Transcript From The September 10th Ohio State University Press Conference – Ohio State Buckeyes
9/10/2003 12:00:00 AM | Football
Sept. 10, 2003
(Captioning by Professional Reporters, Inc. 800-229-0675)
SNAPP: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I just want to briefly go over today’s format. I want to thank you for coming. I know this has been a long ordeal for everyone.
Today’s format is Director of Athletics Andy Geiger will have a statement, followed by some questions. We’re not going to have time to do individual one-on-ones afterwards, but hopefully we can get most of your questions answered through the question-and-answer session.
Coach Tressel is at practice right now and obviously cannot be here. He will be available this evening at 6:30 in the interview room in the stadium in the southeast tower of the stadium. With that, we will get started.
Andy?
GEIGER: Good afternoon. I’m here today on behalf of the Ohio State University to share with you the outcome of two-and-a-half months of investigation of Ohio State football student-athlete Maurice Clarett. This has been a long and painful process. We are committed to conducting our intercollegiate athletics programs in accordance with NCAA, Big Ten and University rules and regulations. We play by the rules, and we live by the rules. It is imperative that we are thorough, careful, and fair; this is far more important than rushing to judgment. I met this morning with Maurice and his mother to share our conclusions and conditions with them.
This began with a visit by two NCAA enforcement staff members on June 26th to interview Maurice. The follow-up to that interview revealed several discrepancies between Maurice’s answers and what turned out to be verified facts in many instances. That initiated a second interview on July 7 as well as two more interviews in August. Throughout, we have all been consumed with an attempt to sort out fact from fiction and to get to the truth. As a result of the investigation, Ohio State today submitted a self-report to the NCAA outlining violations of Bylaw 12; amateurism and Bylaw 10, ethical conduct.
There are two violations of Bylaw 12, indicating that Maurice Clarett received preferential treatment or benefits based upon his athletic reputation or skills. The value of these benefits is in the thousands of dollars. Based upon the penalty protocol established by the NCAA for Bylaw 12 violations, the penalty for the magnitude of these violations would be at least 50 percent of the season.
Before each formal interview conducted by the NCAA or the University, Maurice was presented with a copy of Bylaw 10 and asked if he has read it and understands it. Bylaw 10 is clear and direct, requiring honesty and cooperation. There are 14 violations of Bylaw 10 involving patterns of false and misleading statements. Based upon NCAA precedents, the penalties amount to at least 50 percent of the season. This judgment has been corroborated by the NCAA staff and by an independent expert very knowledgeable about NCAA enforcement issues.
Thus, Maurice Clarett will not be eligible to practice for or compete in any football games during the 2003 regular and post-season competition. He will be allowed to keep his athletic grand in aid and attend classes in order to continue his academic progress.
In order for Maurice to play in the future at Ohio State, the University will need to apply to the NCAA for reinstatement of his eligibility. We will do so, providing Maurice makes satisfactory academic progress towards his degree, does not seek or accept any impermissible benefits or violate any other NCAA rules and makes progress on conditions involving personal growth during this academic year. Reinstatement conditions will include the requirement that Maurice make restitution for the financial benefits cited in the Bylaw 12 violations by making a donation to a charity of his choice in the amount cited in the violations.
I want to emphasize that this outcome is separate and apart from the criminal proceeding announced by the City Prosecutor yesterday, and separate from the academic investigation that arose from the “New York Times” article.
This is a sad day, and we regret deeply what Maurice Clarett has lost and what the Ohio State University, our football family, our fans have lost for this year. A very talented football player will not be able to share his talent and this community will not get to see this gifted athlete compete. Being a student-athlete means living up to fundamental core values that are embedded in the regulations of the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference and this University. Foremost among these are the requirements to be ethical and honest and to preserve amateur standing.
The greater the deviation from these requirements the more serious the penalty must be. We hope the NCAA considers a suspension for this season to be sufficient. More importantly, we hope that Maurice will remain in school to pursue his degree, and that conditions will warrant our application for reinstatement to play Buckeye football next season.
SNAPP: Take questions at this point.
REPORTER: Andy, what kind of read did you get from Maurice this morning when you gave him this news?
GEIGER: His main reaction was that he intends to get his degree from Ohio State. I don’t think I could characterize the reception of this as great pleasure, but he seemed resolute in that.
REPORTER: When did the benefits begin?
GEIGER: They have gone on over a period of several months.
REPORTER: Was it during last season at all?
GEIGER: Partially, I think.
REPORTER: The statement about no institutional involvement still holds true, Ohio State is not liable.
GEIGER: At this time Ohio State is not involved in terms of institutional culpability in this.
REPORTER: Did you report to the NCAA or did the NCAA come you to? Because under the NCAA regulations, you should have reported to them when you received this police report April 18th.
GEIGER: I’m not sure we received the police report April 18th.
REPORTER: The call was made from Coach Tressel’s office.
GEIGER: Well, I still don’t know when we knew about the falsified police report or that the police report was false. I think that came out in the interviews this summer.
REPORTER: No. You had a report to the police indicating —
GEIGER: Excuse me. I didn’t have a report.
REPORTER: The university from the football office reports that thousands of dollars in value had been stolen from his car. Now, controversy you have —
GEIGER: Excuse me. I think you have that wrong.
REPORTER: How’s that?
GEIGER: I think that the student athlete reported to the police. The police were called by the student athlete from the football office. The police came and the student athlete gave the report to the police.
REPORTER: So the athletic department was in the dark about this until the NCAA came to Ohio State?
GEIGER: I think that we didn’t know that the police record was falsified until the student athlete admitted it.
REPORTER: No. The report that Maurice Clarett had filed indicating that he had had lost — that he had been a crime victim of thousands of dollars. You didn’t know that.
GEIGER: I did not know that.
REPORTER: Andy, had Maurice given more truthful answers, is part of what you’re telling us today that these penalties would be about half as severe, so basically half the season is because of dishonesty.
GEIGER: I think that honesty and forthrightness is always the best policy and always helps in any such investigation as this.
REPORTER: What are the violations you’re speaking of?
GEIGER: I can’t disclose the nature of the violations.
REPORTER: Do they stem from the car incident?
GEIGER: No.
REPORTER: In the thousands, Andy, could you narrow it down in terms of more than five, less than five?
GEIGER: Can’t.
REPORTER: Why not?
GEIGER: Because I can’t.
REPORTER: Well, you don’t know the value?
GEIGER: I know exactly the value, but I’m not going to disclose it.
REPORTER: Is that because that’s subject to privacy law?
GEIGER: Uh-huh.
REPORTER: Andy, if Maurice would choose to go challenge the NFL rule that prohibits him to go to the NFL draft now, how would that impact what he plans to get done here at Ohio State if he were to go ahead and pursue that.
GEIGER: I haven’t explored that and he hasn’t indicated any interest in doing that. I don’t know what he’s going to do. We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
REPORTER: So there would be nothing to prevent him from doing that?
GEIGER: He can do that freely if he wishes as far as I’m concerned.
REPORTER: Andy, Maurice made a statement in the aftermath of the Fiesta Bowl last year in the locker room and the quote was “I have no affection for Ohio State”; with that quote and with all that’s happened since then, can you explain why Ohio State thinks it’s a workable scenario for Maurice to come back and play football for Ohio State in 2004.
GEIGER: If he wishes to we welcome him. He’s a student at the university and has all the rights and privileges thereto based upon his performance and his willingness to meet the conditions that we’ve laid out. If he desirous of meeting those conditions, then we would welcome him back.
REPORTER: Can you explain more what conditions on personal growth means?
GEIGER: Those are between Maurice and us.
REPORTER: You mentioned that the violations — that 50 percent of the season, is that for each — you mentioned I think 16 total violations. Is that 50 percent of the season for each one?
GEIGER: 50 percent of the season at least for Bylaw 12 and at least 50 percent for Bylaw 10.
REPORTER: But when you have 14 violations of the same bylaw, are we talking 14, 50 percent of the seasons?
GEIGER: Well, I said at least. Do you understand what at least means?
REPORTER: I understand that.
GEIGER: It could be more.
REPORTER: But is it 50 — is it at least 50 percent for each violation.
GEIGER: Yes. It’s cumulative.
REPORTER: Andy, what do you feel about the NCAA’s likelihood of reinstating Maurice if and when he would apply and he would fulfill your own requirements?
GEIGER: We would appeal on behalf of Maurice and ourselves for his reinstatement and we would argue on his behalf pending his meeting the conditions that we’ve laid out.
REPORTER: Andy, is it possible to point a direction from where some of the benefits came from?
GEIGER: No.
REPORTER: When they began exactly? You said two months ago. But you mentioned —
GEIGER: No, I said several months ago. I didn’t say two months ago.
REPORTER: But not leading back to last season at all. Did anything happen in his freshman year at all that may raise a question?
GEIGER: I don’t know. I don’t know exactly, standing here, what the exact dates are, but I don’t recall them exactly, but it doesn’t matter. If the university was unaware or uninvolved, then the university is not culpable whether or not he was playing football.
REPORTER: So if he violated Bylaw 12 any time during his freshman season it would not impact Ohio State as an institution?
GEIGER: It would not necessarily impact us.
REPORTER: Your quote earlier, Andy, when someone asked you if the benefits started last season, you said partially I think. I wonder what you feel as the Ohio State athletic director given that quote, how you feel about winning a National Championship given the likelihood that one of your prominent players on the team was, in fact, intelligible even though it was not a university —
GEIGER: First of all, he wasn’t ineligible.
REPORTER: By NCAA standards he would have been.
GEIGER: He would have been had it been known, but if it wasn’t known, he was eligible.
REPORTER: Doesn’t that seem to be splitting hairs?
GEIGER: No. Bruce, it’s not splitting hairs. It’s exactly the way the rule is.
REPORTER: You said last year after the game that you were proud of Ohio State winning the championship.
GEIGER: I still am. I still am proud of winning the National Championship.
REPORTER: Putting a player on the field who took extra benefits during the season, do you characterize that as doing it the right way?
GEIGER: If I did it unknowingly.
REPORTER: Was it willfully unknowingly? You have an 18-year-old kid in an apartment by himself, and you have an affirmative responsibility to be in a position to know these things. Did you meet that threshold?
GEIGER: Yes, we did.
REPORTER: Andy, how would you characterize your meetings with Clarett, both a couple months ago, a couple weeks ago and up through the process the last few weeks and today?
GEIGER: They varied. The meetings varied. The mood in the meetings varied. The temperament of the meetings varied. As you might imagine.
REPORTER: Today.
GEIGER: Every time.
REPORTER: Today.
GEIGER: Every time.
REPORTER: Can you — can you still clarify — you said at least 6 months. Now, if there are two violations —
GEIGER: It would be 6 months of what?
REPORTER: Of suspension. I’m sorry. Half a season.
GEIGER: If you add 50 and 50, what do you get?
REPORTER: But he violated two different bylaws, a total of 16 times. Are we talking at least half a year for each bylaw?
GEIGER: We estimate that at least 50 percent for Bylaw 12 and at least 50 percent for Bylaw 10. I don’t know how to make it any clearer.
Now, we have precedence here for Bylaw 10 violations which you’re privy to at the end of this session. You can look at the various kinds of things that are there and draw some of your own conclusions.
REPORTER: That’s all I was curious about. If you violate a bylaw one time or 100 times, it’s still half a season?
GEIGER: No.
REPORTER: Andy —
GEIGER: It might be 10 percent for one. It might be nothing for another. It might be 50 percent for another. It might be 30 percent for another.
REPORTER: So two violations of one bylaw you assume would be at least half a season, 14 violations of the other bylaw would be the other half of the season?
GEIGER: I said at least.
REPORTER: Andy, what kind of responsibility does Jim Tressel as head coach hold in this matter?
GEIGER: I think Jim’s done a great job for Ohio State football. I think he always has, and I think he continues to.
REPORTER: Andy, after having been through, as you said, a two-and-a-half month process that was painful, to say the least, what makes you want to go forward with him next year if he chooses to do so?
GEIGER: Because he’s a student here, and because I think it’s our job to work with him on his behalf and for his progress as a student, as a human being, in every way that we can. I think we have a responsibility for that, which is why we’re handling this exactly the way we are.
REPORTER: Do you sense that he’s on the same page with you now?
GEIGER: I wouldn’t characterize it that way necessarily. I think Maurice will — I think he has his own point of view on things, and I wouldn’t say that we’re on the same page, but I think he understands what we said.
REPORTER: A parent or legal guardian, are those the only people that can provide a student athlete with benefits?
GEIGER: Basically.
REPORTER: In other words, a surrogate father would not?
GEIGER: Not necessarily. Depends upon the circumstances.
REPORTER: The NCAA first comes to town on June 26. Can you tell us what brought that meeting up? Why they came to town in the first place.
GEIGER: Rumors, allegations that come to them. They asked if they could interview Maurice.
REPORTER: What was the source of those rumors?
GEIGER: I have no idea.
REPORTER: Is Ohio State prepared to make a different recommendation for a penalty regarding Maurice prior to his behavior on the day of the Washington game?
GEIGER: None of this has anything to do with his behavior on or around the Washington game.
REPORTER: Coach Tressel was asked yesterday that if Maurice came to him and expressed a desire to go somewhere else would he grant release of the scholarship, and Coach Tressel said that would be my recommendation. How would you respond to that?
GEIGER: In my ten years at Ohio State, I don’t recall denying anybody an opportunity to transfer, if they desire. Sometimes we try to find out why and see if we can mitigate, but often we’re not able to do that.
REPORTER: Basically, last season no red flags went up about Maurice, no red flags were brought to you all’s attention until after the season; is that correct, until after the Fiesta Bowl?
GEIGER: I think that there are always issues that you have with student athletes, of one kind or another, but nothing that was alarming in terms of his eligibility.
REPORTER: Did Maurice discuss the possibility of transferring?
GEIGER: Did not.
REPORTER: Are you concerned at all that when the NCAA responds to your response that they’re going to say that Ohio State should have had better institutional control in this matter, if they didn’t see any red flags last season?
GEIGER: Well, we have a letter from the NCAA that says in it with the allegations that came that we together sat in interviews and heard all the way through — I forget the date of the letter — August-something-or-other– it said at this time we do not see any institutional involvement. Now, they always couch things in words like “as far as we know” or “at this time,” as do I, as does anybody in this kind of situation. But we have in writing in a letter from them that there is no institutional involvement.
REPORTER: How do they explain a police report with four Ohio State University police officers and thousands of dollars in value, and a case shut down in 23 hours, despite the fact that the officer says there are latent prints on this that will help us make the case? How do you explain to the NCAA that there’s no —
GEIGER: The NCAA, I think, interviewed the Ohio State police three or four times on this case. The NCAA was very satisfied with the way it was handled. They talked with the police. We talked with the police. It’s all been explored thoroughly.
REPORTER: Was there any communication from the athletic department to the police department?
GEIGER: Not from my office, but there might have been in some other office that I don’t know about.
REPORTER: Do you think that would hit a trip wire of possible obstruction of justice if there was any kind of pressure on the OSU police department?
GEIGER: There was no pressure on the OSU Police Department.
REPORTER: Do you know that?
GEIGER: Positive.
REPORTER: Or do you think that?
GEIGER: I know that.
REPORTER: You don’t know if you don’t know who communicated with them.
GEIGER: You know, I’m using the English language as well as I possibly can, you know, words at least, as far as I know, I’m positive that there was no obstruction from the athletic department. The police here would not stand for it. The administration at this university would not stand for it. And I would not stand for it. Is that clear? Is that clear?
REPORTER: That’s clear.
GEIGER: All right.
REPORTER: Is Maurice Clarett living in an apartment as a freshman consistent with the treatment of all other freshman athletes, football players in particular?
GEIGER: I think it varies in various circumstances. He was in the dorm for a while. I know he started in the dorm. Heather, how long did he stay in the dorm?
HEATHER: Through spring quarter.
GEIGER: Through spring quarter. So winter and spring he was in the dorms and then I think he was eligible to be out in the fall quarter.
REPORTER: Are there other freshman football players out of the dorms?
GEIGER: I think that circumstance is unusual because he started in January. We have very few that do that. In fact, I think he was the only one.
REPORTER: Is the restitution dollar for dollar?
GEIGER: Yes.
REPORTER: He’s on his own for raising that money?
GEIGER: Yes.
REPORTER: Will there be any changes in policies and procedures to try to better monitor athletes and whether or not they receive gifts such of these?
GEIGER: We have pretty strong procedures in place now, and we have gone through recently an NCAA recertification program, compliance office, and our procedures received really very high praise and — in the report. We recently went through an audit of our compliance program. Again, highly thought of program, well managed, well taken care of. I think the compliance officers have made considerable effort with Maurice on some of his issues. I’m proud of them and pleased with the work that they do and see — really just hope that they continue to do the fine work that they do do.
REPORTER: Does he have an option of appealing this? Is it a take-it-or-leave-it?
GEIGER: The next level is a request for reinstatement. And if we’re not happy and he’s not happy with the reply that we get from the NCAA, then there’s an opportunity for appeal then.
REPORTER: That’s a year away? He can’t say I disagree with your finding here, I’m not going to accept this here suspension?
GEIGER: I think we’re past that stage.
REPORTER: When would you expect a response from the NCAA to your recommendation?
GEIGER: I won’t get a response. I won’t get a response.
REPORTER: I thought originally —
GEIGER: This is a penalty that we’ve imposed. We will get a response when we request reinstatement.
REPORTER: Given the magnitude in the daily grind of all this, as long as it’s gone on, Coach O’Brien spoke yesterday about this just being the way it is at Ohio State. Can you talk a little bit, just from your experience in your office, and having to wake up and deal with this for the last at least two months?
GEIGER: Well, this has been trying. I celebrate the hundreds of other athletes that we have that seem to do all of this extremely well and not have issues. And I feel badly that we’ve come to this with Maurice. I don’t think this is a victory by any stretch of the imagination. I think it’s a sad day. I think I said that in my statement.
REPORTER: Where do you think the blame lies? Does it get spread around to many different places?
GEIGER: Gosh, I don’t know who I blame when somebody doesn’t tell the truth.
REPORTER: When Maurice or his cadre of supporters claim there is no due process in the NCAA investigation, how would you describe the NCAA investigation? Is there due process from the way you look at it, or is the student athlete pretty much at the whim of what they call the dictatorship?
GEIGER: I think it’s different than a court of law. I think the NCAA is somewhat handicapped in that it doesn’t have subpoena power. It doesn’t have some of the investigative authorities that police and other bureaus have, other investigative bodies. So I think that there’s probably a little different procedure and process that goes into this. But in a give-and-take in an interview situation where questions are being asked and answers are being given, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the answers be forthcoming.
REPORTER: Andy, was he protecting other people, other players? What was behind some of the misleading statements?
GEIGER: You’d have to — I honestly don’t know what some of the motivations were.
REPORTER: Do you know if Maurice is enrolled for the coming quarter?
GEIGER: As far as I know, he intends to go to school. That’s what he says. It doesn’t start until September 24th. I can’t predict the future. I’m anticipating that he will — that is where he will head.
REPORTER: The way the bylaws (inaudible), at least 50 percent of the Bylaw 12, are you confident that if he meets all of the restitution requirements that you will agree to reinstatement of him for the start of ’04?
GEIGER: If he’s doing everything that we laid out in terms of conditions and things are going well, I won’t predict when we would request reinstatement, but the better we do, the earlier it can be.
REPORTER: When that police report was completed, did you or anybody in your department look at it or see it initially?
GEIGER: I don’t recall. I don’t think the police told us about it. The police have a lot of students and a lot of people that they’re dealing with, and I found out — I don’t know when he found out about it. I don’t recall. I certainly have it in my mind as part of this investigative process.
REPORTER: How long does he have to make restitution, the financial restitution, how long does he have to make that?
GEIGER: A payment plan can be worked out. He can work out a financing plan for something like that.
REPORTER: Just to make it clear —
GEIGER: I guess I want to point out to people that are asking all these questions about the police report, that’s a pretty small part of this, folks. This does not rise or fall or depend upon the police report.
REPORTER: I guess the question about the police report concerning Ohio State’s lack of awareness that he had a care with two televisions in the headrests.
GEIGER: He had it for, I think, 24 hours.
REPORTER: $800 cash? That doesn’t raise a red flag when you hear one of your student athletes has $800 cash?
GEIGER: I guess I didn’t hear about it until we got into this investigative stuff.
REPORTER: Does that concern you, as the head of the athletic department, that you didn’t hear about it, that it wasn’t shared with you?
GEIGER: We have had and will have that discussion with our friends in the police as to how we communicate with each other. I have great faith in them in terms of how they handle things, and I can assure you that student athletes do not get preferential treatment from our police department.
REPORTER: Andy, the two violations of Bylaw 12, are you concerned about booster involvement?
GEIGER: We have no booster involvement.
REPORTER: I know you said that Bylaw 12 violations would be up to 50 percent or so. If Maurice had not violated Bylaw 10, would you have expected him to get a 50-percent penalty this year, or would you maybe characterize, knowing what you know and we do not know about the Bylaw 12 violations, can you surmise how many games he might have gotten?
GEIGER: I can’t really because they both happened. I can’t get into a guessing game. Opinion is formed by the facts that you have at hand. The opinion that I have is that, you know, 100 percent of the season is an appropriate penalty, even though some might consider it a minimum penalty, if you study the precedence and understand, as I do, exactly what we’re dealing with. But separating them is a little difficult right now because the issues are intertwined.
REPORTER: You can’t say with any certainty that he would have been playing football this year without any bylaw 10 violations?
GEIGER: That’s immaterial because we have Bylaw 10.
REPORTER: What happened in your investigation that made you switch gears like you did?
GEIGER: We got some more information about some of the issues that we were dealing with.
REPORTER: Andy, has Maurice ever come clean?
GEIGER: I’m not going to get into those kinds of things at this point.
REPORTER: Looking back, would you have changed anything about the whole process? Would you have done it differently?
GEIGER: Boy, that’s an excellent question. And I keep searching in life for “overs,” ways to do it again and to do it differently. I don’t know, standing before you, just exactly what we would have done differently, but I’m not very happy with the outcome. So in time, we’ll examine all of this and take a look at everything that we do, as we always do, to try to get better, try to improve what we do.
REPORTER: Do you take this as just —
GEIGER: The question again.
REPORTER: Do you think this has taken a toll on the national image of Ohio State or is it separated or (inaudible) from Clarett?
GEIGER: I think issues, as they arise, you know, as this has, to a national story, and you couple it with the other story that hit earlier this summer, I think that there has been a hit to who we are and what we stand for, and we need to strive very hard to erase that or adjust it so that we’re seen in favorable light. Our program is respected. I think our programs basically are respected. I know the accomplishments that our football team and our other teams make, are making, and will make will be celebrated.
REPORTER: Andy, help us understand what took so long to get this to point. If there were only two violations of Bylaw 12, one can assume it was the repeated violations of Bylaw 10 that stretched this thing out and led you to say on a couple different occasions, well, we should have this in a couple days, and then it was a week, and then it was another week. Is that what stretched it out?
GEIGER: What stretched it out was getting the answers to everything.
REPORTER: What took so long? If there were two violations — it’s not that hard to understand. If there were two violations of Bylaw 10 —
GEIGER: My answer is apparently hard to understand.
REPORTER: Not at all. What took so long?
GEIGER: Time to get the right answers.
REPORTER: Why did it take so long to get the right answers?
GEIGER: Because the person who had the right answers wasn’t giving them to us.
REPORTER: That’s all I ask.
REPORTER: I think Tom asked earlier, but did you get the right answers finally?
GEIGER: I’m not going to get into all that at this point.
REPORTER: This started back in June and it’s gone on and on. How do you characterize yourself coming out of this, angry, frustrated, disappointed? How do you feel that you’ve done with this?
GEIGER: Like all human beings, I think my emotions sway all over the place, given the issues that I’m dealing with, and I don’t think how I feel about it and my emotions and all those things are very important.
REPORTER: Andy, with the Heisman trophy candidate suspended for a year, and the program being investigated for academic reasons, why are you so certain that nothing has to be changed in regards to how Jim Tressel is overseeing the program?
GEIGER: I think Jim Tressel does an extraordinary job as head football coach at Ohio State. I think that there is an enormous amount of naivete about the amount of control a coach can or should exert over 100-some-odd student athletes that participate in his program. I can tell you that he spent an incredible number of hours with Maurice Clarett. That Maurice Clarett was closer to him and spent more time with him than anybody else on the football staff. But I don’t mean to put words in Jim Tressel’s mouth. But his disappointment in this is manifest. We have this zeal for the blame game in all of our society, we really need to point the finger, when it’s really best for some of the players and the dramas to look in the mirror first. I think Coach Tressel is an exemplary representative of this University and I’m glad that he’s our coach.
SNAPP: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Coach Tressel will be available at 6:30 this evening in the interview room at the southeast corner of the stadium. Thank you. We will have copies of this transcript available on our web site. We also have some copies over here with compliance that you’re welcome to take a look at.
