I get what he’s trying to do here with this post about Tressel…
Simply put, Jim Tressel’s track record on recruiting, roster management, and oversigning has been impeccable, no one can challenge that, and we are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. What Tressel did has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of oversigning and therefore nothing will change here with regards to how we feel about how he manages his roster and what he does to avoid the abuses of oversigning.
That said, it is fully understood that the debate on oversigning is often times a debate about ethics. It is also fully understood that to engage in a conversation about ethics in one area and yet ignore or defer comment on unethical behavior in another area can be deemed as irresponsible and misconstrued as having an agenda. That is not the case here. This site is about having a linear discussion about oversigning in order to have it eliminated. We will gladly take whatever criticism comes with this narrowed approach, but at the same time we hope that our readers understand that the most effective way to address the oversigning issue is to stay on point.
… but ultimately it’s not convincing. It’s like arguing that a man who is an axe murderer is a good family man. Maybe so, but who cares?
The problem here isn’t with arguing passionately against oversigning. It’s with choosing a coach who’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar as your ethical poster boy. At this point, who knows what motivates Tressel’s behavior? All of which justifies pointing out that nobody in the Big Ten benefits more from the conference’s rule on oversigning than Ohio State.