulled the plug on Tressel's vote making it to USA Today to be counted, and said that the coach chose not to vote to be fair. Then again, it was an assistant in the AD that allegedly swapped OSU and Texas on the previous 'questionable' ballot of Tressel's.

[Vaevictis]

I don't see any appearance of impropriety.

If he votes for Michigan, Florida fans feel he's a conference homer and maybe that's why they didn't get to play. If he votes for Florida, Michigan fans feel he's a Michigan hater, and maybe that's why they didn't get to play.

Both results yield the appearance of impropriety because they allow his integrity to be questioned.


As a coach, he is required to vote in a poll that comprises 1/3 of the BCS formula.

Actually, voting in the coach's poll is not a mandatory job function of a Div-IA college coach. Think about it: There are 63 voters. There are more than 63 Div-IA schools. (Right?)


Every other coach, including Michigan and Florida voted as well.

Michigan and Florida cancel each other out. If one team had a vote and the other didn't, then the one with a vote should abstain to avoid the appearance of impropriety. (IMO)


If anything, he should have voted and explained that it was to promote the integrity of the system...that he had to vote what he believed and that would end the story.

What if he really was a conference homer or a Michigan hater? Should he still vote then?

No, if he felt that there was the potential for the appearance of impropriety, abstaining is the best thing to do.

[jwlynn64]

Any defense of Tressel is crazy. When he accepted the option to vote (not every coach does), he took on that responsibility. His decision to not vote in this case is a breach of his responsibility.

Every person carries their personal bias. No matter how hard you try, you cannot avoid that. Either he thinks that Michigan is better than Florida or he doesn't.

There is no reason to not vote. There are no conditions that should interfere with his responsibility to vote.

His decision to not vote shows a lack of personal responsibility and a flaw in his personality, IMO.

[sanantoniosooner]

Hate him if you like. It's OK.

[Edmond Sooner]

Not sure why Carr has his panties in a wad.

I know why: Michigan fans feel about Ohio State like we do about Texas. My first room mate when I was in the Air Force was from Michigan, a very mild mannered, calm guy - until the MU/OSU game. Then he turned into, well, a frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic for four quarters - and he didn't have very nice things to say about Ohio State during it. Or the entire state of Ohio, for that matter.

After he witnessed my similar behavior during an OU/Texas game, he told he knew just how I felt about the Longhorns, because he felt the same way about Ohio State.

[jwlynn64]

Except we actually beat Texas every now and then! ;)

[Texas Golfer]

Not every coach votes in the coaches' poll but he is one that has accepted that responsibility. As such, he failed to honor his commitment.

Now that the results are public, it was a coward's way out. His integrity, in my opinion, is now more in jeopardy than had he voted because he's shown he's a man who doesn't honor his commitments.

His lack of voting not only may have affected who the Buckeyes play in the title game, it affects the polling positions of the other institutions or, at least, it could.

His lack of a vote could have had as big of an impact than had he voted.

[snp]

His lack of voting not only may have affected who the Buckeyes play in the title game, it affects the polling positions of the other institutions or, at least, it could.

His lack of a vote could have had as big of an impact than had he voted.

We don't know that. He could've voted for Florida and this whole thing would've been moot. Instead there would be people up in arms "Oh he's afraid to play Michigan again blah blah blah"

It was the right thing to do.

[Texas Golfer]

We don't know that. He could've voted for Florida and this whole thing would've been moot. Instead there would be people up in arms "Oh he's afraid to play Michigan again blah blah blah"

It was the right thing to do.

Honoring your commitments is the right thing to do.

[jwlynn64]

We don't know that. He could've voted for Florida and this whole thing would've been moot. Instead there would be people up in arms "Oh he's afraid to play Michigan again blah blah blah"

It was the right thing to do.

Should he even care if people are up in arms. What kind of ***** **** is that.

I can't believe that anyone would think not voting was the right thing to do.:confused: People up in arms my ***! He's just being a chicken ****!

[snp]

Yes, because we all know that coaches take the coaches poll so seriously.

And if he wanted to be a chicken, he would vote for the team he thought he had the best chance against. He didn't want to cause a media ****storm and I'm glad he did it.

[Vaevictis]

I can't believe that anyone would think not voting was the right thing to do.:confused:

It's simple: Avoiding the appearance of impropriety should be paramount.

You wouldn't want a judge presiding over civil suit to have a $100k interest in one side winning, would you? How about a juror?

Even if the judge or juror did not let that interfere with his neutrality, the appearance would taint the proceedings.

It's really that simple.

Tressel had a multi-million dollar interest in the outcome of the coaches poll. If that's not a conflict of interest, then absolutely nothing is. It's clear cut. It's simple.

As far as not voting being the right thing to do, it's a matter of your system of ethics. Some people think it's possible that ethics will sometimes demand that you break your word (although it is not something you should do lightly).

In this case, I think the ethics of the situation certainly justified it. I'm not sure I'd say the situation demanded it, but I wouldn't fault someone for falling on either side of that line.

I just happen to be someone who doesn't think that the "honoring your commitments" card automatically trumps "avoiding the appearance of impropriety" -- which is, in fact, also a commitment of a college coach.

[Taxman71]

The difference is that Tressell had virtually no real influence over who was #2 with his single vote. He could not have selected his opponent if he wanted to. Therefore, not voting just looks cowardice and irresponsible under the guise of a supposed conflict of interest.

A judge or juror, on the other hand, does have the power to influence the ultimate decision.

[sanantoniosooner]

I think we've proven here, that people will take what they want from it.

Some think it's cowardice. Some think he's shrewd.

I doubt anybody will change their mind any time soon.

[Taxman71]

I think the appropriate tie-breaker is what would Stoops do. Someone find out and this issue will be put to rest.

[arlington]

Whats the p;roblem here? Tressell did the wise thing as he has a dog in the fight.If he p;icks Florida, then he is showing no conference loyalty or worse, is ducking Michigan..If he picks Michigan, he is doing what everyone criticizes coaches in the coaches poll for doing, backing up the conference..The coaches flat out shouldnt have a poll..Hell coach Fran said he voted Florida 2nd because he saw them this saturday for the first time..Memo to Fran..That was the best game Florida has played in about 6 weeks!

[sanantoniosooner]

I think the appropriate tie-breaker is what would Stoops do. Someone find out and this issue will be put to rest.
Are you suggesting that Stoops never has, and never will, do anything that you disagree with?

I love the guy, but that's ridiculous.

[Taxman71]

Yes, I think I will blindly follow Stoops' lead when it comes to what is best for college football. After all, he is the best and most successful coach of the 21st century and the leader of the Sooner program.

Non-college football issues? No. But voting in the coaches' poll falls under the college football umbrella.

[sanantoniosooner]

Yes, I think I will blindly follow Stoops' lead when it comes to what is best for college football. After all, he is the best and most successful coach of the 21st century and the leader of the Sooner program.

Non-college football issues? No. But voting in the coaches' poll falls under the college football umbrella.
Whatever dude. Some "Football" decisions aren't about right and wrong. They are about good/better/best.

No coach EVER picks the BEST 100% of the time, and wouldn't even claim to.

Do you think he made the BEST decision when they played Bomar ALL last year instead of PT? I'm not bashing him here at all. Just making a point.

[stoopified]

Shows more class on Tressels part then shown by USC Heisman voters who voted a straight USC ticket so AD and JW wouldn't pick up any points.At least Tressel tried to avoid homerism.

[Taxman71]

At the time, I and about 99% of the people I know agreed that Bomar was the right decision last year. If we still ran Chuck Long's offense, Bomar would still be the preferred QB than PT IMO. 2005 and 2006 are apples and oranges thanks to Kevin Wilson.

You are taking this issue too far. The issue is whether the coach of the #1 team should vote in the coaches' poll. Nothing else. I respect Stoops' opinion on college football more than anyone else. If he says that he would abstain, I would accept it. But I don't think he would wuss out like that. Stoops has turned OU into a no excuses, no apologies program. Tressell needs to be a man, make a decision and stand by it. If he is so afraid to answer the resulting questions, he doesn't deserve to lead a progam like Ohio St. and make the money he does. Then again, he doesn't have much of a history of making hard decisions does he? Especially when it comes to disciplining players.

The notion that this is about a conflict of interest or impropriety is ridiculous. He only has one vote which would not sway the rankings in any manner. He only declined to vote to avoid having to answer questions. Thus, he chose to put the integrity of the polls and BCS in question rather than face some stupid questions from the media that they are going to ask (and have asked) anyway. It's no coincidence he is coaching at a "OSU" school.

He should be banned from voting in future years. If you don't use the privilege, you should lose it.

[Taxman71]

I doubt an Ohio St coach would ever be accused of being a homer to the benefit of Michigan. If anything, he could vote Michigan #3 just to enrage his main rival.

If Tressell had voted Michigan or Florida lower than #3, then his integrity would be questioned by the vote. Regardless of the order, if he had them #2 and 3, he could justify it in one sentence and move on.

[sanantoniosooner]

The notion that this is about a conflict of interest or impropriety is ridiculous. He only has one vote which would not sway the rankings in any manner. He only declined to vote to avoid having to answer questions.
He should be banned from voting in future years. If you don't use the privilege, you should lose it.
He is on the edge of a 2nd national championship game and doesn't want the distraction. The media circus can get pretty bad about stuff like that.

I'd be willing to lose the voting privilege if it kept the staff and the players focused for a NC. To be a coach with more than one in this generation is a real distinguishing note.

10 years from now, everyone would be talking about his 2nd NC, and nobody would be talking about a stupid vote, which you say had nothing to contribute to the outcome, but could certainly generate a crapstorm.

[snp]

The difference is that Tressell had virtually no real influence over who was #2 with his single vote. He could not have selected his opponent if he wanted to. Therefore, not voting just looks cowardice and irresponsible under the guise of a supposed conflict of interest.

A judge or juror, on the other hand, does have the power to influence the ultimate decision.

It's not like every other coach voted and than Tressel did. He had no idea how close or far the two would be.

[jwlynn64]

It's simple: Avoiding the appearance of impropriety should be paramount.

Please explain to me where the impropriety is in him voting like he did the first 13 or so weeks? He accepted the responsibility of voting. Just because his team is ranked #1 does not excuse him from fullfilling that responsibility.

His job was to rank the teams the way that he sees it. If he does this, then there is no impropriety (imagined or otherwise). Now if he has been voting in such a way as to give him what he sees as the weakest opponent at #2, then that would be a problem.

Also, if he changed his ranking a lot in the final week, the governing body would catch this and it would raise red flags concerning his vote. Maybe he didn't want to vote this last week because it was going to expose some problem with his pervious voting if he had to change things up a lot in order to hide his previous impropriety.

Whatever the reason, he does not have a valid reason to not vote.

[jwlynn64]

10 years from now, everyone would be talking about his 2nd NC, and nobody would be talking about a stupid vote, which you say had nothing to contribute to the outcome, but could certainly generate a crapstorm.

Because of his chicken **** actions, 10 years from now I hope we'll be talking about how Florida handed OSU their *** on Jan. 8, 2007!

[sanantoniosooner]

Please explain to me where the impropriety is in him voting like he did the first 13 or so weeks? He accepted the responsibility of voting. Just because his team is ranked #1 does not excuse him from fullfilling that responsibility.

His job was to rank the teams the way that he sees it. If he does this, then there is no impropriety (imagined or otherwise). Now if he has been voting in such a way as to give him what he sees as the weakest opponent at #2, then that would be a problem.

Also, if he changed his ranking a lot in the final week, the governing body would catch this and it would raise red flags concerning his vote. Maybe he didn't want to vote this last week because it was going to expose some problem with his pervious voting if he had to change things up a lot in order to hide his previous impropriety.

Whatever the reason, he does not have a valid reason to not vote.
I hate to break it to you, but this is BS.

EVERY coach votes in a selfserving manner. Where does Bob have OU? Friends of Bob? Where does Schnelly have OU?

Where does Urban have UF? Where does Carr have UM?

Where you place yourself and rivals isn't totally viewed as objective by any means. Where he placed Florida and Michigan would be totally dissected as his personal preference, not necessarily his actual perception. It was lose-lose for him, and I think he took the right way out. If he loses the privilege, that's that way the ball bounces.

[PAW]

Leach's thoughts on the subject, "That's a bunch of sanctimonious bunk. You're probably going to get me in trouble with Jim Tressel, which I guess I can live with."

:D

[jwlynn64]

SAS, I have already said that everyone votes with their own personal bias. That much is not in question. Lacking the courage to vote your opinion, even if it is a "lose-lose" for his is the equivalent of taking his ball and going home.

If you think that running away from your responsibility is "the right way out" then that is your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

My opinion is that his selfish, chicken **** actions should cause him to lose the "priviledge" to vote in the coaches poll and hopefully to lose the MNC as well. That my opinion.

[sanantoniosooner]

You act like the "responsibility" of voting in a poll amounts to jack.

He didn't skip out on child support. He's not driving without insurance.

He saw a conflict with nothing to gain and some potential to lose.

There are other things he could be ripped for that are more relevant than this.

that is my opinion.

BTW, I think we all know each others opinions by now on this particular subject, so I'll give it up to whoever still thinks the horse is kicking.

[SoonerShark]

Pure pu$$y move by Tressel. For the money he gets paid and the leadership example he is expected to provide, refusing to vote because he doesn't want to "hurt anyone's feelings" is cowardly and sad. He's hoping the Gators win by 50.

A conflict of interest commonly requires someone to step aside from things he would normally do. Sometimes not acting is more noble than acting. Tressel would get crap for whatever choice he made in the poll, voting UF highter, voting UM higher, or abstaining.

(Since OSU defeated UM by only 3 on OSU's home field, I would think UM would the the favorite of bettors, if not oddsmakers, in a rematch. See 1976 Rose Bowl's OSU rematch versus UCLA.)

[Scott D]

Shows more class on Tressels part then shown by USC Heisman voters who voted a straight USC ticket so AD and JW wouldn't pick up any points.At least Tressel tried to avoid homerism.

Unlike Ron Zook :)

[Taxman71]

A conflict of interest commonly requires someone to step aside from things he would normally do. Sometimes not acting is more noble than acting. Tressel would get crap for whatever choice he made in the poll, voting UF highter, voting UM higher, or abstaining.

(Since OSU defeated UM by only 3 on OSU's home field, I would think UM would the the favorite of bettors, if not oddsmakers, in a rematch. See 1976 Rose Bowl's OSU rematch versus UCLA.)

Tressel would only have acted noble if he jeopardized his own team's chances in playing in the championship game by not voting (i.e. - 3 way competition for 2 slots), but this was not the case. OSU was guaranteed a spot. Therefore, Tressel doesn't have any conflict of interest. He should vote his conscience like every other voter did and face the music.

I fail to see how he did anything noble or deserving of respect. He in no way jeopardized or sacrificed his team's chances of playing in the title game, yet left the biggest decision of the year for the other coaches to make and answer for while he tries to sit on high acting like he is above it all. If I was a coach that voted (i.e. - Mike Leach), I would call Tressel out for being a wuss. The current system sucks, but, nonetheless, it demands that the coaches take responsibility for voting 1/3 of the BCS formula, and not only when it is easy.

[Texas Golfer]

The difference is that Tressell had virtually no real influence over who was #2 with his single vote. He could not have selected his opponent if he wanted to. Therefore, not voting just looks cowardice and irresponsible under the guise of a supposed conflict of interest.

A judge or juror, on the other hand, does have the power to influence the ultimate decision.

Also, by not voting, he's made more commotion than had he voted.

[Texas Golfer]

Whats the p;roblem here? Tressell did the wise thing as he has a dog in the fight.If he p;icks Florida, then he is showing no conference loyalty or worse, is ducking Michigan..If he picks Michigan, he is doing what everyone criticizes coaches in the coaches poll for doing, backing up the conference..The coaches flat out shouldnt have a poll..Hell coach Fran said he voted Florida 2nd because he saw them this saturday for the first time..Memo to Fran..That was the best game Florida has played in about 6 weeks!

Howie Schnelly voted LSU #15 and the Sooners #18.

[Texas Golfer]

He is on the edge of a 2nd national championship game and doesn't want the distraction. The media circus can get pretty bad about stuff like that.

I'd be willing to lose the voting privilege if it kept the staff and the players focused for a NC. To be a coach with more than one in this generation is a real distinguishing note.

10 years from now, everyone would be talking about his 2nd NC, and nobody would be talking about a stupid vote, which you say had nothing to contribute to the outcome, but could certainly generate a crapstorm.

Had he voted, he may not have said anything. His vote counts no more and no less than any other's. But, by not voting, he's created the distraction and media circus that you said he probably wanted to avoid. He should have seen this coming.

If he were truly a man of integrity, he would have honored his previous commitment.

[sanantoniosooner]

I disagree. TIA.

[Texas Golfer]

I hate to break it to you, but this is BS.

EVERY coach votes in a selfserving manner. Where does Bob have OU? Friends of Bob? Where does Schnelly have OU?

Where does Urban have UF? Where does Carr have UM?

Where you place yourself and rivals isn't totally viewed as objective by any means. Where he placed Florida and Michigan would be totally dissected as his personal preference, not necessarily his actual perception. It was lose-lose for him, and I think he took the right way out. If he loses the privilege, that's that way the ball bounces.

By your own admission, how Tressel voted would not be any more or less selfserving than any other coach.

If commitments are unimportant to Tressel, he should never, ever, criticize a recruit who changes his commitment from OSU to another university if that kid feels like it was the right thing to do.

[snp]

Also, by not voting, he's made more commotion than had he voted.

You don't know that unless you are Mistress Cleo.

[Taxman71]

The smartest thing Tressel could have done is voted Michigan #2 and said that he thought they were the second-best team in the nation and is ready to beat them again. Alternatively, he could have voted Florida #2 and said he is looking forward to the challenge of playing the best of SEC after already beating Michigan (thus, ****ing the Blue and Gold off). IMO, he did the worst thing by doing nothing.

Makes me think he is scared of Michigan.

[Texas Golfer]

You don't know that unless you are Mistress Cleo.

You don't have to be Mistress Cleo to know this. Never has the #1 team's coach had to justify his votes previously, what makes you think this year would have been different? By not voting, we're discussing his actions, or in this case, his lack of action.

Do you really think we'd be having a debate on who Tressel voted for?

[tnraider1]

He should have voted like this...

1. Ohio State
2. Boise State.
End of ballot.

[Vaevictis]

Please explain to me where the impropriety is in him voting like he did the first 13 or so weeks?

The first thirteen weeks don't determine who plays in the BCS National Championship game. The first thirteen weeks are, in essence, a big fat circle jerk in which the coaches say, "You're good. I'm good? No! YOU'RE GOOD! Really? I'm good? No way man, YOU'RE GOOD!"

The final week actually means something. It directly influences who plays in the national championship game.


He accepted the responsibility of voting. Just because his team is ranked #1 does not excuse him from fullfilling that responsibility.

We've been around and around and around on this one. I know you think that his word to vote is more important than all other considerations. And you know how I feel on the subject. There's no reason to keep beating that particular dead horse.


His job was to rank the teams the way that he sees it. If he does this, then there is no impropriety (imagined or otherwise). Now if he has been voting in such a way as to give him what he sees as the weakest opponent at #2, then that would be a problem.

His job is to do what is best for the Ohio State program as he sees it. His coach's poll vote is a side-gig, and its importance pales compared to his day job. I know this is hard to believe, but sometimes, doing your job right means acting in a manner consistent with certain ethical traditions, and in some jobs -- especially those that require the public confidence -- that means recusing yourself from activities that may lead to the appearance of impropriety.

And again, you know how I feel on that matter, and I know how you feel on that matter, so there's no need to go beating that dead horse.


Also, if he changed his ranking a lot in the final week, the governing body would catch this and it would raise red flags concerning his vote.

Something that would not have been corrected until after the teams playing for the National Championship were selected. If he was involved in shenanigans, better he was pulled from this last poll.

[jwlynn64]

The first thirteen weeks don't determine who plays in the BCS National Championship game.

I guess that you don't subscribe to the argument then that since Florida was ranked third, they shouldn't have been moved up to two this week. You know... since only this last poll really matters. ;)

[snp]

You don't have to be Mistress Cleo to know this. Never has the #1 team's coach had to justify his votes previously, what makes you think this year would have been different? By not voting, we're discussing his actions, or in this case, his lack of action.

Do you really think we'd be having a debate on who Tressel voted for?

Never before has the coach's poll been public.

[Texas Golfer]

Never before has the coach's poll been public.

True. But coaches shouldn't be ashamed of their vote if they truly voted their conscience.

[sanantoniosooner]

http://sopadj1.netsons.org/gallery/gal/funny/midget_basketball.jpg

[ashley]

Smart, ol

[jwlynn64]

Never before has the coach's poll been public.

It was last year. This is the second year.

[Dead Horse]

http://www.scottwesterfeld.com/blogimages/cathelmet.jpg